I'm not surprised. I never saw Obama as a shining beacon of compassion because he never really came out against the war. (He might have actually explicitly stated he was against the war and I never noticed because I'm already dismayed enough at american politics, but I know he never intended to leave the middle east entirely.) Day after day, it seems this comic gets more relevant:

He is a politician so of course he lies, that's axiomatic. My point isn't so much about the difference between his campaign claims and his actions now as it is about the nature of his actions now. He had a choice of following the law or breaking the law, he chose to break it.


The national security argument is bullshit on every level. Even assuming it were true it's not a legitimate justification for torture. There is no legitimate justification. Ever. No nation that tortures deserves security.

As far as the question of whether war crimes are created by public perception, I don't really think so. If no one but the torturers and the tortured knew what was going on it is still just as much of an injustice. If an entire nation cheered the torturers on it is still an injustice.
In my view the real question here is who rights the wrong. Per international law America should clean up this mess by investigating it and putting those involved on trial. If America won't do that then the rest of the world has an obligation to impose justice on America's torturers.

I think in light of DickCheney's point, the discussion ought to move somewhat to exactly what defines torture. It's all well and good to say torture is bad and that we as a nation shouldn't do it (I agree with that), but it's jumping ahead to say waterboarding, shoving (or whatever they call it where the push the prisoner into a specifically designed wall), sleep deprivation, loud noises, bright lights, or whatever actually is torture.

Also in that is the question, does the situation and/or target of the technique matter? If it's Osama Bin Laden with solid info on the next 9/11, would that change the kind of interrogation permitted (I'd suspect Dick's answer would be No)? If someone is known to be sensitive to bright lights (either genetically or through being kept in the dark), does THAT make it a more serious offense to use a certain technique?

My answer to these is Yes, Yes, and simulated drowning doesn't hold a candle to the kind of shit we saw in Abu Graib, much less the fucking rack.

I like the porn definition... I can't exactly describe it, but I'll know it when I see it. For instance, keeping someone awake for a day or two so they are sleepy during the interrogration is not torture, but keeping them awake for 70+ days and watching them slowly turn insane because of the sleep deprevation is torture. Also, waterboarding is torture.

And for your questions, I'm the exact opposite. No, No Yes.

Torture is pretty well defined, it's not at all a question of whether these things were torture anymore. That is clear and the government now admits that it engaged in torture.

America's torture program came from SERE training which was designed to acquaint military personnel with torture that may be used against them in case they are captured by "the enemy". SERE training was designed based on military studies of the "brainwashing" techniques used by the Commies during the Korean War.
We based our torture program on methods used to get US soldiers to say whatever the Commies wanted them to. Epic fail.

Alright, let's look at habeas corpus. Let's say we have a group of soldiers in another country and they find an enemy and arrest them. Now, that enemy gets back to prison and now the government needs to establish just cause for arresting that person. This includes how the government got the information that led to his arrest (to make sure it is credible), the actual information, and how the arresting officers handled the situation to make sure none of the guys other rights were violated. Can you not see how this would put us at an EXTREME disadvantage and even put our troops in danger if all this information got out?

I'm an extremely liberal guy and even I recognize that wartime calls for another set of laws, and for those I look to the Geneva Conventions.



Heh, oh... I read that question wrong.

I think the "ticking time bomb" scenario is a red herring. This isn't 24, shit like that doesn't happen. Regardless, Geneva Convention says there is never a justification for torture and explicitly mentions "imminent threats".

As far as the scenario goes, you can't know Osama bin Laden has solid info on the next 9/11. I don't know if I could really torture another person, but if I did torture Osama bin Laden it would be with the expectation that I wouldn't get any useful information and I would likely have to spend some time in prison afterward. Torture doesn't work for extracting information, it's an effective method for getting people to say what you want to hear from them and nothing else. Go listen to that FBI agents testimony in the Senate from yesterday, he interrogated terrorists and got actionable intel out of them until the Bush crew called in the torturers. After that they got shit. There are effective methods of extracting information from people, and even better than that they don't violate their rights in the process.

As far as the bright lights thing goes, yeah sure that can be a technique for torturing someone. Or blasting loud music at them 24/7, or putting them naked in a cold cell for days at a time. It's not as viscerally grotesque as something like the rack but it absolutely crosses the line into torture.