Here's the new definition of "torture" from the Great Compromise:

[joemurphy]

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality

So...Is waterboarding "torture" under this definition or not?

[Mojambo]

1. Wouldn't it fall under C? n/t

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

2. Yes, because the person feels like they will drown, hence C & D apply,

as well as "severe suffering/anguish/mental pain". Of course the sponsors of waterboarding will somehow deny it, or try and use "prolonged" as an out.

[JDPriestly]

3. Isn't water-boarding a threat of imminent death.

Isn't the whole idea of water-boarding to make the victim think he is about to die? This does not include acts that destroy one's self-respect. For example, sexual degradation short of rape, although, depending on the act, it might be considered infliction of severe mental pain.

[JDPriestly]

4. What about solitary confinement?

What about flushing pages from the Koran down the toilet?

[rocktivity]

7. That's like saying, "You can't charge me with armed robbery

because there weren't any bullets in the gun I used."

YOU knew that you couldn't possibly shoot anyone with the gun, but the victim didn't, and most important, your INTENT was that victim should believe that your gun was loaded. You're STILL guilty of armed robbery--and despite this "compromise," Bush is still be guilty of torture.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Jack Rabbit]

5. I want some details

As the other poster said, waterboarding is covered under C. The application of electronic nodes is covered under A and the use of sodium penathol under B.

Of course, that's what I think. We shouldn't trust the Bushies not to write something somewhere in this legislation that says "it isn't torture if we do it."

Moreover, whatever acts the above may or may not be torture, how is a detainee going to bring suit under this law to say he's been tortured? It I've read parts of this right, the detainee has no legal rights and couldn't take his torturers to court.

[joemurphy]

8. Right...I think the following scenario could transpire:

Yussuf G. is swept up by a bounty hunter in Afghanistan and turned over to U.S. forces as an Al-Qaeda suspect. He is held incommunicado for 3 years in a secret prison where he is subjected to waterboarding, prolonged standing in a single position, sleep-deprivation, solitary confinement, enforced nudity, and interrogation in the presence of military dogs. He is not given a right to an attorney. He cannot seek a writ of habeas corpus to determine on what basis he is being held.

A statement confessing to his Al-Qaeda membership is eventually extorted from him. After 3 years of confinement he is eventually formally charged as being an Al-Qaeda member and an aider and abettor of attacks on civilians. This charge, however, is based in part on "classified" information which the government deems can't be revealed. Hence he is given a redacted copy of the charge.

He is then brought before a military commission. A lawyer is appointed to defend him. The commission consists of at least 5 military officers who will pass sentence. A military judge with JAG certification monitors the proceeding. Depending on whether the above circumstances constitute "torture" under the new U.S. interpretation given to Common Article 3, his "statement" may or may not be used against him. He may not be able to confront his accusers depending on their availability and security considerations. Hearsay evidence, depending on its "reliability", may or may not be used against him.

If, following a trial, he is acquitted and found to be innocent, he will not be able to file a civil suit against the people that may or may not have tortured him.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. Joe, I don't think very many people are going to be found innocent

Whether they're guilty or not, they're guilty.

That is another reason why this leglislation should be defeated. It institutionalizes Bush's kangaroo courts. These are courts where due process is against the law.

[bhikkhu]

12. and chalk one up for el diablo

and can anyone on earth say with certain knowledge that they could never be Yussuf G.?

[JDPriestly]

15. The evidentiary limits are similar to those used in Child Dependency

courts in California in cases involving foster parents. The foster parents, even those who have committed to adoption, do not have due process rights, therefore the hearsay evidence, including fabricated evidence or evidence based upon a careless reading of a police report, prepared by a social worker and city attorney can be used against them to remove a foster child from their care == even if the child has been in their care nearly since birth. It is horribly, horribly, unjust and can easily lead to a miscarriage of justice -- and it happens in California courts already.

Real justice is expensive. It involves investigating and presenting facts. It involves taking the risk that the truth will come out and that, in the case of families, intimate facts and criminal conduct will be brought to light. Defending evidence against the challenge of a trial can be very difficult, time consuming and costly.

Once the procedural shortcuts described above are permitted in terrorist trials, the government will argue that they make sense and could save money in other courts. The American Bar Association should speak out loudly and immediately on this issue and stop our nation from sliding down the slippery slope toward kangaroo courts. The public needs to be educated about the perils of this right now. Trust me, YOU could find yourself the victim of such procedures some day. Beware. Fight this any way you can.

[Jack Rabbit]

16. Very good point

When the moral arguments don't work, go to the pragmatic ones. That doesn't invalidate the moral arguement. Nevertheless, the ultimate goal is to persuade those who can be persuaded that torture (or a "harsh interrogation technique") should not be employed. If we can't persuade some people that torture is just plain evil, then we should persuade them that it doesn't work for gathering useful information in a timely manner and that allowing it may have other adverse consequences.

Your pragmatic points are based on the latter problem with torture; most of those I've presented in the past have been on the former: one cannot expect quality information from a torture victim; torture is better at getting the subject to tell the interrogator what he wants to hear rather than what he needs to know.

Indeed. Fight this any way you can.

[wtmusic]

6. If anyone claims the "compromise" fulfills obligations under Geneva

please read them Article 17 then tell them to go to hell.

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

[TahitiNut]

10. From the same people who claimed "sexual relations"

... included everything from first base to home plate. :dunce:

Funny how them definitions stretch or shrink to suit a narrowly partisan and predatory agenda. :eyes:

[CoffeeCat]

11. All of this is moot....

I remember reading that attorneys at the Pentagon helped Bush to legally re-define
what constitutes "torturing".

From what I understand, Pentagon attorneys ruled that if the interrogator's intent
is to extract information---and not to harm--then any activities (short of death
or serious organ failure) cannot constitute torture.

In short, if you are trying to get information---it's not torture. You're simply
trying to get them to talk...not torture them!

So really--with that definition on the books--all of this seems irrelevant.

Sure--you can say list all kinds of acts that are forbidden because they are "torture."

However, BushCo has stated that those acts are allowed--as long as your primary intent
isn't to torture--but to get information out.

"I wasn't torturing him when I waterboarded him, then put his head in a black hood and
ran electricity through his genitals. I was trying to get information from him. Not
hurt him! The hurt was an unintended consequence."

That's life in BushCoVille, as I understand it.

[bhikkhu]

13. So intent is paramount, and harm incidental and not prosecutable

As in - I had no intention of running over those kids in the crosswalk. I was only trying to get to work on time.

El diablo has his own definition of innocence. Those 100k or so dead civilians were not intentional - our intentions were nothing other than to spread freedom and democracy.

[CoffeeCat]

14. Exactly....

...you fully understand the philosophies of Junior.

His torture policy is parallel to his Iraq policy. He's blind to the damage
he does. The only thing that matters is the stated intent---no matter how
absurd and destructive the consequences.

I torture, therefore America is safe.

I kill Iraqis, therefore freedom is on the march.

It's all upside down in a BushCo world.

[TahitiNut]

17. No arrested person should be interrogated without an attorney!

Nobody! Has this entire country lost its fucking mind??? :grr:

We have our military engaging in extraterritorial police actions. The human rights for which MILLIONS have died must be respected and abridgements under color of some undeclared "war" is total and absolute corruption of the principles of a democracy.

All persons arrested must have the rights of due process, habeas corpus, representation by an attorney, humane treatment, trial by jury, access to all relevant evidence, right to confront their accusers, and fair treatment!

There IS NO WAR!!!! Both Afghanistan and Iraq are under occupation. The "wars" are FINISHED and were finished when their governments fell and new governments established. I repeat: THERE IS NO WAR!

The invasion, war, and (continuing) occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are war crimes!

There is absolutely NOTHING Constitutional about these activities.