Here's the new "interpretation" of "torture" per the Compromise

[joemurphy]

Take a look and then determine if what we've been doing on our "program" is "torture":

(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?

Note: The torturer must have a "specific intent" to inflict "severe mental pain and suffering". This means he must "intend" by his actions to produce "prolonged mental harm". What do you think about it?

And does this "amend" Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention? Or does it just "clarify" it?

Is waterboarding, long-term standing in a fixed position, short-term hypothermia (induced by dousing the subject with water and keeping him in a room at low temperatures), interrogation while nude in the presence of barking dogs, taking photos of the subject wearing women's panties and threatening to send them to relatives, etc., etc. "torture"?

Here's a hint. This was Common Article 3 BEFORE the Great Compromise:

ARTICLE 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

[spanone]

1. Imagine if North Korea was holding Americans and came up with this?

We would fucking nuke them.

[kenny blankenship]

2. If the subject screams for less than 2 seconds (top of his lungs)

then it's just "interrogation". Each separate iteration of the question and/or facilitating pain stimulus shall constitute the observation period during which the 2 second rule applies. That is to say, an interrogation session during which many of these < 2 sec. expressions of extremity occur--or perhaps hundreds such vocalizations occur-- will not be considered torture by the mere fact that cumulatively the screams of the subject added up to many minutes of blinding misery and that the subject spent most of the interview screaming incoherently in pain. But if the subject screams really really loud and long until he's gasping for breath, and the veins stand out in his neck and face, only to scream and wail again upon the next instant when air is redrawn into his lungs, even though you're hardly even touching him anymore, before you can ask him another question, so that all his screams just kind of blend together into one long, ragged ululation of agony--then that may be considered torture, at the discretion of the supervising CIA officer.

Anything in between a 2 second holler and the just described long rising and falling series of conjoined screams is too close to call and the tie shall go to the torturer, the interrogator. After all, the legal system of the civilized world is founded on the presumption of innocence for the accused.

[texpatriot2004]

3. Where did you find that? Do you have a link? nm

[joemurphy]

5. Here's a link for the "Torture Bill" - Adobe PDF 86 pages.

<http://balkin.blogspot.com/Bush.Military.Commissions.Bill.pdf>

The Torture Bill at Sec. 7 (p.79) amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2441 to enumerate "serious violations of common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention:

Torture, Cruel or Inhuman Treatment,Murder, Mutilation, Rape and a number of other acts are there enumerated and defined.

The section on "Torture" says:

"Any person who commits or conspires or attempts to commit, an act 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 for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind, shall be guilty of a violation of this subsection. 'Severe mental pain or suffering has the meaning provided in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340(2)


See also Sec. 948r of the Bill. \

"A statement obtained by use of torture, as defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340, whether or not under color of law, shall not be admissible against the accused, except against a person accused of torture as evidence the statement was made."

My definition of "torture" as set out in my earlier post, comes from 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340 (The War Crimes Act).

[buddhamama]

4. i think we need to focus our message

to one simple fact: if this Bill passes we will have become the enemy. i would like one person to tell me how the U.S. would be any different than say, Saddam, if we were to "legally" torture prisoners.

[MoseyWalker]

6. I still can't believe

this fascist country is even discussing this. who the hell is living in DC and casting votes for us?

thank you for the post. and the information provided.