Vengeful Torture Crusade of Leahy and Levin Will Come to No Good

Definition of Torture

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines torture as "the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing or wounding) to punish coerce or afford sadistic pleasure.

Enzo of In has it right. By this definition the US did not approve the Torture on any prisoners. Some Americans my not approve of the methods used, and they have a right to protest those methods. But to advocate a politically motivated witch hunt against those who made decisions that one disagrees with is dangerous and unproductive. Some may reject the use of any technique other than polite asking, and some my approve of real torture. I beleive both the Bush administration and Obama are trying to find the correct balance between trying to protect the American Public and humane treatment of prisoners. They just don't agree on where that balance is.

The American public is fickle. Another terrosits attack in the US will have most of the country screaming for blood and the heads of the politicians who are seens as not doing enough to prevent it.

Ends and Means

I'm glad a few folks in these posts have focused on the main point, and haven't been side-tracked by apples and oranges comparisons. As a 23-year U. S. Air Force veteran, and current AF civilian employee stationed overseas, I've always been taught (and firmly believe) that, as a moral and just nation "we don't do torture". Yes, even if it resulted in some questionable answers. We don't do torture, and I hope we never do. If the moral values of America have really declined to that point, my opinion of what America stands for is way too optimistic.

Torture??

We worry about what kind of torture happens to those we suspect of evil doing?? What kind of torture is done to babies with abortions? Or does President Obama think that going after those that approved torture to those held as terrorists is OK? But we don't go after those who approve of and do abortions?

Much good could come of this

I am generally appalled when anyone claims to know what they could never know. While it may be assumed that the impetus to approve water-boarding was to avert another attack, an investigation may uncover that there was pressure to use “enhanced techniques” to confirm a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda that was never really there.

But no matter the rational, events, or justifications for water boarding; why not investigate? If those involved believed that they were within the law to approve such behavior, why not give them the opportunity to defend their decisions? Also, it shouldn’t matter the reasons for investigating. So what if it is a witch-hunt. Even if the motives are not pure, should that alone preclude what we are obligated by law and treaty to do?

The Republicans seemed to have no difficulty with Special Prosecutors investigating Bill Clinton. Why do they now hide behind the rational that the end justifies the means and that these decisions were made under extraordinary circumstances? Should all criminal behavior be so judged? Should a thief be allowed to avoid prosecution simply because “extraordinary circumstances” motivated them to steal? Isn’t that up to a judge and jury to decide?

What exactly do the laws define "torture" as?

Personally, I would welcome a fair and impartial inquiry into what was done, even though I fall on the side of believing that waterboarding is, in fact, most likely not torture as defined by all of the various laws out there.

Having actually read both the assorted Gevena Convention treaties on torture, as well as the memos, something that I doubt that 95% of the dissenters have bothered to do, it is hard to draw a solid conclusion as to exactly what interrogation techniques were subject to the definition given (other than the obvious, such as fingernail-pulling, branding irons, cattle prod up the rectum, etc). The wording is rediculously vague, and subject to a wide variety of possible interpretations. Most likely, such vagueness was on purpose, but such vagueness is the bane of anyone trying to interpret the exact meaning.

The problem then became this : when faced with the very real possibility that more attacks were in the works (and told as such by some of the subjects when interrogated using only "soft" techniques), just what "enhanced" techniques are allowable under the law?

What is "severe" pain or anguish? How does it differ from just scaring the heck out of someone?

What exactly constitutes "shock the sensibilities"? Whose sensibilities? Under what circumstances? Apparently it did not "shock the sensibilities" of the Representatives and Congressmen who were fully briefed as to exactly what was being done.

Waterboarding someone who may have info of impending attacks is a lot different than waterboarding someone who may have information on potential shoplifting.

If you actually read the memos, it is very obvious that the legal council was wrestling with exactly those questions, as well as a host of other, much more subtle, questions as to what the laws actually meant. Not an easy task at all, especially under such circumstances.

So yes, please do have an investigation.

But keep the partisan politics out of it.

Torture is legally defined by international law

Torture is legally defined by international law. If the Bush Administration violated the law then anyone associated with that violation should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

OR, we can re-write all the drug laws, fraud, armed robbery, kidnapping, murder, drunk driving, trespassing, etc. laws on the books, because LAWS don't mean anything in the United States anymore, if an individual is rich, powerful can't be touched by the legal system.

When are WE going to start torturing high school kids for smoking pot? It certainly is a future step unless these criminals are brought to justice. What's the difference between torturing an Afghan teenager carrying an AK-47 with his friends, in Afghanistan, and an armed robber in Alabama?

Teachers are having a tough enough time telling kids not to do drugs, because it is against the law, when government officials break the law and are not held to the same standard. Breaking the law, in the United States, used to mean that someone was liable for punishment, but I guess those days are past and should be forgotten. And this USED to be such a wonderful country. It was a bastion of freedom, common sense, security and justice before Cheney and Bush.

Shame on you

A truly un-American rant by Mary Kate Cary.

Before the presidency of George W. Bush, it would have been unthinkable to allow torture in our name by the United States government.

The notion that we should just 'turn the page' because this is a 'blame game' ignores the horrible facts. Because of direct action by the Bush administration, individuals within our government took on the worst characteristics of our most vile enemies. This can not be ignored for the sake of political expediency.

As for the notion of whether waterboarding is torture, the United States government itself has prosecuted and convicted people for its use. If it wasn't torture, would Sean Hannity be backing out of his offer to undergo the procedure for charity? Keith Olbermann has offered $1,000 a second to veterans charities and Hannity will not do it. Despite his flippant initial offer, Hannity knows it is torture and not some sort of game.

In addition, the notion that our government was torturing in order to 'protect innocent American citizens from further attack' is just wrong. A person being tortured does not care about telling the truth. A person being tortured just cares about making the pain stop. The torturer will get truthful information, will get lies, and will not be able to tell which is which. Released documents indicate that we stopped getting good information when we started torturing. Torture is a singularly ineffective way to get the truth.

The procedures our government used were based on techniques used to get false confessions from American servicemen in the Korean war. False confessions. When you torture, you do so out of sadism or to achieve a political purpose.

Every effort should be made to take politics out of the investigations, but we need to become a nation of decency, morality, and laws again. Ignoring this horrifying part of our recent history will impede this very important transformation.

torture? what torture?

I'm not informed enough about waterboarding to know if it was effective at obtaining usable information.

But if waterboarding is what we're calling torture, then Alice, we're in Wonderland, where anything can mean whatever you want.

Here are some examples of torture:

Having your limbs cut off, starting with fingers.

Having your tongue cut out.

Having your bones broken.

Being castrated.

Being blinded.

Having your loved ones beaten, raped, killed in front of you.

Who doubts that our country's enemies would do or have done any of the above?

Waterboarding? No fun, for sure. Torture? Like 9/11 was an unfortunate coincidence of airplane mishaps.

Amnesty for Torture is No Deterrence

Some folks do not seem to take serious that torture is illegal and our laws need to demonstrate to them in the most explicit terms that we do not torture in this country. We can not tolerate delusional conservatives so immersed in the gross dishonesty of the Bush Administration that they have just completely lost any reasonable perspective of law and order.

Just because you are wrong in believing some kinds of torture are legal or might be justified somehow, is not a reason to let the architects of Bush's torture off the hook. We need to apply the law firmly to deter future administrations prosecuting the leadership who authorized and instigated these war crimes.

We have to prove to these crooks, and deter future crooks, that crime doesn't pay. To grant amnesty to those who approved torture gives a green light so that they can write books about how they got away with torture. To not prosecute torture is just to suggest its a mere difference of opinion and future reactionary administrations can resume torture and again defy international laws, Geneva Conventions, and worse yet American laws against torture.

Someone can't handle the truth

Shame on the author. She has now waived her right to EVER question any discrepancy on the left. The truth isn't pretty, and she's obviously not equipped to handle it. Investigations shouldn't occur because the truth could disrupt harmony? If it turns out that we were attempting to force confessions of a Hussein-Al Qaeda connection to help beat the drumbeat for war, would she justify the action? Let the chips fall where they may. We have a moral investigation to find out what happened.