A must read on what is and what isn't torture

From J.R. Dunn@RealClearPolitics:

"Torture" is one of many current topics of significance that have been abandoned to the left. Leftist commentators have been allowed to set the terms, make the definitions, and generally run the argument without much in the way of serious opposition or debate.

No small number of elements of the War on Terror have suffered the same treatment. An offhand list would include profiling, wiretapping, border security, and rendition. All have been hijacked and turned into battering rams to support a particular left-wing interpretation of the War on Terror. The GOP has been unable to respond for a number of reasons: they've been blindsided, have been busy fending off corruption investigations, or simply couldn't or wouldn't defend certain obvious positions. As a result, the left has been able to peddle its version of events with near impunity.

"Torture" is probably the most egregious of these cases. That's the explanation for the sneer quotes. Because, quite simply, in much of the debate over "torture", we're not talking about actual torture at all. We're talking about rough treatment, harshness, or coercion.

The American left has defined these upward until they mean the same thing as torture, all as a part of their efforts to undermine the War on Terror in general. The core of this stance is the assertion that a slap on the head, several days without sleep, or hearing Rage Against the Machine played at full volume is fully the equivalent of torture in the classic sense. (Well... maybe we should reconsider that last....)

Of course, it's no such thing. Torture is easily defined as physical assault carried out over a prolonged period against a victim under complete control and holding the possibility of permanent physical or psychic damage. Official legal terminology contains the proviso that torture consists of acts that "revolt the conscience" We can also add, by way of Dashiell Hammett, that such actions must have "threat of death behind them". If they contain these elements, they are torture. If not, they're something less. Not necessarily something justifiable or commendable, but not torture either.

An excellent piece that cuts through all the B.S. on this matter.  Read it all.

Tip of the fedora to Cold Fury.

Comments

[Mommynator]

Rage Against the Machine at full volume.

Heh - I read someone somewhere who basically said, "How is that torture? Millions of American kids PAY for the privilege."

Yep. Real torture all right.

Maybe for their ear drums.

[Lurker]

Waterboarding isn't torture?

You might want to run that one by John McCain, you remember him right? POW in Vietnam, someone who lo and behold has actually been tortured.

Quote:

Waterboarding is a form of torture no matter how it is done and should be a prohibited among U.S. military interrogation practices, Republican presidential candidate John McCain said today, taking issue with GOP rival Rudy Giuliani’s recent remarks.

“Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot and being used on Buddhist monks as we speak,” said McCain after a campaign stop at Dordt College here.

“People who have worn the uniform and had the experience know that this is a terrible and odious practice and should never be condoned in the U.S. We are a better nation than that.”

McCain, who was tortured as prisoner of war by the North Vietnamese military after his plane was shot down 40 years ago Friday, made it clear he disagreed with Giuliani. The former New York mayor did not entirely condemn waterboarding as in interrogation technique when asked about it Wednesday night in Davenport.

Hmm, not good enough for you, how about we check out the definition of torture according to the Geneva convention:

For the purposes of this Convention,torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

If you want to march along merrily proclaiming that waterboarding isn't torture, sorry, you know not of what you speak.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

So that Geneva Convention worked well for McCain during his stay at the hotel, right?

[Mommynator]

Lurker - if you can, I suggest that you watch the PBS program on the Marines and how they train their men and the culture they create and preserve.

Then come back to me about "torture".

Then maybe you could do some extra-credit reading about SEAL training, Special Ops training, Ranger training, etc.

Then maybe you could stop whining about "torture".

[Mommynator]

Oh, yes.

Try reading primary accounts of what our men went through in Vietcong prison camps, most notoriously the Hanoi Hilton.

Then tell me about how we torture people.

[Lurker]

Mommynator, you are one of the most transparently bitter posters I have ever read...

Since you have no clue whatsoever as to who I am, what I believe, what my background is etc., why don't you take the time to respond directly to the specific points I raised instead of telling me what I need to do to educate myself.

I'll reiterate them for you.

1.) John McCain was a victim of torture in Vietnam. He says that waterboarding is torture. I'd say that his opinion of what is and isn't torture holds weight seeing as his opinion is based on personal experience.

2.) According to the Geneva Convention of which the United States is a signatory, waterboarding is by definition torture.

So I ask you, is John McCain wrong? Is the Geneva Convention wrong?

What is the world does the fact that in the spectrum of "enhanced interrogation techniques", waterboarding is on the milder side have anything whatsoever to do with the definition of if it is or isn't torture? What in the world does it matter that the Vietcong etc. were infinitely worse? What does it matter that other countries/entities/combatants/participants disregard the Geneva Convention? How on earth does that answer the questions I posed above? It's a total misdirect.

In no way shape or form does someone else being worse or ignoring International conventions justify the fact that as Americans, we have agreed to abide by it's terms and definitions, regardless of how other parties respond.

Once you have spent time as a POW undergoing various "discomforts", feel free to come back and let me know which of them you would define as torture and which you wouldn't, until that time, I'll defer to McCain on this one.

[Mommynator]

Bitter? I'm puzzled. I asked you to read up on something or to watch a program if that's too much to ask. I've asked you to consider what we put our own men and women through to attain warrior status, and to survive capture by enemies who don't give two craps or a flying handshake how we feel about their interrogation techniques. You seem to think that makes me bitter. Interesting pathology there.

Yes, John McCain was waterboarded. However, he suffered much, much worse than that. If he had only been waterboarded the Hanoi Hilton would have been a comparative paradise. Try having an untreated broken leg, untreated other illnesses, beatings, burnings, and other fun real tortures. Living in his own filth, freezing, thirsty, beaten, etc.

Don't try to change the subject.

The Marines as part of the last of their basic training are forced to endure near-drowning. I forgot what that part of their training is called. They are forced to endure cold, heat, deprivation, and many other things to toughen them up.

The special forces I also discussed also put their people through lots of "fun" things. They learn to endure near starvation, eat horrible things to survive, live with pain, loneliness, fear and other things you haven't a clue about.

Because you know what? If an enemy captures them, they are NOT going to be nice. They will do waterboarding and much much worse and it is an act of mercy for drill instructors to have you tormented during your training to help you learn how to endure such things. Our enemies have no compunction about real, true torture. They'll do even more than what it takes.

Men like Saddam LOVE doing real torture - raping, burning, mutilating, sending people through plastic shredders - and more.

So to sit there and pontificate about waterboarding, which everyone survives even if it is uncomfortable, is silly and ridiculous.

[Lurker]

Mommynator...first off, the bitterness comment was a general comment on your demeanor in the posts of yours I've read, it wasn't confined to this thread.

Second..., speaking of changing the subject you still didn't answer the questions I posed!

Is John McCain wrong? Did he or did he not declare that waterboarding is torture? If he did, why do you disagree with his assesment?

You do seem to acknowledge that torture is a spectrum of techniques, I'll give you that. John McCain's spectrum and definition of torture include waterboarding...yours doesn't. He's been tortured, you haven't.

The SERE training the military goes through has absolutely nothing to do with answering this question. Putting someone through even the most realistic "simulation" of battle or interrogation does not come close to the reality of what those events are like, at a core level you realize that your fellow soldiers are not out to "permanantly damage" you, it is training. Once you step into the "real world", someone isn't going to call an end to the exercise, you have no idea where it's going to end and how far down the spectrum it's going to go.

Second question which you haven't responded to regards the Geneva Convention. If waterboarding falls under the definition of torture as defined by the convention, how is the practice justifiable if one has agreed to abide by the terms of the agreement? Can you just pick and choose which articles and definitions you abide by and which ones you ignore? If you choose to be selective, is it equally all right for everyone else to pick and choose their definitions?

Please notice for the record in, case it gets brought-up, that no where in my posts have I given any opinion as to the right or wrong of justification of torture under varying circumstances. It really does become a "rabbit hole" of situational ethics and we can all come-up with an endless list of "what-if's" to argue ad-nauseum, my point in my posts here is to examine one specific practice through the lense of both legal definitions and testimony of someone for which this isn't a hypothetical.

[Mommynator]

I just don't understand your bitter remark. You're changing the subject by trying to analyze me and you don't even know me. I have strong opinions. That does not make me bitter. I cannot abide deliberate stupidity and falsehoods in the face of facts and truth. That does not make me bitter. I'm sorry if I hurt you feeeeeeelings.

John McCain is undoubtedly scarred by his experiences. If you really are a student of human nature, you would understand that he has a sore and soft spot about what he suffered. I have nothing but the utmost respect for him as a Marine and defender of our country, but he can be wrong. Just like John Kerry (although he is absolutely contemptible).

My point in comparing our training to "torture" is that we do that and worse to our very own to prepare them for what might happen if they were captured. Unfortunately, our enemies have no compunction about the kinds of torture they inflict on our soldiers, while we sit here nitpicking over something that is undoubtedly uncomfortable, frightening, but 100% survivable.

Anyone here have a parrot so I can train it to keep saying the same thing over and over again? I keep hoping against hope that people like Lurker would understand what I'm saying even if they don't agree with it.