« Why we need a torture inquiry, even with all moral questions aside | November 5's Blog | Torture and the barrage of threats it was meant to combat: a chicken and egg question »
Explain something to me
Justice Department officials authorize waterboarding.
Waterboarding used 266 times on just 2 detainees.
Attorney General says waterboarding is torture.
Torture is illegal.
But White House chief of staff rules out prosecution of any kind for the people who authorized the torture?
Waterboarding used 266 times on just 2 detainees.
Attorney General says waterboarding is torture.
Torture is illegal.
But White House chief of staff rules out prosecution of any kind for the people who authorized the torture?
Advertisement
Evidently Holder and Bybee used different definitions of the operant terms. I've only read the Bybee memo. I don't see him authorizing torture in it, by the definitions used in the memo.
But I think that the definition used is too strict in regards mental pain (or fear).
Holder has not offered a legal brief, so his is merely a political position.
The moral question is whether there is a line between forced interrogation and torture.
April 21, 2009 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Give it up, eds. One guy was waterboarded more than six times every day for a full month.
That's torture. Holder knows it, Bybee knows it, and you know it.
April 21, 2009 4:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't know it as a legal matter. Bybee to Rizzo makes a fair case to the contrary. Until you can refute or undermine the case, it stands.
"The moral question is whether there is a line between forced interrogation and torture."
What is the line, for you?
April 21, 2009 4:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
The line is the Army Field Manual. Exceed those standards, and you have crossed into torture.
April 21, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does that differ significantly from 2340/2340A on which Bybee was opining in Rizzo?
April 21, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm no lawyer, but then neither are the Bybee-Yoo memos legal opinions. Couched in legalese, they are simply stay-out-of-jail-free cards.
In the Gonzales version, after twisting 2340 out of all recognition, he concludes it doesn't matter anyway, because Bush's "Commander-in-Chief Powers" free him to order any damn kind of interrogation he wants.
This despite a U.S.-signed UN convention on torture that specifies that a state of war cannot be used to justify torture.
The man deserves to undergo a few of the "non-torture" techniques he so shamelessly okayed.
April 21, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink