Torture Lawyer Sez: I Can Haz Waterboarding?

[Lemur]

I think he represents more of your side on this matter than you do, my friend.

Don, are you seriously suggesting that there are only two sides on this issue? For real? So I must either throw in with my-country-right-or-wrong or sign up with America-is-the-Great-Satan, and that's it?

I think you're falling into a dualist trap.

[HoreTore]

Don, are you seriously suggesting that there are only two sides on this issue? For real? So I must either throw in with my-country-right-or-wrong or sign up with America-is-the-Great-Satan, and that's it?

Hey!

America? We're as much bastards as you are, I've never said otherwise....

But then again, so are the terrorists, of course. Admitting that we behave like bastards ourselves does not mean that other people stop being bastards...

[Lemur]

America? We're as much bastards as you are, I've never said otherwise....

Sorry, I left myself wide open for misunderstanding there. I was characterizing the extremes that I imagined in Don C's head, not actual posters in this thread. I don't believe Don is my-country-right-or-wrong, and I don't think HoreTore believes America is the Great Satan. Again, apologies. The confusion was perfectly natural and entirely my fault.

As I was saying earlier, I think you can spot torture most easily by its results. Here are some sample autopsy reports that were obtained using FOIA:

Autopsy: ME 04-309; 27 year old male civilian presumed Iraqi national died in US custody 72 hours after being apprehended. Cause of Death: pending. Manner of Death: pending. Injuries: minor abrasions and bruises of extremities. Bruise on right side of neck. No evidence of natural disease, no evidence of drug abuse. Final autopsy report of this individual with more details is at DOD 013279. DOD 003323 lists an autopsy of the same date with the notation "Q[uestioned] by NSWT [Navy Seals], struggled/interrogated/died sleeping."

47 year old white male detainee died while in US custody. Cause of death: Blunt Force Injuries and Asphyxia; Manner of Death: Homicide. Autopsy revealed deep bruising of the chest wall, numerous displaced rib fractures, bruising on the lungs, hemorrhage into the mesentery of the small and large intestine. Examination of the neck structures revealed hemorrhage into the strap muscles and fractures of the thyroid cartilage and hyoid bone. History of asphyxia, secondary to occlusion of the oral airway. Pleural and pulmonary adhesions. Hypertensive cardiovascular disease. According to report provided by the US army CID, the detainee was shackled to the top of a doorframe with a gag in his mouth at the time he lost consciousness and became pulseless. The severe blunt force injuries, the hanging position, and the obstruction of the oral cavity with a gag contributed to this individual's death. DOD 00329 refers to this case as "gagged in standing restraint" DOD 003329 refers to this case as "1 blunt force trama and choking; gagged in standing restraint." DOD 003324 refers to this case with a note indicating "Q[uestioned] by OGA [Other Governmental Agency - non-military, often refers to CIA], gagged in standing restraint."

Male detainee died while in U.S. custody. The details surrounding the circumstances at the time of death are classified. Cause of death: Asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression. Manner of Death: Homicide. Significant findings of the autopsy included rib fractures and numerous bruises, some of which were patterned due to impacts with a blunt object. DOD 003329 refers to this case as "1 blunt force trauma and choking; died during interrogation." DOD 003325 refers to this case with note "Q[uestioned] by MI [Military Intelligence], died during interrogation."

Iraqi National male was captured by Navy Seal Team #7 and resisted aprehension. External injuries including multiple contusions are consistent with injuries sustained during apprehension. Fractures of the ribs and a contusion of the left lung imply significant blunt force injuries of the thorax and likely resulted in impaired respiration. Ligature marks of the wrists and ankles. Remote gunshot would of torso. No significant natural diseases identified. According to investigating agents, during interrogation of the detainee, a hood made of synthetic material was placed over the head and neck of the detainee. He died while detained at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Cause of death: Blunt force injuries complicated by compromised respiration. Manner of Death: Homicide. DOD 003329 refers to this case as "1 blunt force trauma and choking; died during interrogation." DOD 003325 refers to this case with the notation "Q[uestioned] by OGA [Other Governmental Agency - non-military, often refers to the CIA] and NSWT [Navy Seals] died during interrogation."

Death caused by the multiple blunt force injuries of the lower torso and legs complicated by rhabdommyolisis (release of toxic byproducs into the system due to destruction of muscle). Manner of death is homicide. Decedent was not under the pharmacologic effect of drugs or alcohol at the time of death.

Detainee was found unresponsive restrained in his cell. Death was due to blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease.Contusions and abrasions on forehead, nose, head, behind ear, neck, abdomen, buttock, elbow, thigh, knee, foot, toe, hemorrhage on rib area and leg. Detainee died of blunt force injuries to lower extremities, complicating underlying coronary artery disease. The blunt force injuries to the legs resulted in extensive muscle damage, muscle necrosis and rhabomyolysis. Electrolyte disturbances primarily hyperkalemia (elevated blood potassium level) and metabolic acidosis can occur within hours of muscle damage. Massive sodium and water shifts occur, resulting in hypovolemic shock and casodilatation and later, acute renal failure. The decedent's underlying coronary artery disease would compromise his ability to tolerate the electrolyte and fluid abnormalities, and his underlying malnutrition and likely dehydration would further exacerbate the effects of the muscle damage. The manner of death is homicide.

Multiple blunt force injuries. Abrasion in upper right forehead. Abrasion on right lower forehead above eyebrow. Multiple contusions on right cheek and lower nose, left upper forehead, back of head. Abrasions on chest, lower costal margin. Contusions on arm, elbow, forearm, wrist, upper inner arm, groin, inner thigh, right back of knee and calf, left calf, left lower leg. Cause of death was pulmonary embolism due to blunt force injuries.

Remember, kids, if the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong.

[Don Corleone]

Don, are you seriously suggesting that there are only two sides on this issue? For real? So I must either throw in with my-country-right-or-wrong or sign up with America-is-the-Great-Satan, and that's it?

I think you're falling into a dualist trap.

I'm sorry, you're right. I guess my point is the only difference between HoreTore and a large swath of the European and American left is that at least he's honest about his moral equivalency (at least he was, until he retracted his comment and reaffirmed it, all in one sentance).

[HoreTore]

I'm sorry, you're right. I guess my point is the only difference between HoreTore and a large swath of the European and American left is that at least he's honest about his moral equivalency (at least he was, until he retracted his comment and reaffirmed it, all in one sentance).

No, no Don. You see, my point is this: admitting that we're bastards ourselves does not make other bastards less "bastardous"(or whatever, you get the drift).

Yes, we kill innocent people. Yes, that makes us bastards, pretty much by default. If killing innocent people doesn't make you a bastard, then what does? That we also moan a bit about it does not help the victims one bit.

Now the point is that killing innocents is wrong. The statement, however, was that if it's OK for us to do it, then it must be OK for OBL to do it too. The reason for the statement, is that a lot of people don't care too much when a third worlder dies, but it's the end of the world when a westerner dies. And that, my friend, I'm sure you agree is a despicable double standard we can't have. It's wrong for OBL to kill innocent americans, and it's wrong when we kill innocent Iraqis, Afghanis, Serbs or whatever. Which we have.

I hope I've made myself clear now, although I doubt I have...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No, no Don. You see, my point is this: admitting that we're bastards ourselves does not make other bastards less "bastardous"(or whatever, you get the drift).

Yes, we kill innocent people. Yes, that makes us bastards, pretty much by default. If killing innocent people doesn't make you a bastard, then what does? That we also moan a bit about it does not help the victims one bit.

Now the point is that killing innocents is wrong. The statement, however, was that if it's OK for us to do it, then it must be OK for OBL to do it too. The reason for the statement, is that a lot of people don't care too much when a third worlder dies, but it's the end of the world when a westerner dies. And that, my friend, I'm sure you agree is a despicable double standard we can't have. It's wrong for OBL to kill innocent americans, and it's wrong when we kill innocent Iraqis, Afghanis, Serbs or whatever. Which we have.

I hope I've made myself clear now, although I doubt I have...

Crystal clear. On a moral level, it is impossible to argue that any one life is more important than another. This is a general principle that holds true across Western culture, along with numerous other cultures across the globe.

Historically, it has been held to be acceptable to take the view that protecting the lives of one's own family/tribe/nation was more important to a member of that family/tribe/nation than would be the lives of a differing family/tribe/nation. By implication, defense of one's own could justify the taking of lives from the other group if no other viable alternative existed. Based on other posts long since, I recognize that you tend to eschew this point of view since you see nationalism as an inappropriate motivator for such decisions.

Absent that old idea of "protecting one's own," Horetore, the limitation with your attitude is that it boils down to ALL VIOLENCE IS BAD (yes, I'm simplifying your theme for the sake of discussion). While I suspect that we would all agree in principle, it does not address the practical situation very well. Our world demonstrates, with a 5 millenia track record, that some will choose violence and murder to achieve their objectives. So how does one respond effectively?

[HoreTore]

So how does one respond effectively?

If you would respond like they were citizens in your own country, and the civilians american citizens, I would be more than happy.

To expand a little:

You have monsters in your own country. Monsters just as bad as OBL and his gang. The Manson Family, brainwashed psychopaths who would've continued killing if they weren't stopped. People like Lee Harvey Oswald, who did more harm to your democracy and freedom by gunning down JFK, an elected president, than killing ten thousand civilians ever will. You have people in your country who limits by fear the mobility of others, by making them afraid to go certain places or do certain things at certain times or places.

Yet, these monsters are given rights. They have the right to be judged by their peers in a fair trial, they have the right not to be tortured under interrogation. When trying to catch a particular psycho, the police takes extreme care not to harm any civilians in the area. If a monster is shielded behind a civilian, then the police will not shoot.

Even with these precautions, we do manage to catch the monsters. We are able to protect ourselves from them. Do the same thing when in another country.