Disgusting bias of 60 minutes report Leslie Stahl

[Bilge_Rat]

Whether "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" are "Torture" or are "Not Torture" is a matter of semantics and is really irrelevant. Whatever "they" are, they are legal under U.S. laws which is why no one has been prosecuted under the Obama administration.

Whether EITs are effective or not is an age old debate going back to the dawn of time, no one really knows, but the practical question always comes back to whether you use every tool available to you or not.

Whether "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" are "Torture" or are "Not Torture" is a matter of semantics and is really irrelevant.

Not once people claim it is not or claim to have a definition.
Since that comes up in the OP and was the subject of the interview it cannot be irrelevant.

Whatever "they" are, they are legal under U.S. laws which is why no one has been prosecuted under the Obama administration.

No and no.
They were rescinded in 2009 on the basis that they were contrary to federal law banning torture.
The reason there were no prosecutions is because the administration decided not to prosecute people for following faulty government directives.

[Bilge_Rat]

I may regret this, but here goes.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Not once people claim it is not or claim to have a definition.
Since that comes up in the OP and was the subject of the interview it cannot be irrelevant.

It is irrelevant in the sense that the real question is not the definition, but whether it was legal. I personally believe EITs are torture since the Nazis used the same techniques against our boys in WW2.

No and no.
They were rescinded in 2009 on the basis that they were contrary to federal law banning torture.
The reason there were no prosecutions is because the administration decided not to prosecute people for following faulty government directives.

What was rescinded in 2009 were legal opinions on whether EITs were legal. The opinions were certainly an aggressive interpretation on what is "Torture" in a legal sense, but no one has been able to show that they had no legal basis whatsoever.

The fact that the opinions were formally disavowed in 2009 does not mean that the legal reasoning behind them is no longer valid or that it would not be invoked by a defense attorney should the DOJ attempt a prosecution.

If the DOJ is of the opinion that a crime has been committed, it has no choice but to enforce the law. However, it is impossible to convict someone of a crime, when lawyers themselves cannot even agree if a crime has been committed (i.e. whether EITs are "Torture" in a legal sense).



Back to you, Sir.

[mookiemookie]

Apparently destruction of evidence is now called "getting rid of ugly visuals." I'd love to see the judge's face when someone tried that one.

It is irrelevant in the sense that the real question is not the definition, but whether it was legal.

Yet the legality of "not really torture honestly" hinges on the definition of torture as torture is illegal.

I personally believe EITs are torture since the Nazis used the same techniques against our boys in WW2.

Agreed, though I was unsure on choosing the USSR or democratic korea as examples to avoid the nazi comparison.

What was rescinded in 2009 were legal opinions on whether EITs were legal. The opinions were certainly an aggressive interpretation on what is "Torture" in a legal sense, but no one has been able to show that they had no legal basis whatsoever.

Well there lies the problem, the opinion was a result of what was called proffesional misconduct but it was decided the proffesional misconduct was not deliberate.
If the opinions had a decent legal basis they wouldn't be able to describe them as a result of misconduct.

If the DOJ is of the opinion that a crime has been committed, it has no choice but to enforce the law.

Not at all, all prosecutions are a matter of weighing the factors to see if it is prudent to proceed.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well there lies the problem, the opinion was a result of what was called proffesional misconduct but it was decided the proffesional misconduct was not deliberate.
If the opinions had a decent legal basis they wouldn't be able to describe them as a result of misconduct.

Well I would take the OPR's report with a grain of salt, it is an internal report from the DOJ, after the democrats took over, saying the Bush administration lawyers committed "professional misconduct". To me, it smacks of political payback. The final DOJ recommendation in 2010 took the position that there was no misconduct.

If you look at the memos, it is pretty obvious that the Bush WH asked the question of how far they could push EITs without being in clear violation of the "Torture" statutes. That is the type of opinion lawyers get asked for all the time, it is not misconduct by any stretch.

"Torture" is defined as infliction of "severe physical pain or suffering". Does "Waterboarding" meet that definition? Is it "severe" enough? you got me, it could be argued both ways.

You have to admit there is a certain liberal bias in the news media. The Bush administration was pilloried for taking the position that EITs were not "Torture". It was seen as an unconstitutional expansion of executive power. Yet now you have a President who has decided that he can unilaterally order the assassination of U.S. citizens if he deems them to be a threat to national security and you hear scarcely a peep.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Yet now you have a President who has decided that he can unilaterally order the assassination of U.S. citizens if he deems them to be a threat to national security and you hear scarcely a peep.

Scarcely a peep? I seem to recall it being a pretty big deal at the time with plenty of news coverage. We even had a multi-page discussion of it here in GT. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=188297

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Scarcely a peep? I seem to recall it being a pretty big deal at the time with plenty of news coverage. We even had a multi-page discussion of it here in GT. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=188297

Well I agree that "scarely a peep" is a bit of an exaggeration but it was kind of tame compared to the massive media coverage and vitrol generated every time Bush made a move.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Scarcely a peep? I seem to recall it being a pretty big deal at the time with plenty of news coverage. We even had a multi-page discussion of it here in GT. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=188297

I believe that is the first time I have ever seen a GT thread used as a reference.

[Platapus]

Spy is a term used by laypeople, nothing more.

How often does the press refer to something called a "spy satellite"?