![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jun. 8th, 2004 12:16 pmI just read the article at the following url:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5165156/
Now, the interesting thing here is that a lot of the recent questions about torture are being raised by memos that suggest that it's not torture unless it's (essentially) Really Bad Shit, and that it'd be legal to use torture in "self defense" (to gain information about a really dangerous threat).
So, there hasn't been torture? By the average "person on the street" definition? Would a person on the street, chosen at random, call it torture, if it was done to them? Or is it by the definition of these memos, which figure it's not torture until it's pain at the level of organ failure, and such?
There hasn't been any violation of the Constitution, laws, or various treaties? By whose definitions? The average JAG's, many of whom went to complain about the new guidelines being discussed? The average federal judge? Or by the memos circulating saying that the President has broad powers to defend the country, including immunity to certain treaties and such?
You know, it's not that I think that the Bush administration *must* be responsible for something like the abuses at Abu Ghraib. It's that, with this kind of stuff, it seems just plain gullible *not* to think there's a strong possibility that there was a direct, or indirect, connection.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5165156/
Now, the interesting thing here is that a lot of the recent questions about torture are being raised by memos that suggest that it's not torture unless it's (essentially) Really Bad Shit, and that it'd be legal to use torture in "self defense" (to gain information about a really dangerous threat).
So, there hasn't been torture? By the average "person on the street" definition? Would a person on the street, chosen at random, call it torture, if it was done to them? Or is it by the definition of these memos, which figure it's not torture until it's pain at the level of organ failure, and such?
There hasn't been any violation of the Constitution, laws, or various treaties? By whose definitions? The average JAG's, many of whom went to complain about the new guidelines being discussed? The average federal judge? Or by the memos circulating saying that the President has broad powers to defend the country, including immunity to certain treaties and such?
You know, it's not that I think that the Bush administration *must* be responsible for something like the abuses at Abu Ghraib. It's that, with this kind of stuff, it seems just plain gullible *not* to think there's a strong possibility that there was a direct, or indirect, connection.
