Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

First, there's a difference as to whether the acts undertaken by the U.S.
constitute "torture" as defined by the treaty.

Part I, Article 1, Item 1 "...torture means any act by which severe pain or
suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a
person..."

Examples include having to listen to Madonna, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Bill
Maher, Nancy Pelosio-O, her father, Geppetobama, and Alec Baldwin.



I guess the case hangs on the meaning of "severe". The DOJ lawyers chose a very
severe meaning of "severe". I think most courts might choose a lower level of
pain. Especially since the US Attorney General has said water boarding is
torture, the US is going to have trouble mounting a defense.

I heard a quote from Jessie Ventura, former Navy SEAL, former professional
wrestler, former governor of Minnesota, and all round Wild Guy, who was water
boarded as part of his SEAL training:

"Give me a water board, Dick Chaney, and one hour. I'll have him confessing to
the Sharon Tate murders."

Right he did say that. Now, do you suppose he speaks for all SEALs, past and
present, and/or the rest of the SOGCOM community?

SNIP More Treaty Quotes

The underlying problem with this entire argument - the hingepoint if
you like - is whether the U.S. has any treaty obligations to people
who make war in plain clothes, make war intentionally upon
non-involved non-combatants, and purposely hide among civilian
populations when being pursued. My understanding is that we have one
important obligation to such people upon capturing them: Formally
finding out whether or not they are in one of the classes of people
specifically protected by treaty obligations (POWs, civilians caught
up in wartime, etc.), or whether we can treat them as spies with
essentially no redress under any treaty to which we are signatories.

Then there's the smelly leftwing elephant in the room. The left - for
entirely political reasons - insists on trying to regard these
combatants as subject to and having standing before our domestic
*civilian* law. But these people have no such standing unless they
happen to be U.S. citizens (in which case they are entitled to our
full legal protections since their citizenship trumps any
international treaty). Foreign non-citizen invaders - in- or out of
uniform - are covered at most by international treaty. They have no
legal redress before a domestic legal system to which they are not
parties.

By this definition, the Bush administration was dead wrong in
the Hamdi case - Hamdi was a U.S. citizen - and SCOTUS properly found
this way. But you don't go onto the field of battle - even if it is on
your own domestic soil - and start handing out the full rights of
legal residence to people who are essentially an invading army. This
is sheer insanity possible only by people who think Noam Chomsky is a
genius, Ward Churchill is right, and Barack Obama is a statesman.

There may be practical, political, and PR reasons arguing for- or
against waterboarding or having to listen to Keith Olberman's regular
squealings - both arguably forms of torture - but there is no *legal*
reason not to when the subject is: a) Not a U.S. citizen, and b)
Operating as a non-uniformed combatant making war upon civilians.




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/