[subego]

Just came across this tidbit in an interview of the former Deputy Chief of the Justice Department Office of Counsel, John Yoo. Feel free to timeline me.


Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.


I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say smashing a kid's balls is illegal, even if the President has a good reason.

[DrTacoMD]

Ow.

[The Final Dakar]

Couldn't you sum up the Bush administrations stance on torture as "The ends justify the means"?

[abbaZaba]

I thought this would be a thread with personal stories about getting hit in the nuts. what a disappointment.

[SpaceMonkey]

Slowly inching an industrial laser ever closer to the kid's testicles, though? Priceless.

[Big Mac]

The Bush Administration did not consider its interrogation techniques to be torture.

[The Final Dakar]

How much of that was a legal argument? "I don't think this is torture, therefore I am not doing anything wrong."

[Doofy]

I have an ex who'd appear to be perfect for the job.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Couldn't you sum up the Bush administrations stance on torture as "The ends justify the means"?

You see... I can even work with that on some level. There really may be a situation where doing the piledriver on an 8-year-old's sack is the most prudent course of action.

This guy is claiming it's legal.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

You see... I can even work with that on some level. There really may be a situation where doing the piledriver on an 8-year-old's sack is the most prudent course of action.

This guy is claiming it's legal.

Right, and he really doesn't explain why. Which is why I went with they don't call it torture because if its torture its illegal (Or de we have no laws outlawing torture?).

If you're asking me to explain how its illegal, I can't because I'm really not familiar with laws. If it's a legal loophole than I believe its best summed up with that word: Loophole. Aside from some fringe, I doubt you're going to find many people who agree its ok to crush an 8 year-old's balls to extract some information from a possible terrorist.

But I've been wrong before.

[subego]

My understanding is:

1) It's illegal because there was (and is) a law in place which bans torture. This would unquestionably be torture.

2) We could do it because the law banning torture is unconstitutional if the President has ordered the torture, as it interferes with the Commander-in-Chief power.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by abbaZaba 

I thought this would be a thread with personal stories about getting hit in the nuts. what a disappointment.

Same here. And I was all ready with my KJV-and-anvil anecdote. :'(

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Same here. And I was all ready with my KJV-and-anvil anecdote. :'(

This is NOT about your CRUSH ON TESTICLES.

-t

[Chongo]

This guy better waddle for the hills!
http://4gifs.com/gallery/d/55898-2/E...is_Scrotum.gif

Changed it to a URL. NOT for the squeamish. Ewwwwwww. Glenn

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

My understanding is:

1) It's illegal because there was (and is) a law in place which bans torture. This would unquestionably be torture.

2) We could do it because the law banning torture is unconstitutional, as it interferes with the Commander-in-Chief power.

The claims the Bush Administration made regarding what a president could or could not do were, shall we say, unique. They practically made him sound like the old monarchs that had divine right.

If something is unconstitutional based on it's "interfering" with the Commander in Chief, where would it stop? Couldn't this make red stoplights or one way streets unconstitutional?

I'm not clear on what you're trying to get at here, Subego. I don't think there are many people that really endorsed that viewpoint, and most of those who did are now out of power.

[BadKosh]

Remember, Liberals would rather 10,000 people are killed by a terrorist than use 'whatever means' to stop it. It's about feeling good, and not thinking about tomorrow.

[Big Mac]

I wouldn't want to trade liberties away for security, though. I would want to do everything to protect Americans while preserving our liberties. I would allow torture of known, without a doubt, unrepentant terrorists if there were reason to believe such torture could stop a future attack.

[DrTacoMD]

But time and time again, torture proves to be a flawed means of obtaining information. The psychological stress makes it harder for the detainee to correctly recall information, sometimes forcing their subconscious to actively invent details that appease the torturer. That's the basis behind many objections to torture: not only is it morally reprehensible, but it's nowhere near as effective as many people want to believe, as the tortured person will often say or do anything to make the torture stop.

Even the CIA has published memos to this effect: see this one from 2002.

[Face Ache]

...

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If something is unconstitutional based on it's "interfering" with the Commander in Chief, where would it stop? Couldn't this make red stoplights or one way streets unconstitutional?

I'd say all three: red stoplights, one way streets, and laws against smashing a kid's balls.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm not clear on what you're trying to get at here...

Really, I'm just expressing shock.

This guy, who used to have the direct ear of the President, has actually went on the record defending the legality of testicle crushing.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I wouldn't want to trade liberties away for security, though.

It's impossible to do it any other way. You pay for security by making a withdrawal at the liberty bank.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I would want to do everything to protect Americans while preserving our liberties. I would allow torture of known, without a doubt, unrepentant terrorists if there were reason to believe such torture could stop a future attack.

The idea here isn't unreasonable, the question is how do you make that into a law.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Couldn't you sum up the Bush administrations stance on torture as "The ends justify the means"?

No, no ... you're thinking about the current legislative playbook.

[The Final Dakar]

Insert rollseyes here.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by DrTacoMD 

But time and time again, torture proves to be a flawed means of obtaining information. The psychological stress makes it harder for the detainee to correctly recall information, sometimes forcing their subconscious to actively invent details that appease the torturer. That's the basis behind many objections to torture: not only is it morally reprehensible, but it's nowhere near as effective as many people want to believe, as the tortured person will often say or do anything to make the torture stop.

Even the CIA has published memos to this effect: see this one from 2002.

And yet, for all that, I'd bet if there was a small chance that it would save the life of YOUR loved ones, you'd be the first with the jumper cables.

Did you know that intermittent reinforcement (that is, success with torture) is much more effective in producing a particular behavior (that is, our preference for torture down throughout history) than constant reinforcement? We need to have the ability to do whatever it takes to save lives, even if that is merely by letting some jerkoff think about the CHANCE that they'd face torture if caught.

The idea that we have rules when the terrorists of the world do not only works if sometimes we break those rules, at random, and "get medieval on their ass." That's what we want going through their head on a routine basis. That's the "inside game" on this anti-terror thing. Of course we don't want to be like them, but something might just "snap". If we play consistently by a set of rules that they do not follow, we will lose. This is a small part of the big picture.

I'm really tired of having theoreticals thrown out about this -- most people would advocate one thing until the SHTF, and then they'd want every measure taken, even if destructive. Kids should be off-limits, but they aren't off-limits to the bad guys.

Heck, the USSR had a productive run with killing every living relative (kids, too) of anyone who committed terrorism against it. They travelled far and wide to get it done, but that's why you didn't see a lot of Soviet hostages in Lebanon.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Really, I'm just expressing shock.

It's so long ago. Yeah, I think a lot of people were shocked at the time. This is one of many situations where, as a nobody, have no idea where you go from there.

Originally Posted by subego 

This guy, who used to have the direct ear of the President, has actually went on the record defending the legality of testicle crushing.

You make it sound like he was giving Bush the idea. I wouldn't be so quick to write-off the administration having gone to him requesting he create that line of thinking.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This is one of many situations where, as a nobody, have no idea where you for there.

Say what now?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Say what now?

I often wonder to myself if I should worry about how often I do that. Dropped word + misspelled (or substituted) word. The issue has now been resolved.

[The Final Dakar]

This thread feels like its meandering towards a "would you kill one child save 1000 lives" sort of philosophical discussion.

Which only leads to me thinking about John Travolta in Swordfish.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by finboy 

And yet, for all that, I'd bet if there was a small chance that it would save the life of YOUR loved ones, you'd be the first with the jumper cables.

Which is why people with a direct involvement should not have anything to do with making laws. Laws should be made for the benefit of the many not to appease any special interest group (as such).

[subego]

Originally Posted by finboy 

And yet, for all that, I'd bet if there was a small chance that it would save the life of YOUR loved ones, you'd be the first with the jumper cables.

I would.

And I'd be breaking the law, so I had better really have a good explanation for it. Like, convince 12 peers good.

Originally Posted by finboy 

The idea that we have rules when the terrorists of the world do not only works if sometimes we break those rules, at random, and "get medieval on their ass."

You need to expand on this.

If you can just break the rules at random, then there are no rules. I don't see why you're bitching about people who want the rules in place, since they're just going to be broken anyway.

But you are bitching, so I feel like I'm misunderstanding something.

[DrTacoMD]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

Which is why people with a direct involvement should not have anything to do with making laws.

This. Yeah, I would probably cave and do it if it was my loved ones. But it would still be wrong to do it, and I would have to accept the consequences for my actions. That's why the politicians who make the laws, the members of the jury that would convict me, and the judge who would sentence me should all be impartial.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

Which is why people with a direct involvement should not have anything to do with making laws. Laws should be made for the benefit of the many not to appease any special interest group (as such).

No special interest group necessary, just apply the Golden Rule: Would I want someone crushing testicles if it saved the life of MY family? Yep.

I wish people would just have the courage to admit that they actually would act that way, personally. Instead, they lie to themselves and make believe that they would forget all those other options that are morally reprehensible. They won't.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I would.

And I'd be breaking the law, so I had better really have a good explanation for it. Like, convince 12 peers good.

In the case of me, individually, it would be "defense of another" I guess. Terrorists got dismembered in the course of my investigation, etc. Probably, though, if I needed to go that far based on my family (a kidnapping, perhaps) there would not likely be evidence left to use against me.

I guess with the "rules" thing, we want someone to consider what happens to them if caught as a deterrent. Killing them sends them to virgins in paradise, so that's not a threat. Maybe slow, painful and ultimately fruitless interrogation is a better threat for them to consider as they're making plans to blow up MY kids.

Another thing that we forget here: They "started it." If they'd like to avoid harsh interrogation techniques, maybe they could avoid "starting it." Maybe they could stay home and figure out how to rebuild their third-world sh*thole of a country and throw out their own dictators instead of needing us to do it and getting pissed when we do. I can't help that their resident maniac at the top of the Darwin chain over there wants a bomb or nerve gas to play with and likes hanging out with vest bombers. They might have a chance to change things if they would focus their efforts a little. To help give them some incentives, let's publish some more accounts of waterboarding and how horrible it is.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by finboy 

No special interest group necessary, just apply the Golden Rule: Would I want someone crushing testicles if it saved the life of MY family? Yep.

I wish people would just have the courage to admit that they actually would act that way, personally. Instead, they lie to themselves and make believe that they would forget all those other options that are morally reprehensible. They won't.

Rubbish. I think we can all agree that, yes, when put under personal pressure, nearly all of us would cave in and do the "wrong thing". However, if these actions were replicated as the norm and became part of our laws then our society would become degraded.

By having laws that enshrine certain moral codes, the majority of society is protected. In some cases individuals may be worse off in certain circumstances but society as a whole (which is what the laws are designed to protect) is better off.

Should America decide that because you as an individual would feel compelled to torture, that it should be regarded as acceptable as a society, the negative effects would be dramatic.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Another thing that we forget here: They "started it."

Nobody really "starts it". Ever. Whatever side you are on, whatever cause you represent, there is ALWAYS another side that "started it". This may be bombing towers with planes, aggressively anti Islamic foreign policy, detention, torture, car bombs in public places, rockets into civilian zones, invading countries on false pretences, using religion to whip up mass hatred, etc etc. However far back you go and whatever cause you fight, someone else always "started it".

Tit for tat results from a failure to empathise with people who are, essentially, the same as us in that they share common drives and motivating behaviours. It expects them not to react in exactly the same way as we would when threatened. Hence, the carpet bombing of Germany during WW2 was designed to break the German will to fight, but the carpet bombing of London was regarded ad pointless since it would never break the British will to fight.

Allied commanders failed to understand that Iraqi's would react against troops invading their country even though they would react in exactly the same way should the US ever be invaded.

If people saw more of themselves in their enemies then things would be far better than they are.

[BadKosh]

At what point should you cause harm to the bad guys?
Who would call the shots on whether we torture our enemies to protect ourselves?
Would the reason be to stop something bad from happening?
What justification would there be to NOT torture a bad guy, knowing the possible consequences?
How do you justify caring about the bad guys opinions of the US if they hate the US and its people already?

What long term gain is there with acting in a manner that our enemies approve of....other than looking like a wimpy suck-up.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Who would call the shots on whether we torture our enemies to protect ourselves?

The guy who you can't even be troubled to show the respect of spelling his name properly. Curious how you're falling all over yourself to hand him your liberties.

If it came down to it, I'd rather take one for the team.

Oh yeah, I forgot, that's the "wimpy" option.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

If people saw more of themselves in their enemies then things would be far better than they are.

I agree, but this doesn't seem to be the approach taken by our enemies, and we have to engage them on their terms. Or extrapolate their terms and reflect them back.

As for "starting it," I didn't choose to train and arm vest bombers -- they did. I didn't choose to blow up public places -- they did. The fact that they continue to pursue aggression has to be dealt with somehow.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by subego 

The guy who you can't even be troubled to show the respect of spelling his name properly. Curious how you're falling all over yourself to hand him your liberties.

If it came down to it, I'd rather take one for the team.

Oh yeah, I forgot, that's the "wimpy" option.

You left out laughing stock to our enemies.

Why not take out the opposing team? What is wrong with protecting yourself? Is idealism that important?

[subego]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

What is wrong with protecting yourself? Is idealism that important?

I am protecting myself. I don't trust the government's ability to selectively violate people's rights.

This is the case with a well intentioned government such as our own, let alone whatever mystery government we have 50 years from now.