What do you think the people brought to Gitmo were in? A US facility, with trained US personnel.
And the black sites?
You're committed to ignoring the fundamental difference of having your fellow soldiers controlling your fate versus your sworn enemy, in a hostile environment, in a foreign land.
:raises eyebrow: who told you that? SERE is a scheduled course - you are on that train until the training evolution ends. I can't think of a single time when I was being put through stress positions where "I'm too exhausted to hold this position any more" was considered an excuse.
However, if a detainee begins to give up valuable information, EIT also stopped.
I guess I'll admit defeat. Orwell has won, and we've redefined the word 'torture' as EIT and can now pretend that it's something else.
:shrug: I don't see the difference that you are trying to draw. I wouldn't say I'm determined to ignore it, I think you are attempting to create it.
Right, because being held by your enemies is just like being held by your fellow soldiers.... Give me a break. You don't even believe that.
Yeah - and had we done it to (for example) uniformed Iraqi soldiers during OIF-1, then that would also have been a crime.
I see, so now it WAS a crime. That's a different claim than before, but even with the change in position, all you're doing is hiding behind legal niceties.
That's an interesting charge. Can you demonstrate that the CIA violated the limits put on it by the Justice Department? Because that could lead to a legitimate case of torture occurring.
Was rectal feeding an authorized interrogation technique? Hypothermia?
Torture has defined legal meaning, it's not "what we think is mean".
So, if the WH or CIA can get its lawyers to fit something in a legal box, we are expected to say, "Well, it's legal, so we should do it. QED." What difference does that make to this discussion - if that's the issue, then let's start citing case law and U.S. Code, and the UTMJ, etc.
Not at all - EIT is still abusive, it's still questionable, and it's still the kind of thing you reserve only for the most extreme circumstances. I think where he is spot-on here is on the issues of A) post-9/11 need and B) the risk of bureaucratization and normalization. EIT is still something we would have to morally wrestle with, even without defining torture broadly enough to include it.
EIT.... As I've said, we do need to have an honest discussion about what happened and learn from it. We can't do that by burying our heads in the sand about what we did.
there is a real risk of death from PT, from going to the rifle range, from lifting in the Gym, from driving automobiles, you name it. There is a presence of risk of death in pretty much most of what we do; mitigation of that threat through ensured access to medical personal is just good ORM.
Doing something that is intended to prevent someone from getting oxygen to their brain, induce panic, stop breathing, is fundamentally different than driving a car or shooting on a range - you're not even trying to have an honest conversation now.
For people who can also legitimately be executed out of hand.
Brilliant point. I suppose we should be applauded for 'just' subjecting our detainees to torture.