Contrary to what many posters seem to belive, there is no real issue as to the definition of torture. It is NOT "something as bad as <insert your favorite dictator here> did."

The definition of torture in the United States Code (aka Federal Law) - the only definition applicable to the discussion of this case - is (18 USC 2340):

As used in this chapter—

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C) the threat of imminent death; or

(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

and

(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

A couple points. Under this definition:

1. you don't even need to have done any physical harm - threats of physical harm (e.g., "I'm going to have these dogs bite your nuts off."), mental suffering caused by the threat of imminent death (e.g. simulated drowning - aka waterboarding), drugging or threatening to drug someone, can rise to the level of torture if they caused prolonged mental suffering and were done to inflict that suffering intentionally
2. the threat of harm or drugging doesn't even need to be leveled at the prisoner, it can be leveled at any other person (e.g., threatening, "I am going to rape your mother.")
3. the physical or mental pain is considered "severe" if it leads to "prolonged mental harm" - contrary to what John Woo wrote, death, organ failure, or loss of the use of a body part is NOT the level of pain and suffering you have to meet to have tortured someone

The ruling in question clearly indicates that the Judge believes that ALL of the requirements of 18 USC 2340 were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Namely, that a prisoner held by the US was subjected to physical and/or metal pain and/or suffering severe enough to cause him prolonged mental harm and that the infliction of this level of pain and suffering was intentional. It doesn't matter what they specifically did as long as it falls within the definitions of 18 USC 2340(2) above.

Additionally, 18 USC 2340A specifies fines and/or improsonment of up to 20 years for someone who commits torture AND for someone who conspires to torture (e.g., Don Rumsfeld). If a prisoner dies during torture, the person who did the torturing can be sentenced to death, but not a conspirator.

The real impact of this decision is that a Federal judge has ruled that 18 USC 2340 was violated. It would be a gross dereliction of duty for the Justice Department or Defense Department not to determine if there is sufficient evidence to charge someone for thaose violations of Federal law.

The real answer is that the Left blows hard to go after Bush while idolizing thugs around the world. I would break torture down to:

Torture against Citizens for political purposes - Really Bad

Torture Against Military Personnel in War-Really Bad, but you have to expect it from the dirtballs we fight.

Torture Against a Select Few Scumbags who kill civilians as their modus operandii-Bad PR and probably due to overzealousness. American's are not torturers in general and if a few interrogations got out of control, the problem should be fixed, not made subject of a political which hunt. These idiots brough the problem on themselves by associating with or working the killers of 3,000 of our fellow citizens. I am not for routine torture, but all this handwringing overs these a-holes is too much. Too bad FDR isn't alive, we could throw him in jail for his abuses which are far worse than Bush's.

You are aware that a lot of the Guantanamo detainees were detained for years before being released without charges. There was even a Chinese Muslim that was released after years. We don't know if these people "associate" with terrorists, why? Because they are detained in a country we aren't allowed to go. 30+ people at guantanamo bay are on feeding tubes now...

Get over it Jack Bauer, there's no ticking time bomb anywhere, and torturing someone (basically at random, as has been the policy) isn't going to help find it. I'll tell you what torturing will get us though: the hatred of the Islamic world. Maybe then there might actually be alot more bombs flying around, you know like what happened in Iraq after Abu Ghraib.

What FDR did was wrong, but he had a hell of a lot of more reason to do it. And what happened in Japanese internment camps, again, while not by any means right, was not at all comparable to standard operating procedure at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib

That's called special pleading.

I wonder if those here that poo poo the idea of torture have any genetic conection to 1940's nazi's or inquisiters from the inquesition or communist kgb types or somoza's death squads or dr.mengela,or the kamur rouge (if i spelled it wrong get over it ,you know who i'm refering to)or the vietcong or any number of uncivilized beheading creeps like the taliban.It sure seems they are bending over backwards in an attempt to excuse unamerican actions and policies.Becoming like the enimies of american ideals kinda helps our enemies subvert our nation to what they want.a destroyed america.

Abu Ghraib was a failure of command and control and inserting unqualified troops. I don't know abou every Gitmo prisoner, but many where captured on a battlefield. You don't normally have trials for combatants.

Its funny you seem to think Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are worse than interring thousands of our citizens and that circumstances matter. The real issue is the Left hates Bush and this gives them something to bray about.

Also, many of Gitmos detainess when released have returned to Jihad. I don't think torture is great as its usefulness is questionble, but do I give a crap about what happened to a few dirtballs no. Fix it and move on. And as for Sheikh Khaleid Mohamed, I say skin him alive live on the internet as a warning.

No Abu Grabass was not a failure of C&C - it was a failure to keep quite what was general practice. Remember that John Walker Lind's charges were largely dropped the moment his atty subpoenaed evidence of how he had been questioned.

Also, many of Gitmos detainess when released have returned to Jihad.

Yup. And the core foundational and Constitutional principles the nation was founded on is that "it is better that 100 guilty go free than a single innocent suffer in prison".

but do I give a crap about what happened to a few dirtballs no

Its interesting how you have already judged them to be "dirtballs". On the basis of what trial? What evidence? Oh that's right. NONE. All you have are the assertions of a unitary Executive. Last I checked there was a paragraph about that in the US Constitution something about prohibiting Writs of Attainder.

So in essence you are saying that you don't care about the US Constitution and the limits it places on The Government.

OK. Just say so. Just say that you are more comfortable living in a Monarchy where The King has full power of life and death on any whim.

Actually Abu Ghraib was a failure to provide Geneva Conventions protections to the people that we captured. Most were not captured on a battlefield, but keeping thinking that if you must.

The Geneva Conventions do provide for trials for combatants particularly if they are civilians so you might try reading them from time to time.

Oh, and I'm curious, what did General Miller mean when he said we need to "Gitmo-ize Abu Ghraib"? I didn't take that to mean we needed to feed the prisoners there more Ropa Vieja or Christianos y Moros for dinner.

stilicho, I"m sorry but you are a moral disgrace. Why? Because you judge behavior based on whether a victim "deserves" his torture or not. I'm sure if Dick Cheney is ever elected president, the government can count on people like you to volunteer as torturers. How hard will it be to convince you that everyone who is put in your chambers deserves the maximum pain? Not difficult at all.

Rapists are bad people and torturers are bad people and it doesn't matter how deserving your victims might be. You are bad people because you do evil things and provide no positive service to the world. You want proof? Take this statement by you:

"And as for Sheikh Khaleid Mohamed, I say skin him alive live on the internet as a warning."

Did cutting Daniel Pearl's head off serve as a warning to YOU? Hah, made you into a bloodthirsty monster calling for live skinning of a human being. So what good will your skinning do? Create more monsters like you, only Arab. You and your kind do nothing but make the world a worse place. Have a nice day.

stilicho: The real issue is the Left hates Bush and this gives them something to bray about.

Are you out of your mind? You think the real issue concerning torture and the violation of the geneva convention is that the Left hates Bush? You are an arrogant fool whose head is so far up Bush's ass you obviously can't get enough oxygen to think clearly.

Name calling is as out of place from the left as it is from the hardcore right.

Either take him apart logically and rationally or don't bother since it adds to his self-rationalizations about liberals.

well nothing will stop a person as ignorant and quite honestly, sadistic, as that guy. And I know this wasn't necessarily directed at me for calling him Jack Bauer, but considering we are probably never going to put Bush on trial, I think calling out people for what they are if they believe in what Bush did is perfectly fair.

stilicho:

The real answer is that the Left blows hard to go after Bush while idolizing thugs around the world. I would break torture down to:

Torture against Citizens for political purposes - Really Bad

Torture Against Military Personnel in War-Really Bad, but you have to expect it from the dirtballs we fight.

Torture Against a Select Few Scumbags who kill civilians as their modus operandii-Bad PR and probably due to overzealousness. American's are not torturers in general and if a few interrogations got out of control, the problem should be fixed, not made subject of a political which hunt. These idiots brough the problem on themselves by associating with or working the killers of 3,000 of our fellow citizens. I am not for routine torture, but all this handwringing overs these a-holes is too much. Too bad FDR isn't alive, we could throw him in jail for his abuses which are far worse than Bush's.

For better or worse, your definition of torture is irrelevant. It is already defined, and as defined it is a crime under US law. However, there is leeway in sentencing in that the sentences for a torture conviction could range from a fine to death.

Although your argument for "Torture Against a Select Few Scumbags" is irrelevant since it is illegal according to US law, I'll bite on it.

Your argument is predicated on the assumption that the people we are torturing are associated with Al-Qaeda. However, very few of the detainees at GTMO and Abu Grahib have been charged with any crime and subsequently convicted of any crime even though the tribunals were set up to obtain convictions by not even letting the accused know what they were accused of. This begs two questions: 1) Do you rely only on the prosecution's assertions to convict someone? and 2) how "associated" do you need to be to warrant being tortured?

For question 1, a "yes" answer flies in the face of the last 800+ years of Anglo-American Law (as Justice Scalia might - and did - say). A system were convictions and sentences - including death - can be obtained without the accused having a chance to defend himself or herself is indistinguishable from tyranny.

For question 2, do you need to be a foreign national? Do you need to be Muslin? Do you need to be Arab? Do you need to be a muslim Iraqi? Do you need to be a Muslim Iraqi, but not a Kurd? Do you need to be a non-Kurdish Muslim Iraqi who dislikes the US? So how do you determine that the person is part of the group you want to go after?

The point of the rule of law is that there are criteria in place for determining guilt and innocence, and, most importantly, the person determining the guilt is not the same person who accused the person of being guilty.

Of course they go on Jihad! They were held in prison for years on no charges with no means to challenge their imprisonment, tortured, and given no fair way to defend themselves against charges that they weren't allow to know.

A lot of these guys were turned in to the US forces in exchange for bounties by their neighbors who were settling old scores.

Imagine you're sitting at home watching a football game and it turns out the guy down the street who keeps complaining that you don't cut your lawn enough called Homeland Security and got $10,000 for telling them that you are a terrorist. So the FBI knocks down the door, arrests you, threatens your family, wisks you away to an airport and flies you to Burma where they hand you off to the authorities and are taken to prison. Then a Burmese Jack Bauer tortures you continually asking you, "Where's George? How much did he pay you? When did you decide to do it?" When you say you don't know who George is, he knocks your chair over and kicks you in the face. When you get to some hearing you ask why you are being imprisoned, they say they can't tell you because its classified. This goes on for 7 years. Your daughter gets critically injured in a car accident and then dies before you have a chance to see her again. Your house gets foreclosed on since your wife can't make the payments on one income and can't get credit because you haven't paid your bills for 7 years and won't contact the creditors to make alternate arrangement. So your family ends up on the street your wife becomes a prostitute to feed herself and the remaining kids and gets hooked on smack and ODs and dies in an alley just after servicing a john. Then one day, the Burmese government says, you're free to go - no charges, no apology. You sue the Bumese government for wrongful imprisonment, but it gets thrown out because they were doing their job. You're stuck in Burma because you have no passport and there's no US embassy or consulate in the country.

Now when you join a Burmese resistance army to get those guys who locked you up and tortured you for 7 years and destroyed your life and caused the desitution/death of your immediate family, you get some logically handicapped self-righteous jackass saying, "See, he was a terrorist threat before we captured him since he went right back to it when he was released."

Zarniwoop,

You enjoyed writing that I'll bet. It might have got a little gratuitous in there, but lol, it does get the point across.