The Scrutinator

Time with loved ones often turns into political debate. Really more like friction, generating more heat than light. With the written word you can take your time, think things through, develop your thoughts uninterrupted, state them clearly and concisely, and scrutinize things to your own satisfaction.

So let's replace heat with light over our brunch table discussion.

Waterboarding. It's very harsh treatment. I wouldn't want it done to me. (That's true of a lot of things.) I think it should be reserved for the toughest cases (and it seems to be). Torture or coercive interrogation? I say the latter. (For one thing, there seems to be no real risk of drowning.)

You seem to think it's obviously torture, but I didn't hear you articulate a definition. Give me one to scrutinize. Here's some of what I might ask:

• Is incarceration torture?
• What about yelling at someone? Doesn't that give the perception that you're about to do them harm?
• What about subjecting someone, in egregious violation of their cherished beliefs, to be treated as a subordinate by an unveiled woman?

Real torture is illegal, and should be. We shouldn't do it for that reason alone.

I do have a lot of sympathy for people trying to stop terrorist attacks. Like police, there are limits to what they can do. But I think stopping terrorist attacks really is a valuable cause. Would you say you share that sympathy (even a little)?

Does it work? Here's ABC News' Brian Ross talking about coercive interrogation yielding valuable information. You seemed unaware of this. I need to see how you come to terms with this, as you seemed to dogmatically assert the opposite. (Of course we need to properly vet everything we receive.)

Will our enemies respect us? Will they treat our soldiers differently? Not a chance. Do you have evidence to the contrary? But that doesn't mean we torture.

How can Christians support it? The same way I support the concept of prison. I'm glad to expound, but maybe you should develop your question a bit more.

Organ failure. It took me a while to find the "organ failure" document. Here it is (PDF, 50 pages). You're right: page 1 does say, "Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

It wasn't written by Gonzales, but to him by Jay S. Bybee (an Assistant Attorney General). So it's not the Whitehouse's assertion, but a response to the Whitehouse seeking legal opinion.

The authors are seeking interpretation for a phrase in the torture law, aka 18 USC 2340: "severe physical [] pain." We see at the top of page 6 that they're looking at other US law for that meaning, which seems reasonable. (Where else should they look?). That's where the offending phrase originates.

It's a very aggressive stance, but best I can tell (including waterboarding) they haven't gone that far. (And isn't liver failure painless?)

The end of the document (p 47ff) lists cases in which US courts have concluded torture occurred. Very interesting, as it brings some much-needed perspective.

To answer my own question, I think the existing torture law provides as good a definition as any, and any definition is subjective.

Cuba's health care. Fred Thompson talks about it here. More, with photos here. "Apartheid" is an apt description.

Know that I consider carefully everything you say. Let me know if I've skipped something you think is important.

By The Scrutinator @ 10:40 AM