TORTURE means PERMANENT PHYSICAL damage. If none, then it is NOT torture - end of story.
If someone's "feelings" are hurt, it does not qualify as torture.
As usual, you don't know what you are writing about.TORTURE means PERMANENT PHYSICAL damage. If none, then it is NOT torture - end of story.
If someone's "feelings" are hurt, it does not qualify as torture.
But even by your very incorrect definition, what about all the people who were murdered in US foreign concentration camps?
.
In the US, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty in a US court of law or other court recognized by the US government. You might not like it, but that is how our laws work.
The deputy director of the CIA runs the day to day operation of the CIA. Whether she is confirmed or not, she will continue to be in charge of the CIA. She is imminently qualified.
The deputy director of the CIA runs the day to day operation of the CIA. Whether she is confirmed or not, she will continue to be in charge of the CIA. She is imminently qualified.
Whether any procedure is torture is subjective. The definition is not that precise. It is a bit like your doctor asking your level of pain from zero to ten. The definition of torture usually calls it intentional severe pain. Our own special forces undergo water boarding so they can learn how to resist it.
As best I can tell, it is not painful. It is psychological. The person thinks they are drowning.
This is one of those subjects, you could argue about forever and not resolve it.
At the time Gina Haspell oversaw waterboarding, she was officially told it was not torture and was legal. In the US, you cannot convict someone of a crime, if it was not a crime at the time. At the time she was doing what she thought was best for our country with the potential of saving thousands of lives.
As best I can tell, it is not painful. It is psychological. The person thinks they are drowning.
This is one of those subjects, you could argue about forever and not resolve it.
At the time Gina Haspell oversaw waterboarding, she was officially told it was not torture and was legal. In the US, you cannot convict someone of a crime, if it was not a crime at the time. At the time she was doing what she thought was best for our country with the potential of saving thousands of lives.
In his mind, numan has convicted our president of actions which numan thinks our president will take and has convicted Haspel of actions which were legal at the time. We do not convict people in the US for something they have not done or for actions which were legal at the time.
We should do a case study.
Case 1. The lady does what is considered legal at the time. She believes that it may save thousands of US lives. The lady will continue to honorably serve her country for the next twenty plus years.
Case 2. A young man protests the Vietnam war. Because of his action, there are more US casualties. His actions emboldens the enemy and prolongs the war. He then illegally flees to Canada to evade the draft. The young man will continue to denounce the country of his birth for the next fifty plus years and will grow more and more bitter in the process.
Case 1. The lady does what is considered legal at the time. She believes that it may save thousands of US lives. The lady will continue to honorably serve her country for the next twenty plus years.
Case 2. A young man protests the Vietnam war. Because of his action, there are more US casualties. His actions emboldens the enemy and prolongs the war. He then illegally flees to Canada to evade the draft. The young man will continue to denounce the country of his birth for the next fifty plus years and will grow more and more bitter in the process.
Last edited:
Nazi war criminals' action were legal at the time, in Germany. Yet the USA tried and executed them at Nuremberg War Crimes Trials.
.
