CIA memos say 'specific intent' of 'pain and suffering' necessary for interrogations to be considere

CIA memos say 'specific intent' of 'pain and suffering' necessary for interrogations to be considered torture.

th inkprogress.org

To violate the statute [against torture], an individual must have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering. Because specific intent is an element of the offense, the absence of specific intent negates the charge of torture. As we have previously opined, to have the required specific intent, an individual must expressly intend to cause such severe pain and suffering.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.aclu.org

So basically they are saying, "yes some of what we are doing is torture BUT if we can convince ourselves that the torture we are perpetrating is NOT harmful it is therefore NOT torture".

Wow, if and when I tried to twist things like this as a kid my mom would get PISSED.

This is a perfect example of how this administration has twisted WORDS to make illegal activities legal. This is also a perfect example of why we look like such fools int he global community.

These laws were made for a reason. The USA use to look like a leader in the world because we adhered to strick rules of conduct based on morality and decency.

What does it say about us as a people now that we TWIST our own words so that we can do that which we use to find reprehensible?

th inkprogress.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

So I take it then that the point of the "harsh interrogation" is carried out by "an individual expressly NOT intending to cause severe pain and suffering"?

What a crock! Too many lawyers and business men gathered together in one room conniving and plotting on how to 'get away with it', as usual.



[edit on 24-7-2008 by Maxmars]