NationStates Jolt Archive

On another thread, there's discussion of whether or not someone was "tortured". Having a mostly naked woman lap dance while wearing a thong is considered "torture" by some here, OceanDrive in particular. While there is some offense to this, in order to prosecute people you need the legal definitions. Read the Federal laws below, and you decide in the absence of any Bush legal memos whether or not lap dancing on a very religious person fits the definition of torture.

The US definition, which is in agreement with the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec 10, 1984.

As a treaty signatory, the US was obligated to pass laws against torture, which it did, and it continues to:

18 USC 2340A is the section of Federal Code which explains everything. We can skip any Bush memos, because those are merely opinions on the Federal Code. Read the following and let me know how you interpret the Federal Code as it defines torture.

18 USC Section 2340A provides in full:
(a) Offense.—Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.—There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if— (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or (2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.—A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy. 18 U.S.C. § 2340A (2000).

18 USC Section 2340 provides in full:
As used in this chapter—
(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under 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, die District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States

The US definition, which is in agreement with the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec 10, 1984.


I've thought a lot about this. Just because something isn't against the law doesn't mean it's not wrong. There are few if any laws against cannibalism, yet most still consider it deeply "wrong." The type of emotional distress caused by some instances of American ( and many, many others' ) "interrogation techniques" is, IMHO, wrong. I wish they would stop it.

Hell, if they have to get information, just try sodium pentathol. Good results from that are sometimes difficult to obtain ( since some people seem to yield only fantasies and dreams ), but it's probably not against the torture laws, and I don't think it could be considered "wrong."

Using mind-altering drugs is legally considered to be torture, so you can't do it.

While thong wearing women doing the fluffle is bad form, it is not, under the legal definition, torture.

:fluffle:

Could using the Barney Song be classified as torture?

Could using the Barney Song be classified as torture?

Legally, no, although I'm sure it would make most people talk. Read the law above.

Using mind-altering drugs is legally considered to be torture, so you can't do it.

While thong wearing women doing the fluffle is bad form, it is not, under the legal definition, torture.

:fluffle:

As best I can tell, and I have some experience with this sort of thing, sodium pentathol isn't considered a "mind-altering" drug. Drugs in that category are LSD and others which can permaently alter mental/emotional function. If I'm wrong about this, I will so state.

Thanks for the fluffle, if that was meant for me. :D

Legally, no, although I'm sure it would make most people talk. Read the law above.

Hell, just play a continuous tape of John Phillip Sousa marches! I love them ... once in awhile, but a continuous diet of them for Islamists? Heh! :D

Thanks for the fluffle, if that was meant for me. :D
I dunno, I think that one might have been a torture-fluffle.

Legally, no, although I'm sure it would make most people talk. Read the law above.

I did and I do think that using the Barney Song could be classified as torture under:

18 USC Section 2340:

Section 2 part B

"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

I do think the Barney Song fits it!

Playing it once is probably OK, though. 24 hours would be pushing it.

Hell, just play a continuous tape of John Phillip Sousa marches! I love them ... once in awhile, but a continuous diet of them for Islamists? Heh! :D

Ouch!!!

Yea, that would be torture for them. A heavy dose of the Stars and Stripes Forever and The Washington Post March would make them scream!

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

The acts done against the prisoner (that does not like this) surely count as physical pain or an implicit threat with physical pain as rape and sexual abuse fall in this category.

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

The acts done against the prisoner (that does not like this) surely count as physical pain or an implicit threat with physical pain as rape and sexual abuse fall in this category.

Having a woman dance naked in front of you probably doesn't count as a threat of physical pain. Unless she's wearing a strap-on dildo (threat of penetration).

Having a woman dance naked in front of you probably doesn't count as a threat of physical pain. Unless she's wearing a strap-on dildo (threat of penetration).

I consider it to be a threat of sexual abuse, certainly if she touched the prisoner in way that has a sexual meaning.

Actually, the clause that could be implied is more in line with:

the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering

To a deeply religious person, forcing them (or theatening to force them) to engage in an act that their deity considers forbidden can give them the mental threat of eternal damnation. To a devout believer, there is no greater threat of prolonged suffering than the threat to send them to hell.

Muslims have very strict rules on what makes them clean in the eyes of their lord, just as Jews do and Christians used to (most Christians having thrown out most of the Jewish traditions from which they descended).

So, for example, to a Muslim being in contact with a menstrating woman makes them unclean in the eyes of Allah until they can go through a washing ritual. So, when the woman in question in the news story wiped fake blood on the man, told him she was unclean, and then they toss him back into his cell without allowing him to clean himself, then this person is existing with the mindset that if any disaster befalls him he is going to hell for all eternity.

Now whether that counts as something that would "disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality" is debatable, however many devout Catholics would tell you that forcing them to sin, then withholding confession or last rights while threatening further reprisals would be a cruel act, and Catholics believe in a far more forgiving God than do Muslims. Allah is not always as merciful as the rules are more strictly interpretted.


Is it torture in the generally accepted sense? No - probably not.


However as news that the US is forcing Muslims to exist under threat in a defiled state is disseminated around the middle east, it is surely to be seen as yet another indication that the US hates Muslims and has no respect for their religion, and hate is always returned in kind.


And I'll bet that such tactics have resulted in very little valuable intel in exchange for the associated ncrease in anti-american sentiment in the Middle East.



Is it torture? No, not to my mind.


Is it a stupid thing to be doing? Yep - pretty much.

In truth, the debate here is not the legal definition. We all know that the acts don't really strictly meet any legal definition.

The point is that the acts are wrong. When you feel the need to drop to such depths in order to win - you have lost the moral high ground. Thus, anyone supporting these actions has the following recourse:

1 - Support the actions, but do not claim to have the moral high ground over those being interrogated.

2 - Do not support the actions.

In truth, the debate here is not the legal definition. We all know that the acts don't really strictly meet any legal definition.

The point is that the acts are wrong. When you feel the need to drop to such depths in order to win - you have lost the moral high ground. Thus, anyone supporting these actions has the following recourse:

1 - Support the actions, but do not claim to have the moral high ground over those being interrogated.

2 - Do not support the actions.


Correct. The problem I have is that there have been some people on the forum who actually believe that Geneva Conventions or treaties on torture have been violated.

Violation is a legal term. Legally, the US is probably home free, or mostly home free. It is, however, engaging in a whole lot of bad form.

I wish people would stop confusing the two. OceanDrive in particular won't bother to read the treaties - he would rather have some organization make assertions not grounded in legal precedence and then claim that the US has violated laws.

There's a big difference. Of course, I still have the idea that some of this is like trying to hand out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500.