Define "torture"

In a move that harkens rather well to the Clinton impeachment proceedings in which Clinton famously uttered the phrase:

Define 'sex'

Documents are coming to the fore detailing the military administration's view of what is "torture", really.

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/06/07/0988582

The BBC also cites the Wall Street Journal article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3783869.stm

What is striking here is that the drafting process of defining torture and its legal usage seems to predate the actual invasion. The US has had a longish experience with Gitmo, so we did need to make some clarifications. Certain blocks of the text sound more like 'brainwashing' and not 'torture'.

The law says torture can be caused by administering or threatening to administer "mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the sense of personality." The Bush lawyers advised, though, that it "does not preclude any and all use of drugs" and "disruption of the senses or personality alone is insufficient" to be illegal. For involuntarily administered drugs or other psychological methods, the "acts must penetrate to the core of an individual's ability to perceive the world around him," the lawyers found.

The common sense definition of 'torture' includes the use of excessive pain in order to coerce the recipient into giving information. Substantive changes to the personality....? That's a new one on me, as I see that as more brainwashing. I do believe that such methods do need to be included in the anti-torture laws, but they are not the only methods.

Another thing that was very striking in the WSJ article is the brazen assertion that the Executive Branch has supreme command of all things military and all actions taken under orders from On High are not answerable to Congress or the Courts. What the heck?

[...]the memo presents "legal doctrines ... that could render specific conduct, otherwise criminal, not unlawful." Foremost, the lawyers rely on the "commander-in-chief authority," concluding that "without a clear statement otherwise, criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the president's ultimate authority" to wage war. Moreover, "any effort by Congress to regulate the interrogation of unlawful combatants would violate the Constitution's sole vesting of the commander-in-chief authority in the president," the lawyers advised.

Likewise, the lawyers found that "constitutional principles" make it impossible to "punish officials for aiding the president in exercising his exclusive constitutional authorities" and neither Congress nor the courts could "require or implement the prosecution of such an individual."

Which would seem to indicate that even if Rumsfeld signatures are found on document giving the go-ahead to torture Abu Ghraib detainees, it is not possible for anyone short of the president to do anything about it. In fact, the only recourse seems to be to impeach the President and hope the Vice President gets the message. If such a document IS found, and Rumsfeld does NOT step down, and Bush shows no sign of sacking him, then Congress would have a very good case for an impeachment.

But, as I've said before, an impeachment is not very likely at all. Even with overwhelming evidence. The election to too darned close.

Which brings up another point. As this blogger cites from this source:

The key question for the next five months, then, becomes how far the administration will go. An elevated threat level justifying martial law and postponement of the election? No doubt such suggestions will seem too alarmist to those trusting that there is a moral line, somewhere, that the president and his senior advisers would not cross. I regret very much to note that their behavior over the past three years leaves me doubtful that there is such a line.

The doctrine of overwhelming executive power is something that, oh the irony, will catch in the craw of Reagan-era Republicans as a big intrusion of government into the running of the citizen's lives. I consider such a postponement to be politically unsupportable, to the point that even GOP House members would be calling for impeachment unless there was a damned good reason that everyone could see and agree upon. We don't have to worry about that much, but such would be the way a military dictatorship could be set up in this country.

Watching how this report's discovery plays in the media and in national discourse will be a very fascinating thing.