When is an action taken by a “defendent” classifiable as torture? (”Defendent” is their word, not mine. —pd)

To violate the statute, 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.

How may the defendent show absence of specific intent? (Presumably the prosecution will seek to show such intent, so the defendent will need to refute.)

We have further found that if a defendant acts with the good faith belief that his actions will not cause such suffering, he has not acted with specific intent.

Ah, the faith-based community … Now, the nature of the evidence for our good ol’ boys’ good ol’ faith must be characterized somehow. This is where I hear the braying of a lot of recent cultural debasement in the distance, roughly at right angles to the point down the road to which this line of argument kicks the can we’re chasing with them.

So how, in turn, is good faith to be demonstrated?

defendant acts in good faith when he has an honest belief that his actions will not result in severe pain and suffering. … Although an honest belief need not be reasonable, such a belief is easier to establish where there is a reasonable basis for it.

My goddamn emphasis. This tsunami of bullshit lays the groundwork for the little part that I suspect is the basis in thought, if not in the exact timeline, for the insistence on using certain minimizing phrases when referring to treatment such as making or keeping prisoners naked.

How could the honesty, if not, alas, the reasonableness, of belief that treatment to which a prisoner is subjected will not cause severe pain and suffering be put to the test? The answer is implicit here:

“Based on the information you have provided us, we believe that those carrying out these procedures would not have the specific intent to inflict severe physical pain or suffering. …

“Furthermore, no specific intent to cause severe mental pain or suffering appears to be present. … Prolonged mental harm is substantial mental harm of sustained duration, e.g. harm lasting months or even years after the acts were inflicted upon the prisoner.”

“We just removed some of his clothes for a while! Henny-penny, it’s no worse than boot camp. Maybe most folks don’t like it, but who broods about it for months or years later?!” Et cetera. Any judge this side of the archangel will have trouble stemming the flood of “reasonableness” flowing from the defense counsel.

Yes indeed, not only is “removal of clothing” diction a neutralization method for killing off the last remnants of one’s conscience, but it looks like part of the pitiful defense rhetoric we can effect from these goons if any of them ever comes to trial.

— but the job might not be finished until the Feiths, Haynes, etc. are confronted also with the sadism, or as EW has implied, the small-s satanism, of those acts, the continued violation of the personal space and persons of those so treated, not just the humiliating end state, but the snatching of this and that little shred of dignity as each item is denied (I understand that it is sometimes “progressive” and can occur over time, or else the restoration of underpants, etc., might be doled out as insulting little “favors.”) It’s not just that “we make you naked,” it’s how we do it, and how begrudgingly we let you be reclothed. Whatever your god, guiding spirit, or categorical imperative had been in your life up to now, I now am It.

The lie is not just as to the end state, but as to the process and therefore, the intent behind the process.

“Nudity is a lifestyle choice which detainees were not at liberty to make.”

“Appropriate uniforming of detainees is a multi-step, time-consuming process.”

“Baring one bodily area is not the same as baring the whole body. Viewers observing the whole body and perceiving nudity are summing the parts on their own.”

I find it as difficult to watch Feith testify as I do to watch Bush. “Removal of clothing is different from naked.” They can’t elaborate because it would illuminate the bigger picture. But you can, and you did, and we love that about you.

So, what we have here are teachers of detainees, teaching them learned helplessness. Funny I thought we had CIA torturers punishing these folks because they may be involved in a plot to attack America, citizens and interests. I know there’s a threat but this approach is suicide. We must marginalize the extremists in their own societies. Torture in Iraq, Gitmo and Afghanistan help violent extremists expand their sphere of influence. And those Americans who do the torture, on behalf of We The People, it turns out they cannot live with themselves.

They say that a CEO creates the culture of his or her company long before they set foot in the corner office. It has nothing to do with their statements, policies or financial performance. It’s whether they “walk the talk”.

Do they say what they mean and mean what they say? Who do they promote and what do they reward? Can they self-assess and change course, or do they blame the messenger? Do they share the wealth earned by joint efforts or tell themselves they did it all and deserve it all?

This administration is chock full of the stereotypic bad CEO: the preening, retribution-seeking, “I did it all, but he’s to blame” type. The Congress that watches over them [sic] is exactly like the somnolent, hand-picked boards of directors that would lavishly reward the most failed executive rather than reveal his or her — and their — sins of omission and comission.

More and better Democrats, please. Now would be fine, thanks.

You see, the word games these monsters are playing are all about playing “god” with other human beings. It’s not the status of nudity that they’re so much interested in. It’s the process, the power, the ability to remove another human’s clothing at will.
share this Share This spotlight

From The Dark Side:

The apparent leader of the CIA team was a former military psychologist named James Mitchell, whom the intelligence agency had hire on a contract. Oddly, given the Agency’s own dearth of experience n the area of interrogating Islamic extremists, he had no background in the Middle East or in Islamic terrorism. He spoke no Arabic and he knew next to nothing about the Muslim religion. He was himself a devout Mormon. But others present said he seemed to think he had all the answers about how to deal with Zubayda. Mitchell announced that the suspect had to be treated ‘like a dog in a cage,’ informed sources said. ‘He said it was like an experiment, when you apply electric shocks to a caged dog, after a while, he’s so diminished, he can’t resist.’

The FBI agents, with their traditions of workinmg within the U.S. criminal legal framework, were appalled. They argued that Zubayda was not a dog, he was a human being.

Mitchell, according to the informed sources, retorted, ‘Science is science.’ (p. 156)

I have to say, I am having a very hard time getting through this book.