3 ms·

Jose Padilla (although he was not rendered to a third country; they tortured him themselves).

rayiner 11y ago
Jose Padilla was not kidnapped on the streets--he was arrested at customs in Chicago while returning to the U.S. It's also not clear whether he was "tortured." I don't want to get into a debate about enhanced interrogation, but this article describes what we know about his interrogation: http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1565798,00.html http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1565798,0... (solitary, sensory deprivation, extreme temperatures, stress positions). Padilla was clearly an example of the Bush administration overreaching. He's the only known example of the government holding a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant without charge. But he was ultimately indicted, and the length of his detention would've been a lot shorter if his habeas petition hadn't been filed in the wrong jurisdiction in the first instance. The gears of justice sometimes grind slowly, but in that case checks and balances worked. If you're going to say "the government is picking Americans off the streets and torturing them" you shouldn't have to lawyer your way around each of the elements in the sentence.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > I don't want to get into a debate about enhanced interrogation The words 'enhanced interrogation' leave me with a bad taste. Either it's interrogation or it is torture, let's keep it simple that way you won't have to debate where the line lies, you stay well away from that line to avoid doubt.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- rmxt 11y ago
  A little ironic that you drop in the bit about "lawyering your way around each of the elements," while at the same time encouraging a shift of the language of the discussion from "torture" to "enhanced interrogation." Note, the Time article does not use the word "enhanced" at all. Call a spade a spade: sensory deprivation, extreme temperatures, stress positions are torture. We don't have to treat potential criminals like our elderly grandparents, but we shouldn't intentionally make their lives more miserable than they need to be.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    I'm certainly not the one shifting what "torture" means. In Bangladesh, at least 20 years ago if not still today, teachers would punish students by putting pencils between their fingers and squeezing down hard. In the U.K. in the 60's and 70's, caning schoolchildren was common. That's what people did to kids. 50 years ago, "torture" meant hanging soldiers from meat hooks, beating their already broken limbs, putting them in metal boxes in the sun. It did not simply mean making them miserable. I'm not saying we can't shift our perceptions of how it's acceptable to treat prisoners. But you have to recognize that there's not much consensus that what happened to Jose Padilla was in fact "torture." That's why I used the phrase "enhanced interrogation"--so we can talk about it without having to agree on where the lines are drawn.
    - rmxt 11y ago
      Calling it "enhanced interrogation" is using a euphemism with the intent of hiding what the act actually entails. If you are afraid of using certain words because there is a lack of consensus, then list the activities directly and let people derive the connotations the words carry themselves. Admittedly, you (Yoo?) did list the activities after using the euphemism, but why use the euphemism at all, if not to push the equivalent of the Overton window in a certain direction? Waterboarding, etc., do quite a bit more than make people miserable: I was understating for effect. [1] I understand that this conversation has devolved into the pit that you wanted to avoid, but as others have stated, "enhanced interrogation" sounds like doublespeak of the highest order. By the way, Wikipedia, for all that it's worth, has come to quite a resounding and comfortable consensus: "Enhanced interrogation techniques is a euphemism for methods used in the U.S. government's program of systematic torture of detainees [...]". Well cited too. [2] [1] http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/070925/akeller.pdf#page=6 http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/070925/akeller.pdf#page=6 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniq...
      - rayiner 11y ago
        > Calling it "enhanced interrogation" is using a euphemism with the intent of hiding what the act actually entails. But clearly I had no intent to hide anything since I listed the specific techniques right afterward. > By the way, Wikipedia, for all that it's worth, has come to quite a resounding and comfortable consensus The Wikipedia article does not distinguish between the range of techniques that fall under the umbrella of enhanced interrogation. That is relevant because there is no indication Padilla was ever subjected to say waterboarding. We know he was subjected to sensory deprivation and stress positions. But the European Court of Human Rights has held that those are not torture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_deprivation#The_five_sensory_deprivation_techniques http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_deprivation#The_five_se... ("In 1978 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined the United Nations' definition of torture, and subsequently ruled that the five techniques 'did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture' . . .")

Jose Padilla was not kidnapped on the streets--he was arrested at customs in Chicago while returning to the U.S. It's also not clear whether he was "tortured." I don't want to get into a debate about enhanced interrogation, but this article describes what we know about his interrogation: http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1565798,00.html http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1565798,0... (solitary, sensory deprivation, extreme temperatures, stress positions). Padilla was clearly an example of the Bush administration overreaching. He's the only known example of the government holding a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant without charge. But he was ultimately indicted, and the length of his detention would've been a lot shorter if his habeas petition hadn't been filed in the wrong jurisdiction in the first instance. The gears of justice sometimes grind slowly, but in that case checks and balances worked. If you're going to say "the government is picking Americans off the streets and torturing them" you shouldn't have to lawyer your way around each of the elements in the sentence.

jacquesm 11y ago
> I don't want to get into a debate about enhanced interrogation The words 'enhanced interrogation' leave me with a bad taste. Either it's interrogation or it is torture, let's keep it simple that way you won't have to debate where the line lies, you stay well away from that line to avoid doubt.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
rmxt 11y ago
A little ironic that you drop in the bit about "lawyering your way around each of the elements," while at the same time encouraging a shift of the language of the discussion from "torture" to "enhanced interrogation." Note, the Time article does not use the word "enhanced" at all. Call a spade a spade: sensory deprivation, extreme temperatures, stress positions are torture. We don't have to treat potential criminals like our elderly grandparents, but we shouldn't intentionally make their lives more miserable than they need to be.
- rayiner 11y ago
  I'm certainly not the one shifting what "torture" means. In Bangladesh, at least 20 years ago if not still today, teachers would punish students by putting pencils between their fingers and squeezing down hard. In the U.K. in the 60's and 70's, caning schoolchildren was common. That's what people did to kids. 50 years ago, "torture" meant hanging soldiers from meat hooks, beating their already broken limbs, putting them in metal boxes in the sun. It did not simply mean making them miserable. I'm not saying we can't shift our perceptions of how it's acceptable to treat prisoners. But you have to recognize that there's not much consensus that what happened to Jose Padilla was in fact "torture." That's why I used the phrase "enhanced interrogation"--so we can talk about it without having to agree on where the lines are drawn.
  - rmxt 11y ago
    Calling it "enhanced interrogation" is using a euphemism with the intent of hiding what the act actually entails. If you are afraid of using certain words because there is a lack of consensus, then list the activities directly and let people derive the connotations the words carry themselves. Admittedly, you (Yoo?) did list the activities after using the euphemism, but why use the euphemism at all, if not to push the equivalent of the Overton window in a certain direction? Waterboarding, etc., do quite a bit more than make people miserable: I was understating for effect. [1] I understand that this conversation has devolved into the pit that you wanted to avoid, but as others have stated, "enhanced interrogation" sounds like doublespeak of the highest order. By the way, Wikipedia, for all that it's worth, has come to quite a resounding and comfortable consensus: "Enhanced interrogation techniques is a euphemism for methods used in the U.S. government's program of systematic torture of detainees [...]". Well cited too. [2] [1] http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/070925/akeller.pdf#page=6 http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/070925/akeller.pdf#page=6 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniq...
    - rayiner 11y ago
      > Calling it "enhanced interrogation" is using a euphemism with the intent of hiding what the act actually entails. But clearly I had no intent to hide anything since I listed the specific techniques right afterward. > By the way, Wikipedia, for all that it's worth, has come to quite a resounding and comfortable consensus The Wikipedia article does not distinguish between the range of techniques that fall under the umbrella of enhanced interrogation. That is relevant because there is no indication Padilla was ever subjected to say waterboarding. We know he was subjected to sensory deprivation and stress positions. But the European Court of Human Rights has held that those are not torture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_deprivation#The_five_sensory_deprivation_techniques http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_deprivation#The_five_se... ("In 1978 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined the United Nations' definition of torture, and subsequently ruled that the five techniques 'did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture' . . .")