[I've only been asking that for like three pages now. 
Hey, Kids. Here's a big chunk to chew on.
A/RES/39/46 10 December 1984 Meeting no. 93 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or PunishmentArticle 13 Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.
Article 16 1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
However;
I. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following reservations:
(1) That the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under article 16 to prevent `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment', only insofar as the term `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
But does waterboarding constitute "severe" suffering? It doesn't matter why they did it, or even what they did, if it doesn't meet that criteria first.
Severe: Causing great discomfort, damage, or distress.
Cruel: willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others. causing or marked by great pain or distress
Inhumane: lacking and reflecting lack of pity or compassion
Degrading: to lower in dignity or estimation. to reduce (someone) to a lower rank, degree, etc.; deprive of office, rank, status, or title. To lower in moral or intellectual character; debase.
Debase. To reduce from a higher to a lower state or grade of worth, dignity, purity, station, etc. to humiliate or shame, as by injury to one's pride or self-respect.
Humiliate: to cause (a person) a painful loss of pride, self-respect, or dignity; mortify.
Status: the standing of a person before the law.
Station: the position, as of persons or things, in a scale of estimation, rank, or dignity; standing.
Thus; by all accounts, every technique used at Abu Graib and Gitmo would seem to fall under at least one of these definitions and would seem meet the criteria under any Article or Amendment.
Also;
FM 34-52 (U.S.. Army Field Manual0
HEADQUARTERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Washington, DC, 8 May 1987
PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FORCE
The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.
The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.
Seems clear enough along with this:
The United States Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ( 000 U.S. 05-184 ) that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applied to the War on Terrorism.
War Crimes Act of 1996 TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > ? 2441
? 2441. War crimes (a) Offense.? Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.? The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.? As used in this section the term ?war crime? means any conduct?
(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character.
(d) Common Article 3 Violations.?
(1) Prohibited conduct.? In subsection (c)(3), the term ?grave breach of common Article 3? means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:
(A) Torture.? The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act 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 for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
(B) Cruel or inhuman treatment.? The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.
And This:
TITLE X--MATTERS RELATING TO DETAINEES
SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the `Detainee Treatment Act of 2005'.
SEC. 1002. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
(a) In General- No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.
SEC. 1003. PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
(a) In General- No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
SEC. 1004. PROTECTION OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL ENGAGED IN AUTHORIZED INTERROGATIONS
Good faith reliance on advice of counsel should be an important factor, among others, to consider in assessing whether a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the practices to be unlawful.
This
?a person of ordinary sense and understanding? is the wording upon which everything
should ultimately hinge. This could be used as the main thrust in prosecuting any and all persons who either authorized or engaged in any and all enhanced interrogation techniques.
So, logically, in their defense, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al must each make claim of ?legal status? either as
?a person of ordinary sense and understanding? or as
?a person of non-ordinary sense and understanding? , fully aware of the spirit and the letter of both US Law and Geneva Conventions and therefore; knowingly in clear violation of both in providing any ?authorization? of ?legal validity? .
Or they must claim ?legal status? either as
?a person of ordinary sense and non-understanding? or as
?a person of non-ordinary sense and non-understanding? , fully or partially ignorant of either US Law or Geneva Conventions or both, who relied solely upon Legal Council, who themselves must likewise make the same claim to the same either/ or ?legal status?.
Simply put; each is either a knowing violator of the Law or each is an ignorant violator of the Law.
Whatever combination of possible claims of ?legal status? which any or all may choose to be recognized as, there is not any single claim of ?legal status? which places any of these
persons in a position which is above or beyond either set of Laws, as each and all of these laws within both sets are also predicated upon this very concept of
?ordinary sense and understanding? .
ordinary (adj.)
c.1460, "belonging to the usual order or course," from O.Fr. ordinarie, from L. ordinarius "customary, regular, usual, orderly," from ordo (gen. ordinis) "order" (see order).
That which is so common, or continued, as to be considered a settled establishment or institution.
The only wiggle here will be on what the courts "deem" to constitute a legal definition.
Of course, that could end up being something none of
us might ever recognize.
Show Posts
