Why does GOP diisregard law for torture but stand firm on decomissioning gay arab speaking soldiers?
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$1 Answer
When you say "disregard law for torture" what exactly do you mean?
The legal definition of torture according to US law is:
"an act committed by a person acting under the 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; " (reference)
So according to US law, an act cannot be an act of torture unless the perpetrator has the *specific intent* of inflicting "severe physical or mental pain or suffering."
In recent questioning before Congress, Attorney General Eric Holder was asked if waterboarding of Navy Seals as part of their training constituted torture, and he replied that it did not, because the intent to commit torture was not present. This is torture as the law sees it.
--quote--
Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them --
Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?
Holder: Intent is a huge part.
Lungren: So if the intent was to solicit information but not do permanent harm, how is that torture?
--endquote--
(source)
Are you saying that the GOP disregards this definition of torture? If so, what do you suggest is the definition of torture they subscribe to?
As to the gay arabs of which you speak, a specific reference would be helpful to address your point.
The legal definition of torture according to US law is:
"an act committed by a person acting under the 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; " (reference)
So according to US law, an act cannot be an act of torture unless the perpetrator has the *specific intent* of inflicting "severe physical or mental pain or suffering."
In recent questioning before Congress, Attorney General Eric Holder was asked if waterboarding of Navy Seals as part of their training constituted torture, and he replied that it did not, because the intent to commit torture was not present. This is torture as the law sees it.
--quote--
Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them --
Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?
Holder: Intent is a huge part.
Lungren: So if the intent was to solicit information but not do permanent harm, how is that torture?
--endquote--
(source)
Are you saying that the GOP disregards this definition of torture? If so, what do you suggest is the definition of torture they subscribe to?
As to the gay arabs of which you speak, a specific reference would be helpful to address your point.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$Report Abuse
