Katarine wrote:
Quote:
However, there is a very specific definition of what torture is. Those interrogation techniques are *not* torture
You know what? I don't see how this is any different from people saying they just -know- it is torture. You aren't there either.
You're absolutely correct. But the JAG, when told of the exact actions witnessed, determined that they were legal interrogation techniques.
Quote:
I would have to go back and read the article again (this post is old!) but from what I remember, this soldier witnessed something, complained, ended up at JAG, and was told that "everything was legal." Is it not at least plausible that he witnessed an illegal act and it was being covered up? I think we are hearing about this too often for it to be entirely fabricated, although I believe it to be rare.
It's "plausible", but that does not make it what's happening. Is it not also plausible that the JAG knows what is and isn't torture, and the NCO does not? In fact, is that not *more* likely (given that they have training in the law, and he presumably does not)?
The problem is that the media isn't reporting whether the events he witnessed really are torture or not. They're just reporting that some NCO *thinks* that it's torture. And he thinks this after being told by the JAG that it *wansn't* torture. So we can either assume that there's some huge conspiracy involving the entire JAG of the US military, or maybe just conclude that an NCO, untrained in international law, really isn't qualified to make that assessment, and is likely incorrect.
Which do you think is more likely?
The correct course of action for this NCO to take, if he really did think that the JAG was wrong, or was covering something up, would have been to consult with a civilian legal expert on this area of law. Describe exactly the legal status the prisoner was being held under. Describe exactly the techniques and events he witnessed. Then listen to what the legal expert has to say on the matter. If you can get a lawyer to decide that what was done might violate international laws on torture, then *maybe* you can take that to a civilian governing authority (like your congressman for instance), and use that to work towards change.
What he did was run to the nearest reporter and give that guy a juicy story, long on rhetoric, but short on fact. Did anyone take the list of things he witnessed to an expert on international law and get an assessment? Of course not! Because then you'd be reporting fact. Why report fact when you can report allegation?