Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TideGlider who wrote (158394)	4/17/2009 2:44:24 PM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 173976

The definition of torture is fairly consistant across jurisdictions. The interpretation of whether an event or particular treatment is torture is subject to individual perspective and does not have a legal basis except when declared by a legal entity with the authority to establish such a determination. Numerous efforts in the US have been exercised to deal with the waterboarding issue but none have been legally conclusive except the DOJ position. In the US the DOJ has that authority and recently the new DOJ declared waterboarding to be illegal. However, during the Bush administration, the DOJ took the position that waterboarding fell under the guidelines of legal enhanced interrogation and was authorized for use but the DOJ did not consider waterboarding to qualify as an example of torture based on the existing definition of torture.