And by “torture,” we’re not talking about anything so severe as being wrapped in an Israeli flag, or confronted with a pulled pork sandwich, either:
A Colorado fugitive is at the center of an investigation of kidnapping, murder, torture and child abuse that unraveled this week in a small Wisconsin town.
Authorities say Michael Sisk, a 25-year-old former Grand Junction resident, was part of a roving band of identity thieves who rented a home in Portage, Wis.
Police are describing the home as a house of horrors after discovering:
• The body of a woman buried in the backyard.
• Her son, a blood-streaked, malnourished 11-year-old who had been whipped, scalded and locked in a closet.
[…]
The dead woman was identified as Tammie Garlin, whom authorities described as Clerc’s former lover and Felicia’s mother. They said Clerc was upset because she thought Garlin was cheating on her.
Police identified the boy only by his initials “ACG.” They said the youngster described being hog-tied by the others and put in a bathtub, where they ran scalding water over him.
His body was covered with burns, cuts and bruises that were so extensive the boy could not walk, according to doctors at the University of Wisconsin Hospital. The criminal complaint said the boy told a doctor, “I don’t want to hurt no more.”
Horrible? Sure.
But no worse, legally, than the “lasting emotional anguish” I’ve suffered as a result of being called out on a Michael Grogg fastball to end the 1981 Liberty Road Baseball All-Star game.
The pitch was a good 3″ off the plate, and — given the chance — I’d happily drag that goddamned hack of an umpire in front of the ICC and have him charged with war crimes.
Torture is torture, after all. And how DARE you question my pain.
Will the Democrats try and get Michael Sisk a reduced jail sentence, claiming he was "emotionally abused as a child" or some crap like that?
That sounds like the kind of crime scene that causes suspects to have accidents during booking…
Damnit Jeff. Drawing distinctions and trying to set down the meaning of emotionally charged words that will be used in a legal context is plainly UNAMERICAN! WE’RE LOSING OUR SOUL TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU! ANDREW SULLIVAN SAID SO!!!
Yea, mojo! Not to mention the sort that causes cops and emergency workers to visit their friendly neighborhood shrink so the screaming dreams will stop.
I hope this guy and his pals end up in the darkest pit of the hottest hell.
As for you, Jeff: What the hell happened to protecting the plate with 2 strikes? My baseball coach told me that it was always my fault if I was caught looking on a 2 strike pitch.
You’re in denial. LET THE HEALING START!
Hmmmm. Is there someplace I can sign up for a chance at 15 minutes with this schmoe in a locked room along with the assorted tools and implements of my choice? ‘Cause this talk of baseball has gotten me hungry to start swinging a baseball bat at someone.
Look Goldstein, it was 26 years ago, and the catcher didn’t have to move his goddamned mitt. That’s a strike! Get over it.
So this woman let the rest of the bunch torture her 11 year old son. And she was "lovers" with a 23 year old woman…who somehow convinced her 15 year old daughter to help kill her. Er. Family values?
I hope they try the 15 year old as an adult.
And fry the whole bunch.
Sorry, that’s not very witty, is it?
No death penalty in Wisconsin. But somehow the prison guards with Dahmer turned the other way and some other inmate beat him to death. I suspect a similar eventual outcome here.
I realize that you’re using ridicule to make a point, but you should note that there are specific requirements that must be met for "prolonged mental harm" to constitute torture:
Seems reasonable.
Amateurs.
Why didn’t they just pretend to whiz on his Quran? Same effect without all the global warming you get from heating the water…. Sometimes I despair.
"Section 2340 defines "severe mental pain or suffering" to mean:
the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting fromâ€â€
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or
application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated
to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to
death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or
application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated
to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality[.]
Sounds like a reasonable definition of marriage.
If the kid’s white it ain’t torture he deserved it, if he’s black it happened because of whitey keeping the black man down, if he hispanic it’s because there are 20 million of us and you make us illegal, if they’re anything else, well most of them just get their jollies that way.
Hubris, now really is not the time…
Mikey, why "this isn’t the time?" Jeff riffed on the whole "torture" bit, and Hubris called it on principle . Nice use of PC when it’s politically expedient.
No worse, I don’t know. But it certainly does fit the new definition, not the old.
But it certainly does fit the new definition, not the old. No, it definitely fits the old definition.
So, according to Section 2340, when Steve Gertz told me, "If you try walking down my hallway again, I will beat you like a rented mule until your jagged broken bones protrude from torn flesh like paper umbrellas from a frozen pina colada," he was torturing me? Or does it only count if I had previously declared war on him and swore an oath to kill him and everyone who resembled him?
Similarly, "coercing" a fraternity pledge into drinking a beer bong filled with Milwaukee’s Best and a dash of Tabasco is, too, "torture"?
And, given that it is LEGAL, militarily speaking, to shoot an out of uniform enemy combatant, I suspect that the "threat of death" is the de facto state of affairs. Meaning that any questioning must necessarily take place under those conditions.
Unless we’re now making the argument that once you decide not to kill an enemy combatant on the spot, you can no longer question him.
Seems reasonable.
Incidentally, that umpire’s call caused me tremendous heartbreak; I think I threw up for my failure. But you’re right, Hubris. I think my best best would be a civil suit.
Unless we’re now making the argument that once you decide not to kill an enemy combatant on the spot, you can no longer question him.
If leftists could understand contradiction rather than require it as a reason for being, wit might do them well. As matters are, they will agree with this proposition.
I think my best best would be a civil suit.
Nah, go for uncivil and loud and and a quick out-of-court settlement. I suggest a Curly Howard themed anti-ensemble of striped sportcoat, red checkered shorts, yellow and white spotted spats, and argyle kneesocks with golden garters. Oh, and a bowler tilted jauntily to the right.
This one? From the article: ‘ only "organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" constitute torture punishable by law.’ I don’t think so. Not from the description we have here.
I think you could answer that just by reading 18 USC 2340.
This one? From the article: ‘ only “organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death” constitute torture punishable by law.’ I don’t think so. Not from the description we have here.
Why, that’s exactly right! Or at least it would be if you hadn’t hacked the bit that supports your view out of it’s context. Which is to say that you’re quite wrong.
Torture, the memo says, “must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”
By contrast, the Army’s Field Manual 34-52, titled “Intelligence Interrogations,” sets more restrictive rules. For example, the Army prohibits pain induced by chemicals or bondage; forcing an individual to stand, sit or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time; and food deprivation. Under mental torture, the Army prohibits mock executions, sleep deprivation and chemically induced psychosis.
From where I stand, being starved, whipped and scalded fits. And it also fits under sections 1 and 2(A) of 18 USC 2340. Which is kinda funny, given that you cited it.
Because, Cynn, being humiliated or shamed or put in fear isn’t torture really. What that child experienced was actual torture. And the legal listings were pretty much an attempt to obscure the obvious differences between Abu Ghraib (perpetrators prosecuted) and what really constitutes torture (see the captured Al Qaeda manual on the same). Or was the post too bloody obvious for you?
Did I mention Steve Gertz’s dad was in law enforcement?
Ok. I really don’t know much about pain research to know how that compares to organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or death. My sense is that it is a bit more than what happened to this kid, but I’ll give this one.
Section 2(A) we’d need to know if there was prolonged mental harm. I guess we can just assume that. In court you’d probably need to prove it with experts. I don’t think it fits under section 1.I don’t know why it’s funny because I cited it. I just provided more of the statute than above. So we could read the part about "color of law," and also so resident language specialists can all apply their trade to these words. However, I don’t really have a link to Congress’s intent, so I can’t say whether Congress’s intent applies to Steve Gertz or the burned up kid above.
In court you’d probably need to prove it with experts.
Paging John Edwards…paging John Edwards…
What the fuck are you trying to say, shine? I almost feel sad at the tragic irony of your chosen moniker, but I am a prick by nature so I mostly just laugh about it.
Ok. I really don’t know much about pain research to know how that
compares to organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or death.
Do you know what the largest human organ is, shine?
That’s rather sexist of you, Pablo. ;-)
Some people do seem intent on making themselves a waste of it.
now. back to reality.
Comment by David on 6/22 @ 4:01 pm #
No
death penalty in Wisconsin. But somehow the prison guards with Dahmer
turned the other way and some other inmate beat him to death. I
suspect a similar eventual outcome hereYep. Put in general population. on a work detail .with the other outraged fathers and you count his life expectancy in minutes.
So, according to Section 2340, when Steve Gertz told me
Who is this Steve Gertz fellow?