AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
Although I often agree with Andrew C. McCarthy on the issue of terrorist detainees, I believe he is mistaken in his accusation of hypocrisy against the Obama administration on the issue of torture and "specific intent" ("Torture Is a State of Mind," May 25).
McCarthy first distinguishes between the legal concepts of "general intent" and "specific intent." These correspond to what in moral philosophy would be called "foreseen-but-unintended consequences" and "what is directly intended." A classic example of the distinction is the difference between removing a cancerous uterus knowing that the unborn fetus within will die, and a direct abortion. So far so good.
He then compares the 2008 case Pierre v. Attorney General of the United States to Jay Bybee and John Yoo's "torture memo." In Pierre, the court defined torture in terms of specific intent to cause severe pain. McCarthy then argues that because Eric Holder's Justice Department used Pierre as a precedent in favoring the deportation of John Demjanjuk, the Obama administration is hypocritical for threatening to prosecute Bybee and Yoo, who defined torture in the same way.
But Bybee and Yoo use a different definition of "specific intent." In the memo they say that "the infliction of such pain must be the defendant's precise objective." In other words, an interrogator can use any means whatsoever, and it is not torture, so long as his objective is ...
Source: HighBeam Research, Specifically intended.(Letter to the editor)