Dutch Court Won’t Extradite Terror Suspect to US Over Torture Concerns

[Dragonfli]

30. People that think we would or have EVER tortured do not understand.

That words and definitions need to evolve with our actions over time, for instance the ignorant once thought that a President ordering the testicles of a child to be crushed would be illegal under torture laws, reasonable men such as John Yoo put that old fashioned misconception to rest by explaining that the meaning of the act depends entirely on why the balls are being crushed.

I am sure that Holder consults the office of legal counsel (and possibly noted torture experts such as John Yoo) to make sure any actions taken against someone once in custody would not be considered torture under current law due to the pressing security concerns that may require "certain actions".

That the ignorant may misinterpret such actions as torture using quant but outdated notions of how torture was defined before pressing needs redefined the meaning of words to match the post 911 reality is unfortunate but naive.

There are similar misconceptions regarding old definitions of the word reasonable before the meaning was modified to keep up with modern spy technology.

A more current and accurate definition is obviously that everything is reasonable and so all searches are reasonable regardless of the size of the net or lack of probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The office of legal council will assure that extradited prisoners will most assuredly not be tortured as defined by them, and they are always right about such things. Other countries should simply defer to this axiom.