Why is it so HARD for Republi-cons to know and define what torture is?

Question

is water-boarding (simulated drowning) torture? slapping/punching in the face? using a car battery to burn/shock? cigarette burns? sleep/food deprivation? forcing someone to strip naked and confine them alone in a room for weeks at a time?

are these things torture? all of these have been done by either the US or by US allies under supervision or with the knowledge of US officials.

if these things aren't torture, then what is? if they aren't torture, then why would the average citizen be considered a criminal if they did any or all of these things to another person to get info from them?

of course, it is documented that many sociopaths do not understand the difference between right and wrong. so maybe this explains it?

is that the best you can do penelope?

i am going to be fair about this. it pisses me off when people don't answer the question. if you are just going to post impertinent and impudent trash, i will report it to make room for real answers.

oh thanks for clearing that up penelope. you see, i was always under the impression that frat cats AGREED to initiations and the victims of true torture were unwilling. pu-leeze.

cons need to grow one too - a brain that is

so cons because they act like barbarians we too must act like barbarians? wouldn't we then become just as evil and immoral as the terroists then? how would you be able to take the moral high road like you so love to do if you were to do the same things to humans as terrorists?!

*this just in: ive been blocked by penelope, for calling her out on her inability to answer a simple question!

score!

good riddance, lol....tired of looking at the back of her avatar's head anyway, lol

Answer 1

the bush administration tortures. bush is a liar and a criminal.

Answer 2

You're right. That is torture. I'm currently reading the book by the former head of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to the President. According to him, the Bush administration tried justifying the torture in two different ways.

The first and most outrageous attempt was that since Afghanistan was no longer considered a nation state, the fighters in Afghanistan were not considered prisoners of war and therefore had no rights under the terms of the Geneva Convention. They eventually abandoned this argument.

The second argument, the one which the administration still uses today is that since the fighters were not wearing uniforms and did not bear their arms openly that they did not fall under the rules of war and the articles of the 3rd Geneva Convention. And since GITMO is not officially US soil, detainees at GITMO don't fall under US rules.

I believe it seriously damages our relations with other countries. Although there may be some technical legality in what they propose, it makes the US look really bad as far as human rights. How are we supposed to campaign against China and other countries limiting human rights when we as a country commit human rights violations that are just as bad or possibly worse. It doesn't give the US a leg to stand on in an argument for human rights.

The Geneva Convention does not specify individual acts that are considered illegal. It uses broad sweeping terms. When the US used water boarding that is riding that fine line as far as committing war crimes very very close. It may not be inflicting pain, per se. But it definitely is a form of torture.

The worst part of the whole affair is that other nations could justifiably use that as a means to use the same torture tactics on our own soldiers and get away with it. Stating that if it is OK for you to do it, then it is OK for us to do it to your soldiers.

The US needs to be a good model as far as how prisoners are treated. And right now it is not.

Answer 3

Per the international agreements we are signatory to, "torture" is defined as the intentional infliction of SEVERE pain or suffering, whether physical or mental.

"Water-boarding" as well as the other things done - sleep deprivation, exposure to temperature extremes, forcing them to remain in stressful positions - do not rise to this defined level, that of severe pain or suffering. They are uncomfortable, they cause disorientation, they cause fear, but they do not cause severe pain or suffering, nor do they cause any permanent damage.

Because the treaties do not list practices which are and are not "torture", each signatory nation defines that themselves.

Burning or hitting or starving are not acceptable, and we don't do that. But humiliation and fear, by stripping them naked or having dogs bark at them, is not torture.

And your question about if someone did it to somebody else, that's inane. I couldn't come into your house, handcuff you and throw you in a jail, either, even though that's legal for others to do. Illogical argument there.

Answer 4

Damn dude...it must suck to be an uniformed horse's *** like yourself.
I think I would rather drop water beads on a towel head or play loud music towards him if I knew that I was going to get credible information from them..You want to know what torture is, ask any of the unlucky US servicemen POWS that were imprisoned by the VietCong and the NVA during the Vietnam War.
But ..sounds like you have been de-balled as a male along time ago.

Answer 5

Penelope makes a very valid point, and that's the best response you have?

The problem is that in today's totally polarized political atmosphere, ANY attempt to seriously discuss the issue is impossible. Choose any other topic and Libs are quick to point out that there are "gray areas," but when it comes to torture versus interrogation, Libs refuse to entertain the concept that there just might be gray areas. Consequently, Republicans MUST refuse to define torture, because the reality is that there are gray areas AND there are times when it is necessary.

Edit: Arglebargle is hardly someone who can claim to understand the conservative mindset...seeing as how he blocks anyone whom he knows to be conservative from answering his questions. That's pretty much the definition of "close-minded."

Answer 6

With all of the supposed "Torture" going on...I'm surprised that there is anyone left to fight overseas.

I have seen the conditions that the Gitmo detainees are in....I grew up in worse places.

I've got a hypothetical Question for all of the "We should NEVER torture" crowd...

A large (possible Nuclear) bomb has been planted in your town....ther isn't time to escape, or move your children/family out of the danger zone before it is set to go off...killing them all.....We have the people/person who holds the location, and disarm codes for the bomb.... They/He/She refuses to talk.

What do you do????

Tick!, Tick!, Tick!, Tick!, Tick!, Tick!, Tick!, Tick!, Tick!

I know what My answer is.....Do you?


ETA: Think about what you are saying/asking "Thorgirls' Master Du!" We are the people with the >Most< toys/ammo...It would be foolish of you to forget that....Hehehehehe!


T.S.

ARFCOM We run the Interweb.

Answer 7

maybe we should have that happen to all the cons.. oh no wait .. cause then we'd be like them .. er something..
hey, why is it illegal for someone else said actions to another individual, but a whole govt. can do it to MANY?
hmm what a bunch of fuckedupness

Answer 8

Where is your proof that people were tortured from cigarette burns and car battery shocks? Why do you insist on making things up without any proof for your statements? Hurting people to get good information never works. Usually when you physically hurt people to gain information, they will tell you what you want to hear. Stop making things up when you have no idea what you're talking about in the first place.

Answer 9

Liberal whining is the absolute torture.

Answer 10

And where are you when Islamic nut jobs are sawing the heads off of Reporters or Contractors? Oh, that's right, its all Bush's fault.....?

Answer 11

That isn't the problem unfortunately.

Bush supporters love the idea of torture, or at the very best don't oppose it.

These are some seriously crazy people.