Tourture Ban: Meaningless

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



PVS
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/

Bush could bypass new torture ban

Waiver right is reserved

By Charlie Savage / Boston Globe

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

''The executive branch shall construe in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law.

A senior administration official, who spoke to a Globe reporter about the statement on condition of anonymity because he is not an official spokesman, said the president intended to reserve the right to use harsher methods in special situations involving national security.

''We are not going to ignore this law," the official said, noting that Bush, when signing laws, routinely issues signing statements saying he will construe them consistent with his own constitutional authority. ''We consider it a valid statute. We consider ourselves bound by the prohibition on cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment."

But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security. He cited as an example a ''ticking time bomb" scenario, in which a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent a planned terrorist attack.

''Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case," the official added. ''We are not expecting that those two responsibilities will come into conflict, but it's possible that they will."

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that the signing statement means that Bush believes he can still authorize harsh interrogation tactics when he sees fit.

''The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me,' " he said. ''They don't want to come out and say it directly because it doesn't sound very nice, but it's unmistakable to anyone who has been following what's going on."

Golove and other legal specialists compared the signing statement to Bush's decision, revealed last month, to bypass a 1978 law forbidding domestic wiretapping without a warrant. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without a court order starting after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The president and his aides argued that the Constitution gives the commander in chief the authority to bypass the 1978 law when necessary to protect national security. They also argued that Congress implicitly endorsed that power when it authorized the use of force against the perpetrators of the attacks.

Legal academics and human rights organizations said Bush's signing statement and his stance on the wiretapping law are part of a larger agenda that claims exclusive control of war-related matters for the executive branch and holds that any involvement by Congress or the courts should be minimal.

Vice President Dick Cheney recently told reporters, ''I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it. . . . I would argue that the actions that we've taken are totally appropriate and consistent with the constitutional authority of the president."

Since the 2001 attacks, the administration has also asserted the power to bypass domestic and international laws in deciding how to detain prisoners captured in the Afghanistan war. It also has claimed the power to hold any US citizen Bush designates an ''enemy combatant" without charges or access to an attorney.

And in 2002, the administration drafted a secret legal memo holding that Bush could authorize interrogators to violate antitorture laws when necessary to protect national security. After the memo was leaked to the press, the administration eliminated the language from a subsequent version, but it never repudiated the idea that Bush could authorize officials to ignore a law.

The issue heated up again in January 2005. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales disclosed during his confirmation hearing that the administration believed that antitorture laws and treaties did not restrict interrogators at overseas prisons because the Constitution does not apply abroad.

In response, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, filed an amendment to a Defense Department bill explicitly saying that that the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees in US custody is illegal regardless of where they are held.

McCain's office did not return calls seeking comment yesterday.

The White House tried hard to kill the McCain amendment. Cheney lobbied Congress to exempt the CIA from any interrogation limits, and Bush threatened to veto the bill, arguing that the executive branch has exclusive authority over war policy.

But after veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress approved it, Bush called a press conference with McCain, praised the measure, and said he would accept it.

Legal specialists said the president's signing statement called into question his comments at the press conference.

''The whole point of the McCain Amendment was to close every loophole," said Marty Lederman, a Georgetown University law professor who served in the Justice Department from 1997 to 2002. ''The president has re-opened the loophole by asserting the constitutional authority to act in violation of the statute where it would assist in the war on terrorism."

Elisa Massimino, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, called Bush's signing statement an ''in-your-face affront" to both McCain and to Congress.

''The basic civics lesson that there are three co-equal branches of government that provide checks and balances on each other is being fundamentally rejected by this executive branch," she said.

''Congress is trying to flex its muscle to provide those checks , and it's being told through the signing statement that it's impotent. It's quite a radical view."

KharmaDog
Did anyone see McCain on the Daily show talking about the torture ban and dick cheney. It was really interesting to see.

As for the above, bush has ignored many laws, both american and international, in order to get his bidding done. It just seems as though people are getting used to it and accepting it as normal.

Deano
bush does what he is told

KharmaDog
Originally posted by Deano
bush does what he is told

By the lizard people?

MC Mike
laughing out loud

As for the article - You expected something different?

overlord
Originally posted by KharmaDog
By the lizard people? Perhaps by Cheney or the people with intelligence.
George Bush is just some guy who grew up in the presence of all these influencial people. He really does seem like just an ignorent man who tries to follow his fathers steps.

KidRock
Originally posted by Deano
bush does what he is told

And he in turn tells Blair what to do.

Its a vicious chain.

Black Rob
What better way to spread american values than by torturing folks

Deano
Originally posted by KidRock
And he in turn tells Blair what to do.

Its a vicious chain.

in the eyes of the sheeple

Deano
Originally posted by KharmaDog
By the lizard people?

makes me sad to see people bang on about bush or any former president for that matter, as if they think they are in charge and actually that they make there own decisions. you and others might learn one day. if not then say goodbye to freedom

soleran30
Originally posted by Deano
makes me sad to see people bang on about bush or any former president for that matter, as if they think they are in charge and actually that they make there own decisions. you and others might learn one day. if not then say goodbye to freedom


Whats really interesting is to realize no one decision is ever made in a vacuum. Someone somewhere somehow is impacting a decision I think you just take it to the creepy zone. wink

KidRock
Originally posted by Deano
in the eyes of the sheeple


laughing roll eyes (sarcastic)

Deano
it is funny isnt it? watching your own country be destroyed

KidRock
Originally posted by Deano
it is funny isnt it? watching your own country be destroyed

It's ****in hilarious actually. laughing out loud

KidX
I'd rather live in Switzerland.

KharmaDog
Originally posted by Deano
makes me sad to see people bang on about bush or any former president for that matter

Yes, better to blindly accept their situation in life like you are apparently content in doing. It seems that you can isolate yourself from the world's problems by claiming that there are little green men, or a few select people, in control. This probably makes you feel better in that it totally alliviates you from taking any responsibility to institute or act on any change whatsoever, but many people prefer not to live in such a selfserving, dreamlike existence.

Originally posted by Deano
as if they think they are in charge and actually that they make there own decisions. you and others might learn one day. if not then say goodbye to freedom

Deano, you'd be best to say, "In my opinion" before you type anything, because when you spew forth, as in the above quote, as though there was actually a world wide conspiracy that dictates everyone's thoughts you sound just slightly deluded and actually quite simple.

People have the power to change things, it is not sad that they lack this power, it is sad that they choose not to weild this power.

Deano
Originally posted by KidRock
It's ****in hilarious actually. laughing out loud

i thought u loved america roll eyes (sarcastic)

KidX
Ok, what the hell? There is a news article right in your face about how Bush is creating a backdoor to circumvent human rights, yet you still make fun of Deano, even though he has preached such things?

overlord
Yeah, it's all accepted how much Bush violates mankinds basic laws and sense. We just think of it like "aww, that's typical Georgy again"

Even though everybody knew about what was done, everybody still voted for Bush because Kerry.. Well.. "Just looked weird"

KharmaDog
Originally posted by KidX
Ok, what the hell? There is a news article right in your face about how Bush is creating a backdoor to circumvent human rights, yet you still make fun of Deano, even though he has preached such things?

Deano has also preached that Bush is powerless. Now if he believes bush is powerles, then he should not also believe that Bush is creating anything, that would mean he had power, which apparently he doesn't.

See the problem?

And bush doesn't need a back door to circumvent anything, he just does it. He wants to invade a country? He does it. He wants to listen to private citizens conversations? He does it. He wants to ignore an international decision regarding the Canadian/American softwood dispute? He does it.

KidX
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Deano has also preached that Bush is powerless. Now if he believes bush is powerles, then he should not also believe that Bush is creating anything, that would mean he had power, which apparently he doesn't.

See the problem?

And bush doesn't need a back door to circumvent anything, he just does it. He wants to invade a country? He does it. He wants to listen to private citizens conversations? He does it. He wants to ignore an international decision regarding the Canadian/American softwood dispute? He does it. Which, again, Deano preaches...

KharmaDog
Originally posted by KidX
Which, again, Deano preaches...

So basically you are saying that Deano has covered his ass by preaching both that Bush has the power to act in such a manner, and by preaching that Bush is a powerless figurehead controlled by the illuminati. And you are completely cool with someone having completely divergent opinons on the exact same subject depending on how they want to make their point?

Deano
and to top it all off, the invasion of iran is on the elites agenda. they will be using america and bush for this obviously.
more future threads on bush surely to come on that subject from kmc members.

yes bush is dumb, evil and worthless, he doesnt give a crap about americans. he is told what to do and he does it, does it to serve the elites agenda. i cant understand why people are so ignorant of this and continue to post as if they think he is in charge.

and the fact that people like kidrock and others allow this evil government to continue. once america is under total control and enslaved, it will spread to the world, and then the bastards have won.

Deano
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Deano has also preached that Bush is powerless. Now if he believes bush is powerles, then he should not also believe that Bush is creating anything, that would mean he had power, which apparently he doesn't.

See the problem?

And bush doesn't need a back door to circumvent anything, he just does it. He wants to invade a country? He does it. He wants to listen to private citizens conversations? He does it. He wants to ignore an international decision regarding the Canadian/American softwood dispute? He does it.

well in a way he is creating something, because you allow him to deliever out the goals of the elite.

repeat after me...'he does what he is told'
and if u dont then u get thrown out the picture, eg jfk

KidX
Originally posted by KharmaDog
So basically you are saying that Deano has covered his ass by preaching both that Bush has the power to act in such a manner, and by preaching that Bush is a powerless figurehead controlled by the illuminati. And you are completely cool with someone having completely divergent opinons on the exact same subject depending on how they want to make their point? No, I'm saying you're all hypocritical for attacking Deano's belief... which coincides with the media's reports. eek! Which you all would believe anyway, from what I've seen. :supereek:

(Yes, I know that smiley doesn't exist... yet.)

KharmaDog
Originally posted by Deano
and to top it all off, the invasion of iran is on the elites agenda. they will be using america and bush for this obviously.
more future threads on bush surely to come on that subject from kmc members.

yes bush is dumb, evil and worthless, he doesnt give a crap about americans. he is told what to do and he does it, does it to serve the elites agenda. i cant understand why people are so ignorant of this and continue to post as if they think he is in charge.

and the fact that people like kidrock and others allow this evil government to continue. once america is under total control and enslaved, it will spread to the world, and then the bastards have won.

This truly is a scary post. No joke, it's the type of thing that you'd expect to hear a homeless man carrying a plackard that reads "THE END IS NEAR " shout out in the middle of the street.

KidX
Originally posted by KharmaDog
This truly is a scary post. No joke, it's the type of thing that you'd expect to hear a homeless man carrying a plackard that reads "THE END IS NEAR " shout out in the middle of the street. laughing out loud

Deano
Originally posted by KharmaDog
This truly is a scary post. No joke, it's the type of thing that you'd expect to hear a homeless man carrying a plackard that reads "THE END IS NEAR " shout out in the middle of the street.

it will be the end . and scarily you seem happy about it.

KharmaDog
Originally posted by Deano
it will be the end . and scarily you seem happy about it.

Please quote exactly where you surmised that I would be happy about it?

Capt_Fantastic
Yes, torture bans are meaningless. There's been a ban on torture for decades, but we're still talking about it, aren't we?

Well, not meaningless, but useless. That's a better word.

FeceMan
How does one define torture?

I'm not asking this as some sort of stupid question that requires a dictionary.com fed answer. I'm asking this as a legitimate question: what do you consider torture?

I consider torture the cause of physical pain to another in order to gain information. Thus, I do not consider the use of sodium pentothal torture and readily condone its use. (Of course, it's not JUST physical pain; I'm not getting into the "your family will be killed if you don't tell us what we want to know, watch me cut your daughter" kind of things.)

I think all forms of torture--in my terms, that is--are appalling and should never be used...unless as a last resort. Suppose we were to have a situation like in that movie where a group of neo-Nazis pit the Russians against the Americans, almost sparking another world war (the name completely evades me at the moment; it came out shortly before K-19: The Widowmaker). Suppose we have a situation where terrorists have placed a nuclear weapon in a place where it will kill thousands of people (I believe it was in a stadium in the movie). And it's on a timer.

Would any means necessary to extract the location of this bomb be acceptable? If not, thousands of innocents will perish. If so, someone has committed a crime against humanity.

I hate to say it--I really and truly hate to--but I would turn a blind eye to torture in this case. Could I be the torturer? No. An evil act, even for the greater good, is still evil, especially one as despicable as torture. However, as hypocritical as it might seem, I would allow another to torture one of the terrorists to get the information.

I would probably never forgive myself for that deed, but I would never forgive myself for choosing to let so many perish, either.

PVS
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Yes, torture bans are meaningless. There's been a ban on torture for decades, but we're still talking about it, aren't we?

Well, not meaningless, but useless. That's a better word.

you forgot to say "i told you so PVS"

i stand humbly corrected

Deano
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Please quote exactly where you surmised that I would be happy about it?

you come across that way as you poke fun at every opportunity while not taking anything seriously because you havent got the guts to agree with any anything i say cos you obviously are full of pride.

surely you can see the future panned out in your brain. what do you think will happen?

PVS
great, its become another deano/iche thread messed

FeceMan
I think my post was legitimate.

Imperial_Samura
Maybe, just maybe, it's about time the US diluted the power the president possesses, maybe like splitting the head of government and head of state parts of it. Or just putting some safe guards in check.

Still is it the Bill of rights that has the thing protecting US citizens from cruel and unusual punishments? Never a good sign when the head of a nation begins to ignore the concepts that supposedly enshrine the nations spirit. But of course it can easily be said that it's nothing new, Bush has always done that. Though always to protect the American people (snort, snicker.)



I don't know, I don't see this happening anytime soon. Bush and the US used up their "go to war free"card with Iraq. I don't see how they could muster the support, internationally or domestically to go after Iran, especially with the popularity dive the Iraq war has taken.

And besides, with US troops likely to be held up in Iraq for at least a couple more years Bush should very nearly be out of office by that time.

KharmaDog
Originally posted by Deano
you come across that way as you poke fun at every opportunity while not taking anything seriously because you havent got the guts to agree with any anything i say cos you obviously are full of pride.

I said post a quote, not your impressions regarding my responses to you contradicting yourself or seriously talking about how lizard people are trying to control the world or other such nonsense.

I don't disagree with you because I am afraid to (and what a spastic sort of logic that is) I often disagree with you because I find much of your conspiracy nonsense to be a blight on KMC.

Originally posted by Deano
surely you can see the future panned out in your brain. what do you think will happen?

Surely? Well, no. I lack the clairvoyance that you so obviously have when it comes to predicting the future.

By the way, I addressed the Iran issue a long time ago in my "Pack up the truck, we're going to Iran" thread.

KidRock
Originally posted by Deano
i thought u loved america roll eyes (sarcastic)

Oh..I was talking about the UK..you know how US runs the UK and all. I could care less about you guys stick out tongue

KidRock
Originally posted by Deano
and to top it all off, the invasion of iran is on the elites agenda. they will be using america and bush for this obviously.
more future threads on bush surely to come on that subject from kmc members.

yes bush is dumb, evil and worthless, he doesnt give a crap about americans. he is told what to do and he does it, does it to serve the elites agenda. i cant understand why people are so ignorant of this and continue to post as if they think he is in charge.

and the fact that people like kidrock and others allow this evil government to continue. once america is under total control and enslaved, it will spread to the world, and then the bastards have won.

I STILL cant tell if Deano is serious about all this or if he has just been pulling out legs the whole time. I just really cant understand how someone can type what Deano just did and be serious about it. I think he is just trying to start flame wars.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by KidRock
Oh..I was talking about the UK..you know how US runs the UK and all. I could care less about you guys stick out tongue

I know some English people who would be very sad to hear that.

If it's true maybe the English should have A War of Independence, American style, and push Bush back into the ocean (I assume he can't swim)

PVS
Originally posted by FeceMan
How does one define torture?

I'm not asking this as some sort of stupid question that requires a dictionary.com fed answer. I'm asking this as a legitimate question: what do you consider torture?

I consider torture the cause of physical pain to another in order to gain information. Thus, I do not consider the use of sodium pentothal torture and readily condone its use. (Of course, it's not JUST physical pain; I'm not getting into the "your family will be killed if you don't tell us what we want to know, watch me cut your daughter" kind of things.)

I think all forms of torture--in my terms, that is--are appalling and should never be used...unless as a last resort. Suppose we were to have a situation like in that movie where a group of neo-Nazis pit the Russians against the Americans, almost sparking another world war (the name completely evades me at the moment; it came out shortly before K-19: The Widowmaker). Suppose we have a situation where terrorists have placed a nuclear weapon in a place where it will kill thousands of people (I believe it was in a stadium in the movie). And it's on a timer.

Would any means necessary to extract the location of this bomb be acceptable? If not, thousands of innocents will perish. If so, someone has committed a crime against humanity.

I hate to say it--I really and truly hate to--but I would turn a blind eye to torture in this case. Could I be the torturer? No. An evil act, even for the greater good, is still evil, especially one as despicable as torture. However, as hypocritical as it might seem, I would allow another to torture one of the terrorists to get the information.

I would probably never forgive myself for that deed, but I would never forgive myself for choosing to let so many perish, either.

im not entirely familiar with the short term and long term effects of the supposed truth serum, but from what i know im not sure if you could even consider it to be torture.

in the highly cinematic case as you stated, i guess UNOFFICIAL torture would be in order. but what are the chances?

but thats the problem. by entertaining the wildly hypothetical, you make an interesting point, however the administration has attempted to use the same cinematic scenario to justify their attempt at officially approving torture. and not only that, but on a "whatever, whenever, and however we feel like.....just trust us" basis...not that this makes their request any more ridiculous

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by FeceMan
How does one define torture?

I'm not asking this as some sort of stupid question that requires a dictionary.com fed answer.

I guess that counts someone out... shifty

KidRock
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I know some English people who would be very sad to hear that.

If it's true maybe the English should have A War of Independence, American style, and push Bush back into the ocean (I assume he can't swim)

Where are you from again? Ah yes..australia.. roll eyes (sarcastic)

KharmaDog
Originally posted by Deano
it will be the end . and scarily you seem happy about it.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Please quote exactly where you surmised that I would be happy about it?

Originally posted by Deano
you come across that way as you poke fun at every opportunity while not taking anything seriously because you havent got the guts to agree with any anything i say cos you obviously are full of pride.

Being as you could not post a quote, and just relied on basing your comment on how you believe I respond as opposed to how I actually respond to your comments, I will take that as you admitting that you spoke out of turn.

Once again you made a statement as though it were based on fact, and as it turned out, you were wrong. See the pattern?

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by KidRock
Where are you from again? Ah yes..australia.. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Yes, I come from a land down under, where women glow and men plunder... etc, etc, etc. Good old Australian pride song. And lets not forget Australia has been far, far more compliant then England, what with the spineless lizard we currently have at the helm.

At least the UK actually stood up for it's citizens held in detention. The Australian government on the other hand never raised a whimper. In fact they got annoyed when the US released one from Guantanamo bay - what with how they had been saying "if the US thinks he's a terrorist, well, that good enough for us, he can rot there" - did they look embarrassed or what.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by PVS
you forgot to say "i told you so PVS"

i stand humbly corrected

Well, it's a nice concept, don't get me wrong. But, when the door is open, it's policy. Behind closed doors, it's practice.

Hit_and_Miss
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Yes, I come from a land down under, where women glow and men plunder... etc, etc, etc. Good old Australian pride song. And lets not forget Australia has been far, far more compliant then England, what with the spineless lizard we currently have at the helm.

At least the UK actually stood up for it's citizens held in detention. The Australian government on the other hand never raised a whimper. In fact they got annoyed when the US released one from Guantanamo bay - what with how they had been saying "if the US thinks he's a terrorist, well, that good enough for us, he can rot there" - did they look embarrassed or what.

What is the comman concensis over there??? do people ramble on about "glassing the middle east" like they do here?? Never really known the Australian stance...

FeceMan
The Sum of All Fears!

That's the movie.
Originally posted by PVS
im not entirely familiar with the short term and long term effects of the supposed truth serum, but from what i know im not sure if you could even consider it to be torture.

in the highly cinematic case as you stated, i guess UNOFFICIAL torture would be in order. but what are the chances?

but thats the problem. by entertaining the wildly hypothetical, you make an interesting point, however the administration has attempted to use the same cinematic scenario to justify their attempt at officially approving torture. and not only that, but on a "whatever, whenever, and however we feel like.....just trust us" basis...not that this makes their request any more ridiculous
I'm still wondering, though, how are they defining torture? That is with what I am concerned. If it is something like, "Lolz, you get to see your intestines now 'cause you're a suspect", then that is absolutely inexcusable. If it's, "We have strong evidence that marks you as a terrorist and we're going to give you a shot or two to loosen your tongue," then I couldn't care less.

PVS
but isnt that odd that we have to define torture?
isnt it odd that our administration has tried to have water board torture
viewed as simply a more extreme interrogation measure?

well, nothing against you, but i find this conversation on "what is torture" to
be ridiculous. not because you brought it up, but because cheney brought it up. torture doesnt work anyway. centuries of the dark ages should have taught us that. OK!!! OK!!! YES!!!!!! IM A WITCH!!!! I'M IN LEAGUE WITH SATAN!!!!!! FORGIVE ME!!!! know what i mean?

Imperial_Samura
Ah yes, the Inquisitions. Wars. Witch Trials. People will often say anything to make the pain stop.

And I agree, it's bizarre that we live in a world were torture has to be defined and where one violation would be torture, and another one wouldn't be, but then as they say, the devils in the fine print, if a person wants to do something questionable, they just need to doctor up a loop hole and away they go.

In such cases, sadly, definition is very important.

soleran30
yes but what is the true definition of torture..............unless we give it absolute words to define it then its just a discussion on your opinion.

KharmaDog
Originally posted by soleran30
yes but what is the true definition of torture..............unless we give it absolute words to define it then its just a discussion on your opinion.

I would think that the application and subjugation of an individual involving intense physical or psychological distress would be considered torture. Now I realize that many people are going to shout, "define intense" at which point this discussion could go on forever. So the definition of torture is almost moot. The line between interrogation and torture is a thin one, but those practiced in interrogation should know where that line is.

soleran30
Originally posted by KharmaDog
I would think that the application and subjugation of an individual involving intense physical or psychological distress would be considered torture. Now I realize that many people are going to shout, "define intense" at which point this discussion could go on forever. So the definition of torture is almost moot. The line between interrogation and torture is a thin one, but those practiced in interrogation should know where that line is.



Thats a more then fair definition of torture, I think. Yes I agree there is a fine line and that line will also be dictated by the culture its percieved in.........however for conversation of the USA I would take that.

PVS
no, its nitpicky nonesense which is impossible to define.
you cant define it, but rather define what IS it.
thats the trick the administration wishes to use, because
once a supposed definition is found, they can get to work in
finding a loophole.

for instance, in many cases of waterboarding, very little pain is
actually felt. however, the experience of being hung upside down
and drowned, simulated or not, is horrifying. thats torture. but if the
administration was able to rig 'torture' it to only mean "causing intense
physical pain", then there is the loophole.

torture is the use of pain to extract information.
torture is the use of FEAR of pain and/or death to extract information.
torture is the act of degrading, humiliating, defiling what one holds to be
sacred, and other acts of phsychological torment. or as rush limbaugh
would say "fraternity pranks"


all of these have certain degrees.
for instance, a cop questions a kid and calls him a 'punk'
well then that could be considered humiliation...so really
the idea of putting an objective definition on something
so subjective as "torture" is dangerous either way, and
nobody wins.

what SHOULD be adressed is what is NOT torture. put
interrogation methods on the table and let the people decide
what is acceptable interrogation and what is not.

"ok, what CAN we do"
that makes sense.

"ok, what CAN'T we do"
serves no purpose at all.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.