Tourture Ban: Meaningless

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

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... 😖hifty:

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.. 🙄

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?

Originally posted by KidRock
Where are you from again? Ah yes..australia.. 🙄

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.

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.

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...

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I would think that the application and subjugation of an individual involving [B]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. [/B]

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.

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.