What Is "Torture"?

[The Rabbi]

getting arrested is TORTURE--- being in jail is TORTURE Being the son
of an incarcerated father is TORTURE

None of those cases fit the US Code definition of torture which I provided. What's going on here, don't words mean things?

Neither do most of the practices under Bush.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's hard to believe the legal definition wasn't fronted up in the first post.

It was alluded to if you had bothered to go read the memos. Lazy, stupid, and arrogant is no way to go through life, son.

 

[cnm]

So your argument is "Im right, they're wrong, they suck"?

Reading incomprehension again. The legal arguments have been discarded. Are you saying I'm the one who discarded them?

The president of the US has said the US tortured folks. Am I the Pres?

Only dead enders say the US didn't torture, because they can't bear to admit to supporting war crimes.

 

[cnm]

Neither do most of the practices under Bush.

Except the ones that did.

 

[cnm]

It's hard to believe the legal definition wasn't fronted up in the first post.

It was alluded to if you had bothered to go read the memos. Lazy, stupid, and arrogant is no way to go through life, son.

But it wasn't fronted up with here, was it? The absolute point of the whole thread ignored right from the first post.

 

[The Rabbi]

So your argument is "Im right, they're wrong, they suck"?

Reading incomprehension again. The legal arguments have been discarded. Are you saying I'm the one who discarded them?

The president of the US has said the US tortured folks. Am I the Pres?

Only dead enders say the US didn't torture, because they can't bear to admit to supporting war crimes.

Nice dodge.
Obama wanted to make Bush look bad and discredit him so changed the definition unilaterally. That does not mean the definitions propounded under Bush were wrong.
There was no torture. There were no war crimes.
Only brain dead asshole partisan hacks would use terms like that.

 

[2aguy]

And to be completely honest I'm a little surprised that a man of your religious background and devotion to Christian moral precepts would countenance torture.

Water boarding isn't torture.....

 

[The Rabbi]

It's hard to believe the legal definition wasn't fronted up in the first post.

It was alluded to if you had bothered to go read the memos. Lazy, stupid, and arrogant is no way to go through life, son.

But it wasn't fronted up with here, was it? The absolute point of the whole thread ignored right from the first post.

Im sure you could have written a better OP, sheyfela.

 

[2aguy]

If what the CIA did to interrogate suspected terrorists isn't torture, does that make those methods of interrogation acceptable to use on US citizens?

No...U.S. citizens are protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It doesn't apply to soldiers who are protected by the Geneva Convention....it does apply to unlawful enemy combatants...and the terrorists are exactly that...they do not fight for any recognized national military...and they do not follow the rules of war....so are not protected...

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So the Dems, using the only vehicle they have left, are trotting out allegations of torture against the Bush Administration. We've been here before. In 2008 the administration released the "Torture Memos", papers detailing the Bush Administration's legal reasoning for their policies (similar papers for Obama's illegal amnesty are lacking).
Jay Bybee wrote the memo and :

It concludes that torture is only: extreme acts according to the Convention Against Torture; that severe pain (a requisite for this definition of torture) is "serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death"; that prolonged mental harm is harm that must last for "months or even years";

So merely inflicting pain is not torture. Merely threatning someone is not torture.
The Bush Administration and the US did not torture anyone. There were legal guidelines in place based on statute.
As usual the Bush-haters toss all that aside and rely on their own flawed reasoning.

I'd be happy to subject you to some short term excruciating pain without any organ failures or worse. I bet I could get you to tell me you're a serial murderer in 5 minutes or less. Regardless of truth. You up for the challenge?

Whne we're done, you let me know if you felt torture is the appropriate term to use for what I did to you.

 

[cnm]

Waterboarding is not severe suffering. Had you bothered to read the memos or even part of them you might understand the distinction between severe suffering and suffering.
Waterboarding is also not the imminent threat of death, esp as no one has died from it.
You're just racking up the shit points here, arent you?

McCain had a special explanation for chickenhawks like you. I guess he didn't speak slowly enough. Still, I don't suppose it's possible to speak that slowly and stay conscious.

 

[2aguy]

Hey guess what dummy.....water boarding is a war crime. Japanese officers were hanged for doing exactly that.

hey moron....you should know what you are talking about before you post....water boarding by the japanese is not what was done to the terrrorists in the CIA sites....one thing the Japnese did...they shoved a hose down the throat of actual soldiers who were POWS, and forced water into their stomachs and intestines....then, when the pain was intense, and the abdomen bulging from the water....they jumped with both feet on the abdomen to force the water back up...

So moron....try to understand the difference between what the japanese were tried for and what the CIA actually did.....because if you did...you would understand the difference between torture and harsh treatment.......

 

[The Rabbi]

Waterboarding is not severe suffering. Had you bothered to read the memos or even part of them you might understand the distinction between severe suffering and suffering.
Waterboarding is also not the imminent threat of death, esp as no one has died from it.
You're just racking up the shit points here, arent you?

McCain had a special explanation for chickenhawks like you. I guess he didn't speak slowly enough. Still, I don't suppose it's possible to speak that slowly and stay conscious.

The last person who should be speaking about this is McCain. You understand why, right?

 

[2aguy]

McCain had a special explanation for chickenhawks like you. I guess he didn't speak slowly enough. Still, I don't suppose it's possible to speak that slowly and stay conscious.

I will take the advise of the other POWs who served with McCain, 4 of them who support water boarding two of them were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor....Leo Thorsness and Bud Day....

 

[The Rabbi]

So the Dems, using the only vehicle they have left, are trotting out allegations of torture against the Bush Administration. We've been here before. In 2008 the administration released the "Torture Memos", papers detailing the Bush Administration's legal reasoning for their policies (similar papers for Obama's illegal amnesty are lacking).
Jay Bybee wrote the memo and :

It concludes that torture is only: extreme acts according to the Convention Against Torture; that severe pain (a requisite for this definition of torture) is "serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death"; that prolonged mental harm is harm that must last for "months or even years";

So merely inflicting pain is not torture. Merely threatning someone is not torture.
The Bush Administration and the US did not torture anyone. There were legal guidelines in place based on statute.
As usual the Bush-haters toss all that aside and rely on their own flawed reasoning.

I'd be happy to subject you to some short term excruciating pain without any organ failures or worse. I bet I could get you to tell me you're a serial murderer in 5 minutes or less. Regardless of truth. You up for the challenge?

Whne we're done, you let me know if you felt torture is the appropriate term to use for what I did to you.

If I were a terrorist I would expect no less.
How about you start by sticking your head up your ass and taking a deep breath?

 

[cnm]

If what the CIA did to interrogate suspected terrorists isn't torture, does that make those methods of interrogation acceptable to use on US citizens?

No...U.S. citizens are protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It doesn't apply to soldiers who are protected by the Geneva Convention....it does apply to unlawful enemy combatants...and the terrorists are exactly that...they do not fight for any recognized national military...and they do not follow the rules of war....so are not protected...

Boy, this is chickenhawk heaven isn't it?

The Status and Protection of Unlawful Combatants

Juridica International

It is the general principle of the four Geneva Conventions (1949)*2 and their two Additional Protocols (1977)*3 that every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law — that of either a prisoner of war or a civilian. There is no intermediate status: nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.*4 The present article will not discuss whether unlawful combatants should be treated as prisoners of war according to the Third Convention but, instead, will first shed some light on the status of unlawful combatants and then argue that they are protected as civilians under the Fourth Convention.

 

[2aguy]

I don't know what waterboarding is----I have an impression that a person is kinda underwater and cannot breathe for
awhile------feels like he is drowning. Not at all pleasant----
------the people who did it should pay a fine.

It isn't holding people under water....it is essentially tilting someone back with a cloth over their face...you put water on the cloth and it trickles in filling the sinus cavity and dribbles down the throat...it feels like drowning ....but you aren't...you aren't even in danger of drowning...and the way the CIA did it.....that had strict rules on how many times they could pour the water and how much could be used....after being water boarded...no lasting harm, no injury, and all the terrorist had to do was dry off...and they were fine....not something that you get with real torture....

 

[cnm]

Nice dodge.
Obama wanted to make Bush look bad and discredit him so changed the definition unilaterally. That does not mean the definitions propounded under Bush were wrong.
There was no torture. There were no war crimes.
Only brain dead asshole partisan hacks would use terms like that.

Bullshit. The US Code hasn't changed. The legal dodges of the Bush administration have been discarded and the whole justice system is too embarrassed to talk about them.

Still, it's nothing to me that you want to cling to your denials so you don't have to admit you supported war crimes. I understand. It may take a while but you might get over it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So the Dems, using the only vehicle they have left, are trotting out allegations of torture against the Bush Administration. We've been here before. In 2008 the administration released the "Torture Memos", papers detailing the Bush Administration's legal reasoning for their policies (similar papers for Obama's illegal amnesty are lacking).
Jay Bybee wrote the memo and :

It concludes that torture is only: extreme acts according to the Convention Against Torture; that severe pain (a requisite for this definition of torture) is "serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death"; that prolonged mental harm is harm that must last for "months or even years";

So merely inflicting pain is not torture. Merely threatning someone is not torture.
The Bush Administration and the US did not torture anyone. There were legal guidelines in place based on statute.
As usual the Bush-haters toss all that aside and rely on their own flawed reasoning.

I'd be happy to subject you to some short term excruciating pain without any organ failures or worse. I bet I could get you to tell me you're a serial murderer in 5 minutes or less. Regardless of truth. You up for the challenge?

Whne we're done, you let me know if you felt torture is the appropriate term to use for what I did to you.

If I were a terrorist I would expect no less.
How about you start by sticking your head up your ass and taking a deep breath?

Right. So your argument is based on some flimsy JD description of what constitutes torture. I suppose being a terrorist is also auto-fueled by who says they are one. Then its time to get to brass tacks.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Defend the torture, neo-cons. And remember, it isnt torture. The JD said so.