|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/24/2005 02:08:14 PM · #426 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Remind me again why a God-fearing Christian isn't outraged that his governement is engaging in torture? |
Originally posted by RonB:
I'm not outraged that my government is engaging in torture because THEY ( my government ) are NOT engaging in torture. I AM outraged that too many INDIVIDUALS engage in actions against their fellow men and women that are clearly despicable. And that is true whether they are military personnel abusing prisoners, terrorists killing non-combatants, or gang-members attacking their fellow citizens. |
So you're going to engage in your familiar game of "show me the written evidence"? There is no document that states that torture is the official policy of the United States government. There is no government in the world, not even the worst among them, that will state such a thing officially. The ones who engage in it will always deny and lie about it. So if you're looking for that sort of "proof," obviously it won't be found. But does that mean it's not happening? How many reports will it take to convince you? What's the critical mass in your estimation?
How much money will have to disappear into the bowels of Halliburton before you'll believe there is corruption?
How many "mistakes" will George W. have to make before you believe he's a blithering idiot? |
George W. isn't a blithering idiot. He's a sadistic evil genius that has middle America eating the shit sandwich right out of his hand and asking for seconds.
I encourage anyone to read "Bushwhacked" it really opened my eyes.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2005 02:15:41 PM · #427 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Could you provide a link to the "official Bush administration documentary definition of "torture"" that states or even implies that only "treatment that actually produces organ failure or death" qualifies as "torture"?
|
Yes, I can. Here it is. The definition is on page one - the summary of the 50 page memo from Attorney General Gonzales to President Bush on what is the Official Bush Policy on Torture .
//www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/02.08.01.pdf |
|
|
|
10/24/2005 03:11:33 PM · #428 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
Could you provide a link to the "official Bush administration documentary definition of "torture"" that states or even implies that only "treatment that actually produces organ failure or death" qualifies as "torture"?
|
Yes, I can. Here it is. The definition is on page one - the summary of the 50 page memo from Attorney General Gonzales to President Bush on what is the Official Bush Policy on Torture .
//www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/02.08.01.pdf |
Sorry, but under the rules of DPC that document must be disqualified as not having been taken in the current challenge period according to the date in the EXIF data.
That document was superceded by this one, which is the CURRENT "official Bush administration documentary definition of "torture". It states, for those who wish to know the "truth":
"(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality"
And, for the record, you quoted the document that YOU cited incorrectly to begin with. Even THAT document didn't define "torture" as "the kind of treatment that actually produces organ failure or death". It specifically says:
"We conclude that for an act to constitute torture, as defined in section 2340, it must inflict pain that is difficult to endure. Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death...."
note especially the words "such as".
(edited to insert link )
Message edited by author 2005-10-24 15:15:57. |
|
|
|
10/24/2005 04:57:22 PM · #429 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So would you approve of an independent commission to investigate interrogation policies and practices all the way up to the highest levels of government? |
I would, if a majority of our elected representatives thought it necessary. I would NOT if only a vocal few, or the loudest media pundits thought it was necessary. |
Since our elected representatives represent their constituents' wishes, what would you ask of YOUR elected representative to do? Would you want them to push for an investigative independent commission? Given that the torture issue does not seem to be going away, and that high government officials have come out with memorandums that have set the groudwork for policy ignoring the Geneva Conventions and establishing allowable torture practices, would YOU say that an independent commission should be established? |
I would ask them to visit with some military personnel who have recently returned from the Iraq theater and ask THEM ( multiple them ) what their take is on the accusations of "administration policy". If they then feel that additional investigation is warranted, I would say that they should push for an investigation.
The fact that the torture issue does not seem to be going away is because it is an emotional issue that the left keeps alive with the hope that if it is repeated often enough, will "convert" some voters to their side - ABB.
I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent person, and frankly, I do NOT see that officials in the Bush adminstration have "come out with memorandums that have set the groudwork for policy ignoring the Geneva Conventions and establishing allowable torture practices". Perhaps you could provide new evidence that can prove me to be wrong in my thinking ( we have debated this issue before, as you know, and no one has yet convinced me that Guantanamo detainees are entitled to Geneva Convention rights ). Officials HAVE come out with memoranda that establish DIS-allowable practices, as I have pointed out to GeneralE.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2005 05:06:01 PM · #430 |
RonB - sorry for jumping in the middle of your fight - but nobody needs to convince you or prove (evidence) that you are thinking wrong. This is not about being right or wrong.
It may as well be about how do you feel about yourself, about your thoughts toward other people.
It is not about any religion or atheism. It is not about fear of God. It is about humanity.
We can hide all day long behind legalese, heck, the written law has stretched the common sense so much that murders can go unpunished, while other lesser crimes may get severely punished or 'plea bargained' just for the lack of proper representation.
Just sit back and think - do these people deserve the treatment they receive. And keep the answer to yourself. It is your private thing after all, and you have to live with it every day...
(edited for spelling)
Message edited by author 2005-10-24 17:07:04. |
|
|
|
10/24/2005 05:53:19 PM · #431 |
Originally posted by RonB:
That document was superceded by this one, which is the CURRENT \"official Bush administration documentary definition of \"torture\". It states, for those who wish to know the \"truth\":
\"(1) \"torture\" means an act committed by a person acting under color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) \"severe mental pain or suffering\" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality\"
And, for the record, you quoted the document that YOU cited incorrectly to begin with. Even THAT document didn\'t define \"torture\" as \"the kind of treatment that actually produces organ failure or death\". It specifically says:
\"We conclude that for an act to constitute torture, as defined in section 2340, it must inflict pain that is difficult to endure. Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death....\"
note especially the words \"such as\".
|
Thank you for the updated reference, RonB. :)
But...
... once again supply a long documentation of a distinction without a difference.
There is VIRTUALLY NO DIFFERENCE in the two documents regarding the definition of torture.
In fact, the second, more up-to-date version is even more pernicious, it seems to me, because it is deliberately more poorly-defined.
At the same time, if you read it, the authors go to great lengths to expand the allowable gradation between extraordinarily agonizing pain, which would have a lasting permanent effect on body or mind (torture), and merely severely painful treatment (not torture).
They happily give examples of prisoners given multiple beatings as being extremely painful, but clearly not torture(!?)
Now.... let\'s take a deep breath for a moment....
You know what all this means, right?
I know that deep inside, as a man who fesses to be deeply religious and a good Christian - you DO know what this means, Right????
It means that the Bush administration is trying to change the definition of torture to only the most extreme of extreme cases.
And you are buying into it.
Everybody KNOWS what torture is => how the Bush administration (mis)defines it or not, any rational person KNOWS what torture is.
\\
And it AIN\"T just the tiniest slice of the worst of the worst, as the Bush administration defines it.
And, I have got to say..... It just absolutely confounds me that I have to be explaining this to YOU - the person who said not long ago, here at this forum, that without Christian Religiosity, a person can not lead a moral life! ( or something close to that).
I would have thought that Jesus would be AGAINST torturing people, myself?
Oh, and BTW, the Bush definition of torture, as narrow as it is, only applies to U.S. citizens, and ONLY if they are on U.S. soil, including territories!
Which is why we have seen so many prisoners whisked away by jet OFF U.S. soil, where they can be merrily tortured to Bush\'s heart\'s content.
Some culture of life. Some rule of law. Some Amerikka. :(
Message edited by author 2005-10-24 17:55:05. |
|
|
|
10/24/2005 06:05:45 PM · #432 |
Originally posted by naldslc:
George W. isn't a blithering idiot. He's a sadistic evil genius that has middle America eating the shit sandwich right out of his hand and asking for seconds.
I encourage anyone to read "Bushwhacked" it really opened my eyes. |
So are you saying that before you read that book, you were eating that same sandwich with the rest of us poor slobs, but since you read this life-changing tome you now see things completely different than you ever did before in your life? Or, did this book simply feed the prejudices and preconceptions formed in you years before by a liberal education and a liberal media? I'm guessing the latter... |
|
|
|
10/24/2005 06:06:27 PM · #433 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So would you approve of an independent commission to investigate interrogation policies and practices all the way up to the highest levels of government? |
I would, if a majority of our elected representatives thought it necessary. I would NOT if only a vocal few, or the loudest media pundits thought it was necessary. |
Since our elected representatives represent their constituents' wishes, what would you ask of YOUR elected representative to do? Would you want them to push for an investigative independent commission? Given that the torture issue does not seem to be going away, and that high government officials have come out with memorandums that have set the groudwork for policy ignoring the Geneva Conventions and establishing allowable torture practices, would YOU say that an independent commission should be established? |
I would ask them to visit with some military personnel who have recently returned from the Iraq theater and ask THEM ( multiple them ) what their take is on the accusations of "administration policy". If they then feel that additional investigation is warranted, I would say that they should push for an investigation.
The fact that the torture issue does not seem to be going away is because it is an emotional issue that the left keeps alive with the hope that if it is repeated often enough, will "convert" some voters to their side - ABB.
I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent person, and frankly, I do NOT see that officials in the Bush adminstration have "come out with memorandums that have set the groudwork for policy ignoring the Geneva Conventions and establishing allowable torture practices". Perhaps you could provide new evidence that can prove me to be wrong in my thinking ( we have debated this issue before, as you know, and no one has yet convinced me that Guantanamo detainees are entitled to Geneva Convention rights ). Officials HAVE come out with memoranda that establish DIS-allowable practices, as I have pointed out to GeneralE. |
Earlier in the month the Senate wanted to include standards for interrogation and treatment of detainees in a military spending bill that the Bush White House has said it would veto if the anti-terror language was included in the bill. Yet the Republican controlled Senate voted overwhelmingly to include it, lead by John McCain (a former POW) and Lindsay Graham, both Republicans. In addition 29 retired high ranking military officers endorsed this bill, including Gen. Colin Powell. It would ban the use of any kind of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. So why does the Bush administration see a problem with this? Do you have a problem with this? It's already been mentioned that interrogations using these types of methods do not yield any kind of meaningful information.
AS the article that GeneralE posted has pointed out, it seems that these kinds of treatments/tortures are far more widespread than has previously been reported in the mainstream press. This could very well indicate policy set by higher ranking Bush administration officials. As a former military man yourself, I would have thought you would be railing loudly against using any kind of cruel, inhuman, degrading torture/treatment upon anyone, as this greatly increases the likelihood of similar tactics being used on captured American/coalition personnel, as well as, creating more terrorists hell bent on inflicting revenge (and for many years to come). Human Rights Watch has already started the investigations and now it's up to Congress and the press to demand for an independent commission to investigate. You should most definitely agree to this too, as if the Bush administration indeed does have a policy of no torture, then they have nothing to hide, and you could rest with the knowledge that it was just a few "bad apples" in stressful positions that have been committing these atrocities.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2005 06:09:31 PM · #434 |
Hey if someone was fighting on the team that bombed and killed my family member, I'd probably tie them up like a dog and beat them too...what goes around comes around.
Now I'm not saying we should go and tie up all iraqi women and children, that's just insane...but there's no reason that saddam hussein should be sitting in an air conditioned cell watching cable tv and eating wheaties...he should be tied up like a dog and hung by his ankles from a wind mill.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2005 06:43:04 PM · #435 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by naldslc:
George W. isn't a blithering idiot. He's a sadistic evil genius that has middle America eating the shit sandwich right out of his hand and asking for seconds.
I encourage anyone to read "Bushwhacked" it really opened my eyes. |
So are you saying that before you read that book, you were eating that same sandwich with the rest of us poor slobs, but since you read this life-changing tome you now see things completely different than you ever did before in your life? Or, did this book simply feed the prejudices and preconceptions formed in you years before by a liberal education and a liberal media? I'm guessing the latter... |
Scott what I'm saying is that, we are all still eating that shit sandwich that GWB has and continues to make for us. Tell me something Scott, how much did you get back on GWB’s two hundred dollar tax cut to all American’s? Why don’t you do a little research and see what GWB and DC got back from that deal and then tell me something isn’t wrong. I’ll give you a little hint, it was a lot more that two hundred dollars.
How about the No Child Left Behind deal? Look at Texas’ education system right now; there are plenty of children that were left behindâ€Â¦.
You call me a liberal, but you don't even know me, how can you make such a judgment? BTW, I voted for GWB on the first go around.
Scott, I'm a Middle (if that) American who hasn't really seen much of an improvement in my life or my family's life since GWB sat down in the oval.
All I wanted to know is why.
So I started researching and talking to my peers to get a better feel for what this guy is about. I felt that that book was written fairly well, and yes, I can’t even tell you that it’s all true. What I can say is that if even PART of what is in that book is true then we, the American people need to be more educated about who we put into office. I didn't have a life altering experience, I just opened my eyes.
Take a look at where I'm from Scott, yes the state with THE HIGHEST approval rate GWB has going for him. I’m just stating my opinion on the matter, I don’t think any more or less of people that support or disapprove of GWB.
It’s JM2C.
Message edited by author 2005-10-24 18:56:46.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2005 07:09:29 PM · #436 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Hey if someone was fighting on the team that bombed and killed my family member, I'd probably tie them up like a dog and beat them too...what goes around comes around.
Now I'm not saying we should go and tie up all iraqi women and children, that's just insane...but there's no reason that saddam hussein should be sitting in an air conditioned cell watching cable tv and eating wheaties...he should be tied up like a dog and hung by his ankles from a wind mill. |
Yes what goes around, comes around, so by acting in the same way as the people you comdemn, you become as bad as they do. How does the spiral of evil stop?
P
|
|
|
|
10/24/2005 07:29:08 PM · #437 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Thank you for the updated reference, RonB. :) |
You're welcome :)
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
But...
... once again supply a long documentation of a distinction without a difference.
There is VIRTUALLY NO DIFFERENCE in the two documents regarding the definition of torture.
In fact, the second, more up-to-date version is even more pernicious, it seems to me, because it is deliberately more poorly-defined. |
Actually there is quite a difference, indeed. The first limits the definition of torture in terms of ACTUAL actions. The new document includes the THREAT of such actions.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
At the same time, if you read it, the authors go to great lengths to expand the allowable gradation between extraordinarily agonizing pain, which would have a lasting permanent effect on body or mind (torture), and merely severely painful treatment (not torture). |
This contradicts your earlier contention that the new document is more poorly-defined. In my opinion, quite the opposite is true - the new document goes to greater lengths in defining distinctions, and even quotes the dictionary to support its definitions.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
They happily give examples of prisoners given multiple beatings as being extremely painful, but clearly not torture(!?) |
I looked at the document again, very carefully, for even ONE example of what you charge here - and couldn't find a single one. Could you cut/paste examples of what you are charging here?
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Now.... let\'s take a deep breath for a moment....
You know what all this means, right?
I know that deep inside, as a man who fesses to be deeply religious and a good Christian - you DO know what this means, Right????
It means that the Bush administration is trying to change the definition of torture to only the most extreme of extreme cases.
And you are buying into it. |
Sorry, but I can't agree. The earlier document was less strict.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Everybody KNOWS what torture is => how the Bush administration (mis)defines it or not, any rational person KNOWS what torture is.
\\
And it AIN\"T just the tiniest slice of the worst of the worst, as the Bush administration defines it. |
Actually, that isn't true. NOT "everybody" knows what "torture" is. Just like not "everybody" knows what "murder" is. That's why such documents are necessary in a world such as we live in. If you ask my kids, making them turn off their cell phones at 10 o'clock is "torture".
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
And, I have got to say..... It just absolutely confounds me that I have to be explaining this to YOU - the person who said not long ago, here at this forum, that without Christian Religiosity, a person can not lead a moral life! ( or something close to that). |
Another complete mis-attribution. I have NEVER said anything even closely similar to what you accuse me of, in any forum, at any time.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
I would have thought that Jesus would be AGAINST torturing people, myself? |
I'm sure that He is. But what, then, would you think if I were to inform you that scripture describes an event thusly:
And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,
And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. ( John 2:13-17 )
I'm sure that the United Nations declaration would call that "torture".
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Oh, and BTW, the Bush definition of torture, as narrow as it is, only applies to U.S. citizens, and ONLY if they are on U.S. soil, including territories!
Which is why we have seen so many prisoners whisked away by jet OFF U.S. soil, where they can be merrily tortured to Bush\'s heart\'s content. |
Again, not true. The definitions of torture apply to any act OFF of U.S. soil if committed under U.S. Jurisdiction - and the document defines jurisdiction as follows:
"(b) Jurisdiction.—There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Some culture of life. Some rule of law. Some Amerikka. :( |
If it's that bad...
Message edited by author 2005-10-24 19:32:43. |
|
|
|
10/25/2005 12:59:13 AM · #438 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
You know what all this means, right?
It means that the Bush administration is trying to change the definition of torture to only the most extreme of extreme cases. |
gingerbaker is correct, the administration has redefined torture more narrowly. And why has it done so? It has done so in order to allow U.S. government agents to engage in war crimes (acts that are war crimes under the prior definition of torture) and avoid legal accountability. This is at the heart of their redefinition exercise.
Is this re-direction of U.S. foreign policy one you endorse, RonB?
|
|
|
|
10/25/2005 01:38:57 AM · #439 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
You know what all this means, right?
It means that the Bush administration is trying to change the definition of torture to only the most extreme of extreme cases. |
gingerbaker is correct, the administration has redefined torture more narrowly. And why has it done so? It has done so in order to allow U.S. government agents to engage in war crimes (acts that are war crimes under the prior definition of torture) and avoid legal accountability. This is at the heart of their redefinition exercise.
Is this re-direction of U.S. foreign policy one you endorse, RonB? |
According to Elizabeth Holzman, Alberto Gonzales, in one of his memos to George Bush, recommended that the Bush administration back out of the Geneva Conventions because by doing so they could possibly avoid legal accountibility from the US War Powers Act of 1996. That bit of legislation applies to any member of the US military or government, including high ranking officials that act in ways contrary to the Geneva Conventions, and carry with it severe penalties.
Message edited by author 2005-10-25 01:46:30. |
|
|
|
10/25/2005 10:36:30 AM · #440 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
You know what all this means, right?
It means that the Bush administration is trying to change the definition of torture to only the most extreme of extreme cases. |
gingerbaker is correct, the administration has redefined torture more narrowly. And why has it done so? It has done so in order to allow U.S. government agents to engage in war crimes (acts that are war crimes under the prior definition of torture) and avoid legal accountability. This is at the heart of their redefinition exercise. |
On the contrary. Just as "murder" ultimately had to be more narrowly defined as 1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc. to satisfy the demands of the public, so "torture" had to be more narrowly defined to answer charges that the administration was "hiding" under "nuances" of the more broad defiition.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Is this re-direction of U.S. foreign policy one you endorse, RonB? |
1) I don't consider it to be a "re-direction of U.S. foreign policy". In fact, I don't consider it to be related to U.S. foreign policy at all. Torture is not a "foreign" policy issue. I'm sorry, but your question is internally flawed since it contains an invalid premise, so I must decline to answer it. Perhaps you could restate it to remove the invalid premise? |
|
|
|
10/25/2005 10:50:31 AM · #441 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
You know what all this means, right?
It means that the Bush administration is trying to change the definition of torture to only the most extreme of extreme cases. |
gingerbaker is correct, the administration has redefined torture more narrowly. And why has it done so? It has done so in order to allow U.S. government agents to engage in war crimes (acts that are war crimes under the prior definition of torture) and avoid legal accountability. This is at the heart of their redefinition exercise.
Is this re-direction of U.S. foreign policy one you endorse, RonB? |
According to Elizabeth Holzman, Alberto Gonzales, in one of his memos to George Bush, recommended that the Bush administration back out of the Geneva Conventions because by doing so they could possibly avoid legal accountibility from the US War Powers Act of 1996. That bit of legislation applies to any member of the US military or government, including high ranking officials that act in ways contrary to the Geneva Conventions, and carry with it severe penalties. |
Rather than trusting in third party interpretations, why don't you just post an excerpt of the actual text of the memo containing the recommendation that she ( and apparently, you ) claims that Alberto Gonzales made? Accusations are easy to make, and to repeat, but documenting those accusations is far superior and much more credible. |
|
|
|
10/25/2005 11:30:14 AM · #442 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Thank you for the updated reference, RonB. :) |
You\'re welcome :)
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
But...
... once again supply a long documentation of a distinction without a difference.
There is VIRTUALLY NO DIFFERENCE in the two documents regarding the definition of torture.
In fact, the second, more up-to-date version is even more pernicious, it seems to me, because it is deliberately more poorly-defined. |
Originally posted by RonB:
Actually there is quite a difference, indeed. The first limits the definition of torture in terms of ACTUAL actions. The new document includes the THREAT of such actions. |
EXACTLY! There is NO ESSENTIAL difference between the two documents! They both serve to officially define the torture that the Bush administration has been routinely carrying out around the world as \"non-torture\".
Originally posted by RonB:
[quote=gingerbaker]At the same time, if you read it, the authors go to great lengths to expand the allowable gradation between extraordinarily agonizing pain, which would have a lasting permanent effect on body or mind (torture), and merely severely painful treatment (not torture). |
Originally posted by RonB:
This contradicts your earlier contention that the new document is more poorly-defined. In my opinion, quite the opposite is true - the new document goes to greater lengths in defining distinctions, and even quotes the dictionary to support its definitions. |
No - it removes the necessity of organ-failure as a defining term, and falls back on more general, more poorly-defined terminology.
It uses the dictionary, however, only to its advantage, to selective define \"torture\" as only the highest, most pernicious, most unimaginably painful painful treatment possible.
Therefore, leaving all other forms of horrific abuse - what any sane person would instantly recognize as torture - and what any true Christian would oppose on principle - as now being quite officially OK and "NOT TORTURE". Which, as any reasonable person viewing such an abuse knows instantly - IS NOT TRUE!
Originally posted by RonB:
[quote=gingerbaker]They happily give examples of prisoners given multiple beatings as being extremely painful, but clearly not torture(!?) |
Originally posted by RonB:
I looked at the document again, very carefully, for even ONE example of what you charge here - and couldn\'t find a single one. Could you cut/paste examples of what you are charging here? |
No - please look again, for it is there.
Originally posted by RonB:
[quote=gingerbaker]Now.... let\\\'s take a deep breath for a moment....
You know what all this means, right?
I know that deep inside, as a man who fesses to be deeply religious and a good Christian - you DO know what this means, Right????
It means that the Bush administration is trying to change the definition of torture to only the most extreme of extreme cases.
And you are buying into it. |
Originally posted by RonB:
Sorry, but I can\'t agree. The earlier document was less strict. |
WHAT????
This, folks, is an example of cognitive dissonance - when the brain refuses to cope with a reality which is too jarring to the sensibilities, that it resets its circuitry.
Originally posted by RonB:
[quote=gingerbaker]Everybody KNOWS what torture is => how the Bush administration (mis)defines it or not, any rational person KNOWS what torture is.
\\\\
And it AIN\\\"T just the tiniest slice of the worst of the worst, as the Bush administration defines it. |
Actually, that isn\'t true. NOT \"everybody\" knows what \"torture\" is. Just like not \"everybody\" knows what \"murder\" is. That\'s why such documents are necessary in a world such as we live in. If you ask my kids, making them turn off their cell phones at 10 o\'clock is \"torture\". |
Yes, but they are kids, are they not. They are not actually BEING tortured, like certain kids in Iraq, who were evidently raped to death (at least one, supposedly). I think most people CAN agree on what is torture, and pretty easily.
It is what makes us sick.
And ashamed to of our Country and its \"Leaders\".
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
And, I have got to say..... It just absolutely confounds me that I have to be explaining this to YOU - the person who said not long ago, here at this forum, that without Christian Religiosity, a person can not lead a moral life! ( or something close to that). |
Another complete mis-attribution. I have NEVER said anything even closely similar to what you accuse me of, in any forum, at any time. |
Nonsense! It was here, in these forums. You maintained that atheists could not possibly have a moral footing, that they could not tell right from wrong because of moral relativism. And that only religion gave one access to The Absolute Truths, to keep one headed safely on course on the treacherous seas of moral relativism, or some such.
Sound familiar??
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
I would have thought that Jesus would be AGAINST torturing people, myself? |
I\'m sure that He is. But what, then, would you think if I were to inform you that scripture describes an event thusly:
And the Jews\' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,
And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers\' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father\'s house an house of merchandise. And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. ( John 2:13-17 )
I\'m sure that the United Nations declaration would call that \"torture\". |
Cute. So, for the record: In your opinion, would Jesus be For or AGAINST the Bush Torture policy?
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Oh, and BTW, the Bush definition of torture, as narrow as it is, only applies to U.S. citizens, and ONLY if they are on U.S. soil, including territories!
Which is why we have seen so many prisoners whisked away by jet OFF U.S. soil, where they can be merrily tortured to Bush\\\'s heart\\\'s content. |
Again, not true. The definitions of torture apply to any act OFF of U.S. soil if committed under U.S. Jurisdiction - and the document defines jurisdiction as follows:
\"(b) Jurisdiction.—There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender. |
Which is whay Bush flies prisoners AWAY to be tortured to CIRCUMVENT his own \'policy, no?
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Some culture of life. Some rule of law. Some Amerikka. :( |
If it\'s that bad... |
It is that bad, I believe. And, I likely will...
Message edited by author 2005-10-25 11:39:57. |
|
|
|
10/25/2005 12:04:26 PM · #443 |
Sorry, gingerbaker, but without editing, I can't respond to the garbled response you made to my post ( garbled style blocks ). But I will respond to these two:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
They happily give examples of prisoners given multiple beatings as being extremely painful, but clearly not torture(!?) |
I looked at the document again, very carefully, for even ONE example of what you charge here - and couldn't find a single one. Could you cut/paste examples of what you are charging here? |
No - please look again, for it is there. |
In other words, NO, you cannot cut/paste a single example supporting your charge.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
And, I have got to say..... It just absolutely confounds me that I have to be explaining this to YOU - the person who said not long ago, here at this forum, that without Christian Religiosity, a person can not lead a moral life! ( or something close to that). |
Another complete mis-attribution. I have NEVER said anything even closely similar to what you accuse me of, in any forum, at any time. |
Nonsense! It was here, in these forums. You maintained that atheists could not possibly have a moral footing, that they could not tell right from wrong because of moral relativism. And that only religion gave one access to The Absolute Truths, to keep one headed safely on course on the treacherous seas of moral relativism, or some such.
Sound familiar?? |
No, it doesn't. But since you CLAIM that I said "some such", please post the thread title, date, and time when I said "some such". Better yet, post all that, PLUS the actual text of my post.
Message edited by author 2005-10-25 12:46:01. |
|
|
|
10/25/2005 12:24:34 PM · #444 |
Ron, don't you understand? "Proof" is obviously a concept that is also difficult to define. Things that "evidently, supposedly" occured seem to sufficiently rise to the the level of "proof" in some people's eye's. So all that's required is to claim that you said that - this is proof enough. The fact that you would demand that the allegation be proved - that probably rises to the level of torture, along with placing underwear on someone's head.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2005 12:42:55 PM · #445 |
Right.
And what of demanding proof, when none should be needed?
Of denying one said things, when one said them?
Of saying a document does not contain references, when it does?
Tell me, ScottK, have you not been around here long enough to recognize the argumentative proclivities of certain memers of the forum? |
|
|
|
10/25/2005 12:48:34 PM · #446 |
Speaking of proof, I've never seen any which conclusively demonstrates that the Bible (any edition) is the literal and directly-channeled word of God. All we have is some rotting parchments from some cult which lived in Qumran around 3000 years ago ...
And now back you your regularly-scheduled polemics .... |
|
|
|
10/25/2005 12:50:04 PM · #447 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Right.
And what of demanding proof, when none should be needed?
Of denying one said things, when one said them?
Of saying a document does not contain references, when it does?
Tell me, ScottK, have you not been around here long enough to recognize the argumentative proclivities of certain memers of the forum? |
I can't speak for Scott, But now that you mention it I have noticed that SOME members of the forum have a proclivity to post accusations and charges that they are unable to substantiate. Some of the things that they post could even be considered defamation of character, if the one so defamed were the kind of person to press charges. |
|
|
|
10/25/2005 12:58:40 PM · #448 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Sorry, gingerbaker, but without editing, I can't respond to the garbled response you made to my post ( garbled style blocks Originally posted by RonB:
Sorry - I still can't get the hang of this stuff.
Originally posted by RonB:
But I will respond to these two:Originally posted by RonB:
[quote=gingerbaker][quote=RonB][quote=gingerbaker]They happily give examples of prisoners given multiple beatings as being extremely painful, but clearly not torture(!?) |
I looked at the document again, very carefully, for even ONE example of what you charge here - and couldn't find a single one. Could you cut/paste examples of what you are charging here? |
No - please look again, for it is there. |
RonB -- In other words, NO, you cannot cut/paste a single example supporting your charge. |
================================================
I can not cut and paste it, RonB, because the source you provided is a pdf document, which does not allow cutting and pasting.
Howevr, I direct your attention to PAGE 9, paragraph 6.
It has an example of that the Bush administration uses in ITS argument to buttress it case that routine beatings do not amount to torture.
And the document is filled with examples like this. Why can you not see them?
Message edited by author 2005-10-25 13:03:52. |
|
|
|
10/25/2005 01:05:18 PM · #449 |
Originally posted by RonB:
â€Â¦if the one so defamed were the kind of person to press charges. |
*chortle* â€Â¦ ahem â€Â¦ sorry â€Â¦ thinly veiled threats regarding proposed legal action for defamation on an internet message board bring about involuntary spasms laughter in me. It might be genetic.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2005 01:21:49 PM · #450 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
You know what all this means, right?
It means that the Bush administration is trying to change the definition of torture to only the most extreme of extreme cases. |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
gingerbaker is correct, the administration has redefined torture more narrowly. And why has it done so? It has done so in order to allow U.S. government agents to engage in war crimes (acts that are war crimes under the prior definition of torture) and avoid legal accountability. This is at the heart of their redefinition exercise. |
Originally posted by RonB:
On the contrary. Just as "murder" ultimately had to be more narrowly defined as 1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc. to satisfy the demands of the public, so "torture" had to be more narrowly defined to answer charges that the administration was "hiding" under "nuances" of the more broad defiition. |
Your answer is such a load of bull! One is much better able to hide behind nuance when something is more nuanced, and something is more nuanced when it is sliced and diced into ever more narrowly defined pieces. But that's neither here nor there because your answer is a sly attempt to avoid the real issue. The Bush administration, with its new definition of torture, has essentially made allowable more acts of abuse than were allowed (legal) under the old definition. This fact you will not address, as likewise you sidestepped my second question because the moral code you ostensibly believe in doesn't square with your obvious support of terror/torture tactics.
You, sir, are one of the most disingenuous people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter.
Speaking of crafty liars (and this is totally off topic, but I just heard something I feel the need to rant about), Bush was giving a speech this morning about the so-called "war on terror" and he said that Russia didn't support the war in Iraq, but that their opposition to the war didn't spare them the wrath of the "terrorists," that the "terrorists" murdered 150 Russian schoolchildren in spite of the Russian stand on the Iraq war. Now, any informed person knows that it wasn't Al Queda that murdered those Russian schoolchildren but rather the Chechnya rebels. But Bush, as is his wont, cleverly linked the two groups and misled listeners to a false conclusion. This is but one small example of the way this administration lies and misleads, exploits people's fears, and counts on the general public being uninformed.
Congratulations, RonB, you're in good company.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 08:24:02 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 08:24:02 AM EDT.
|
