Moderateman Moderateman

What is Torture?

▼

What is Torture?

from JoeUser Forums
2 entries found for torture.
To select an entry, click on it.
torture[1,noun]torture[2,transitive verb]

Main Entry: 1tor·ture
Pronunciation: 'tor-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquEre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drAhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : STRAINING

now please do not make me define anguish and agony cause I will........

again I say for the dense..

Making a room 95 degrees is not TORTURE.... its damn uncomfortable.

Playing loud music (90 decibels} is not Torture is just mind numbing

Making a room cold 40 degrees is not TORTURE... it is very uncomfortable.

Making someone stand in place is NOT TORTURE.

Putting a blindfold on someones head is not torture... its scarey period.

I am tired of the left twisting my words so the outcome is as they choose../

for the fainthearted I will now list some torture beware your bleeding heart might rupture.

Slamming slivers of bamboo on fire under your toenails is torture

Pulling your tongue out and cutting it off is torture.... saddam did this on a constant basis.

Cutting someone hands off in stages from the fingers upwards is torture... saddam also did this.

Gassing someone with chemical agents is torture saddam did this also

Cutting off someones ears is torture saddam also did this.


Can any of you bleeders name one instance in THIS WAR where we did anything approaching what I said is torture??

This is why I changed parties.... this is why bleeders make me nuts... they want to compare the horror of abu graves to torture.. its not torture is misguided and criminal for sure... but it does not reach what torture is..

If you look at entry 3 you {the bleeders} will see what YOU DO IS TORTUREOUS ...
politics
36,269 views 145 replies
Reply #76 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dr. Guy, that is flawd logic


No Sandy, that is the LAW! The President cannot enter into any treaty with out the advice and consent of the Senate. You are welcome to look it up, but you are wrong and I was not applying logic, just the facts.
Reply #77 from JoeUser Forums Top
No Sandy, that is the LAW! The President cannot enter into any treaty with out the advice and consent of the Senate. You are welcome to look it up, but you are wrong and I was not applying logic, just the facts.


You were applying the logic that he can't enter into the treaty without the consent of senate. Likewise, he can not go to war without the senates approval. These are rules, they are broken from time to time, yet the law only applys to what the president can do legally not what he WILL do. The fact is the President DID enter into the treaty. He DID enter the treaty. So maybe he broke the law, but its too late because he entered into the treaty.
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #78 from JoeUser Forums Top

You were applying the logic that he can't enter into the treaty without the consent of senate. Likewise, he can not go to war without the senates approval. These are rules, they are broken from time to time,


No, they are not broken, unless he wants to be impeached.  Breaking the constitution is an impeachable offense.  You are just plain wrong. The President CANNOT enter into a treaty without the advice and consent of the senate.  Why do you think the League of Nations failed?  Wilson signed it, the senate did not approve it.


You are just painting yourself into an untenable position that you cannot possibly win.

Reply #79 from JoeUser Forums Top
Isn't it great how the conservatives can take a few posts and joke around a little, but the libs feel obligated to keep pounding away? My oh, my, but aren't they serious, don'tcha know?
By the way: for those of you libs who can't find your dictionaries (whoman69 take note):

According to the Webster's Concise English Dictionary----

JOKE n: Something said or done to cause laughter. A jest.

That said, I'll move on.


( by the way, 40 degree temperatures can create the onset of hypothermia, certainly uncomfortable and undoubtedly dangerous)
----Deference

Yes, and gosh, but I...I feel so sad for them!.
No good, decent person enjoys seeing anyone put through torture. I still say, however, that they'd be giving us a helluva lot worse than cold rooms and loud music.
I also doubt they'd be giving any of us proper food and drink, a place to sleep, a chance to observe our own religious rites......clothing. Gimme me a break.
Two wrongs may not make a right, but when you look at it like that, is it really two wrongs? More like one wrong and one ehh.....not so completely right.


"The healthy man does not torture others.....generally, it is the tortured man who becomes the torturer."----Carl Jung

With thousands dead on 9/11 in the name of pretty much nothing but raw hate and religious intolerance, and more and more dying every day because of al-Quaida and its ties with other terror groups, I'd call us a pretty "tortured" people.
I don't feel sorry for them....I don't. Torture may go against my religious beliefs, and though that does cause somewhat of a dilemma for me, I just can't feel sorry for them.
Reply #80 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: DeferencePosted: Wednesday, January 12, 2005You attempt to soften the blow of the tactics used by calling them "uncomfortable" and by removing them from the context of the situation ( by the way, 40 degree temperatures can create the onset of hypothermia, certainly uncomfortable and undoubtedly dangerous) . You also fail to mention all the tactics used that have been released via the media, cherry picking the most vanilla on the list - why? This would be unacceptable treatment for U.S. soldiers, would you not agree?


Please do not get me started on what HAS been done to us military in times of war.....you do not wanna go there
Reply #81 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: whoman69Posted: Wednesday, January 12, 2005Maybe you should go look at who te Geneva Conventions cover. They cover enemy troops (prisoners of war) (those that wear an established uniforms) or civilians. Those we bare fighting and detaining are not considered POWS and are therefore not covered by the accords. They aren't considered civilians either if they were found bearing arms against US forces.It may not be torture in the classic sense, but at the very least its extortion to try to use sexual humiliation to force infomation from the prisoners. If they're not pows or civilians, what are they. Using that line of reasoning, any country could torture their rebels and have no problems. The US is to be held to a higher standard because we bear that responsibility. They have to be classified somehow and any classification that we give them does not mean that we can extort them by telling them we will tell their families of the shame they went thru.


Come on ,making them play dress up or down as the case is just doesnt reach the level of torture... come on
Reply #82 from JoeUser Forums Top
Please do not get me started on what HAS been done to us military in times of war.....you do not wanna go there


This is true.....but why not go there? A little perspective might be useful. Let's see what we can find. Links, anyone?
Reply #83 from JoeUser Forums Top
An excerpt from "Pure Torture", an article in Notre Dame magazine by Tom Moe:

 Though I will admit to some minor similarities, the conclusion would seem to be that US troops suffered much worse at the hands of their North Vietnamese captors than the al-Quaida terrorists do in theirs.
Reply #84 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: RightwingerPosted: Wednesday, January 12, 2005Please do not get me started on what HAS been done to us military in times of war.....you do not wanna go thereThis is true.....but why not go there? A little perspective might be useful. Let's see what we can find. Links, anyone?


I can't winger.. go there that is... it will kick up some real bad shit inside me...
Reply #85 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #70 By: Solitair - 1/12/2005 1:28:27 PM
Actually drmiler,
it's not legally as simple as that. As you are no doubt aware, the lack of ratification on a treaty does not automatically make it non binding. The signature alone, coupled with 25 years of tacit ascent to the protocols makes a legal case for a contractural ratification. You need to remember that the US has referred to the protocols as in force in numerous instances, especially when discussing treatment of it's spies. It has used the protocols in it's yearly human right reports. At no case has it ever suggested that it did not abide by then, despire having failed to actualyl ratify them. The fact that it has tactitly acknowledged the protocols and demanded that it's special forces and spies be treated by them makes a very strong case for them to be considered in effect. Even the US supreme court has used the aspects of the protocols in legal decisions.

Paul.


but when did terroist with no uniforms and fighting for no country fall in this catagory?
Reply #86 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: RightwingerPosted: Wednesday, January 12, 2005An excerpt from "Pure Torture", an article in Notre Dame magazine by Tom Moe:


geeezeeeeeeee...............I gotta say how resentfull I am right now..... while the left was bizy protesting vietnam my military brothers and sisters were being tortured, FOR REAL.... why no outcry from the left then?
Reply #87 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do you really want our allies to look at this country and say its not torture, just extortion and that's ok because they're not really pows?


dear whoman I have just spent 7 years in a dark cage imersed in fecal matter and urine, I am fed once a day, rotten rice and on a good day decayed fish. I am constantly being beaten. My wounds are becomming gangerous. but I cannot have any meds. because I am a war criminal according to my captors. I have seen many of my comrades give up and die... there bodies left there to rot. Rats are my companions and cockroaches the size of my fist... I was 225 pounds now I am 131 pounds. I cannot even stand straight in my cage and have to stoop or bendover. I cannot sleep because of the cries of many captives. When I do doze my dreams are filled with horrors. I wakeup screaming and see a smiling face shouting at me.

Now this is torture,

signed vietnam vets....

Now what do you say whoman69?
Reply #88 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #70 By: Solitair - 1/12/2005 1:28:27 PM
Actually drmiler,
it's not legally as simple as that. As you are no doubt aware, the lack of ratification on a treaty does not automatically make it non binding.


Actually it DOES! Go read up on the rules about the geneva accords. I went and found that particular reference about 3 months ago. You go find it this time.
.
You need to remember that the US has referred to the protocols as in force in numerous instances, especially when discussing treatment of it's spies


You need to remember that there are different sections to the accords. The one about spies is from 79 (signed AND ratified). The one you and I are discussing are from 77 (signed but NOT ratified). Different set.
Reply #89 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: ModeratemanPosted: Wednesday, January 12, 2005Do you really want our allies to look at this country and say its not torture, just extortion and that's ok because they're not really pows?dear whoman I have just spent 7 years in a dark cage imersed in fecal matter and urine, I am fed once a day, rotten rice and on a good day decayed fish. I am constantly being beaten. My wounds are becomming gangerous. but I cannot have any meds. because I am a war criminal according to my captors. I have seen many of my comrades give up and die... there bodies left there to rot. Rats are my companions and cockroaches the size of my fist... I was 225 pounds now I am 131 pounds. I cannot even stand straight in my cage and have to stoop or bendover. I cannot sleep because of the cries of many captives. When I do doze my dreams are filled with horrors. I wakeup screaming and see a smiling face shouting at me.Now this is torture,signed vietnam vets....Now what do you say whoman69?


He ain't gonna say spit.
Reply #90 from JoeUser Forums Top
Drmiler,
you are confusing legally binding within the US with legally binding in international courts nad laws. While the US may decide that it's presidents signature and 25 years of support may not constitute acceptance the rest of the world will not. Once treaties reach the required quorate then they become international treaties and are in force worldwide. Yes individual countries can ignore treaties on their own soil, but trying to wiggle out of international accepted behaviour on the excuse that the US did not actally ratify all the required treaties will not work with world opinion.

The bottom line is that there are international treaties giving the accepted norm for dealing with terrorists (which the US signed) and the US is flouting such treaties.

Paul.
Reply #91 from JoeUser Forums Top

you are confusing legally binding within the US with legally binding in international courts nad laws. While the US may decide that it's presidents signature and 25 years of support may not constitute acceptance the rest of the world will not. Once treaties reach the required quorate then they become international treaties and are in force worldwide. Yes individual countries can ignore treaties on their own soil, but trying to wiggle out of international accepted behaviour on the excuse that the US did not actally ratify all the required treaties will not work with world opinion.

No Paul, you are confusing the rule of law.  At this time, and as long as there is breath in my body, our laws will not be subjugated to any international law.  By your logic, we can now dictate to all other countries what their laws should be.  And that, I know, you oppose vehemently.

A country cannot be forced to obey laws that are counter to its own constitution.  That goes for every country.  Therefore, while the rest of the world can be held accountable to that part of the convention, the US cannot.  It never ratified it

Reply #92 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Thursday, January 13, 2005


A country cannot be forced to obey laws that are counter to its own constitution. That goes for every country. Therefore, while the rest of the world can be held accountable to that part of the convention, the US cannot. It never ratified it


of course that is what the left wants drmiler to have other countries acceptance thru allowing them to dictate to the united states what is right or wrong and to seek the approvel of the U.N. when we can go to war..
Reply #93 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #90 By: Solitair - 1/13/2005 7:41:54 AM
Drmiler,
you are confusing legally binding within the US with legally binding in international courts nad laws. While the US may decide that it's presidents signature and 25 years of support may not constitute acceptance the rest of the world will not. Once treaties reach the required quorate then they become international treaties and are in force worldwide. Yes individual countries can ignore treaties on their own soil, but trying to wiggle out of international accepted behaviour on the excuse that the US did not actally ratify all the required treaties will not work with world opinion.

The bottom line is that there are international treaties giving the accepted norm for dealing with terrorists (which the US signed) and the US is flouting such treaties.

Paul.


Like I was inferring to before, *you* don't know what your talking about. Here....read....


According to the Red Cross/Red Crescent, the U.S. has signed each of these international agreements. However, a signature does not bind a nation to the treaty unless the document has also been ratified by that nation (in the U.S., Congress ratifies such treaties). Generally, these treaties are open for signature for a limited time period after they're written. The U.S. ratified all the Geneva Conventions with the exception of the two protocols of 1977.


This quote is from the *Red Cross* which in case you don't know are the ones who initiated the accords. Which in case you don't know, the protocols from 77 are the ones we're talking about. Get all your facts straight first before you speak. I told you that I had already done *my* homework. You just didn't feel the need to confirm what I said with any research of your own.
Reply #94 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, the US has a happy history of carefully avoiding being part of treaties that might conceivably limit its ability to act. After all, who cares about some arbitrary Rights of the Child, or laws regarding enemy combatants, or rulings of world courts? That's what the sword is for, not the scales.
Reply #95 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #94 By: cactoblasta - 1/13/2005 7:30:57 PM
Yes, the US has a happy history of carefully avoiding being part of treaties that might conceivably limit its ability to act. After all, who cares about some arbitrary Rights of the Child, or laws regarding enemy combatants, or rulings of world courts? That's what the sword is for, not the scales.


you really HATE the united States ..... How come?
Reply #96 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #94 By: cactoblasta - 1/13/2005 7:30:57 PM
Yes, the US has a happy history of carefully avoiding being part of treaties that might conceivably limit its ability to act. After all, who cares about some arbitrary Rights of the Child, or laws regarding enemy combatants, or rulings of world courts? That's what the sword is for, not the scales.


This post shows your ignorance. Since you didn't take the time to read the provided material either.....The US has signed AND ratified ALL but the 77 accords. So stick that in your pipe and puff on it.
Reply #97 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: drmilerPosted: Thursday, January 13, 2005Reply By: ModeratemanPosted: Wednesday, January 12, 2005Do you really want our allies to look at this country and say its not torture, just extortion and that's ok because they're not really pows?dear whoman I have just spent 7 years in a dark cage imersed in fecal matter and urine, I am fed once a day, rotten rice and on a good day decayed fish. I am constantly being beaten. My wounds are becomming gangerous. but I cannot have any meds. because I am a war criminal according to my captors. I have seen many of my comrades give up and die... there bodies left there to rot. Rats are my companions and cockroaches the size of my fist... I was 225 pounds now I am 131 pounds. I cannot even stand straight in my cage and have to stoop or bendover. I cannot sleep because of the cries of many captives. When I do doze my dreams are filled with horrors. I wakeup screaming and see a smiling face shouting at me.Now this is torture,signed vietnam vets....Now what do you say whoman69?He ain't gonna say spit.


funny how that works is'nt it? The rail and cry alla time, but when confronted with what WAS very real.... they stfu..
Reply #98 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: drmilerPosted: Thursday, January 13, 2005


So stick that in your pipe and puff on it.


ohhhhhhhh drmiler, resorting to the stick it OFFENSE..... lmao..........
Reply #99 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yes, the US has a happy history of carefully avoiding being part of treaties that might conceivably limit its ability to act. After all, who cares about some arbitrary Rights of the Child, or laws regarding enemy combatants, or rulings of world courts? That's what the sword is for, not the scales.


No, unlike most of the nations on earth, we have laws.  Absolute laws.  Some would call them bad.  Some (perhaps many as they have been tried to be duplicated since we came up with them) would call them good.


In the end, bad or good, you have to live by laws.  you do not like them? Then change them, dont break them.

Reply #100 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Thursday, January 13, 2005Yes, the US has a happy history of carefully avoiding being part of treaties that might conceivably limit its ability to act. After all, who cares about some arbitrary Rights of the Child, or laws regarding enemy combatants, or rulings of world courts? That's what the sword is for, not the scales.No, unlike most of the nations on earth, we have laws. Absolute laws. Some would call them bad. Some (perhaps many as they have been tried to be duplicated since we came up with them) would call them good.In the end, bad or good, you have to live by laws. you do not like them? Then change them, dont break them.


yikes dr guy..... talking sense to "them" again... I salute you and your never giving up on trying to reason with the unreasonable