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 #126 from JoeUser Forums Top
quote]then if the united states are viewed as such monsters

where did this come from? Did you see me claim the US is viewed as monsters? You are the one argueing that you should be allowed to practice torture on people because you see it as torture light. No one is saying the US is not a great country, just that it has serious problems in regard to human right abuse. The two are not mutually exclusive.

paul.
Reply #127 from JoeUser Forums Top
Drmiler,
lets look at one of the Human right treaties the US has actually ratified. The 1984 "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment".


Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.



Torture is illegal. The US has ratified treaties which makes it so. No amount of excuses changes this fact.

Paul.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #128 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #127 By: Solitair - 1/14/2005 2:34:42 PM
Drmiler,
lets look at one of the Human right treaties the US has actually ratified. The 1984 "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment".


Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.




Torture is illegal. The US has ratified treaties which makes it so. No amount of excuses changes this fact.

Paul.


Yeah lets do. Your opinion or theirs?
Reply #129 from JoeUser Forums Top
what? and why? huh! explain
please


Screwed up and posted the right answer on the wrong thread, or vice-versa. Forgot where I was for a minute.
Duh. Sorry, my bad.
Reply #130 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: RightwingerPosted: Friday, January 14, 2005what? and why? huh! explain pleaseScrewed up and posted the right answer on the wrong thread, or vice-versa. Forgot where I was for a minute. Duh. Sorry, my bad.


ok I get it now.... be at peace
Reply #131 from JoeUser Forums Top
orture is illegal. The US has ratified treaties which makes it so. No amount of excuses changes this fact.


and there it is........... the point of my post was......... IS IT TORTURE IN THE FIRST PLACE... REREAD THE POST..
Reply #132 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: SolitairPosted: Friday, January 14, 2005quote]then if the united states are viewed as such monsterswhere did this come from? Did you see me claim the US is viewed as monsters? You are the one argueing that you should be allowed to practice torture on people because you see it as torture light. No one is saying the US is not a great country, just that it has serious problems in regard to human right abuse. The two are not mutually exclusive.


NOOOOOOOOOOOO I dont see any of what I posted as TORTURE period....
Reply #133 from JoeUser Forums Top
ok then.. but I must ask this then. WHAT IF the terrorist blew up sydney..... I mean the whole city or let loose a biological weapon, what would you have you gov do ?


My government would largely be dead, so there's not a lot they could do really. The prevailing winds would send any fallout over Canberra so the capital would be lost as well. But what's the point of asking this question? There's no real advantage in striking Australia. Going for the US is a lot easier because their officials are more easily bribed and the ramifications of the attack would be far greater. Terrorists aren't stupid you know.
Reply #134 from JoeUser Forums Top
By the way, drmiler - if you're still interested in that information about the US and its approach to international treaties, all I need is some rough guidelines for the info you need and can check and I'll put it together for you. For this one time only I won't even charge a penny! You won't hear that from an occasional RA very often.
Reply #135 from JoeUser Forums Top
Moderateman,
look at article 1 of my post #127. It defines what is considered torture and have been agreed and ratified by the US. Most of the items you listed will inflict mental or physical suffering and hence are defined as torture. They don't have to inflict pain, just suffering. There are always those that will try to argue as to what is an acceptable level of suffering, but the fact is that it's wrong.
You may not like the fact that these acts are torture, but they are and so the US cannot practice them.

Paul.
Reply #136 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah lets do. Your opinion or theirs?


Sorry Drmiler, I don't understand you comment so can't respond. I'm assuming you're asking who defines what is an acceptable level of pain or suffering. That's a very dangerous and slippery road to follow. It's like trying to determine what's an acceptable level of corruption or crime. You'll notice that the 'Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment' which the ratified convention uses, clarifies your question further with the definition 'Torture constitutes an aggravated and deliberate form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'.

Paul.
Reply #137 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #134 By: cactoblasta - 1/15/2005 9:39:19 AM
By the way, drmiler - if you're still interested in that information about the US and its approach to international treaties, all I need is some rough guidelines for the info you need and can check and I'll put it together for you. For this one time only I won't even charge a penny! You won't hear that from an occasional RA very often.


grat ducking an answere cacto now try again...
Reply #138 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #136 By: Solitair - 1/15/2005 10:08:01 AM
Yeah lets do. Your opinion or theirs?


Sorry Drmiler, I don't understand you comment so can't respond. I'm assuming you're asking who defines what is an acceptable level of pain or suffering. That's a very dangerous and slippery road to follow. It's like trying to determine what's an acceptable level of corruption or crime. You'll notice that the 'Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment' which the ratified convention uses, clarifies your question further with the definition 'Torture constitutes an aggravated and deliberate form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'.

Paul.


You said you wanted to discuss the Human right treaties the US has actually ratified. I said okay. What I was talking about is the rest of your post tying into the first. Did you want to use their opinion or theirs?
Reply #139 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #136 By: Solitair - 1/15/2005 10:08:01 AM
Sorry Drmiler, I don't understand you comment so can't respond. I'm assuming you're asking who defines what is an acceptable level of pain or suffering. That's a very dangerous and slippery road to follow.


If you can't define what is an acceptable level of pain/suffering. Then *how* can you define what constitutes torture?
Reply #140 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's where you rely on acceptable norms of society.

This is where the US does need to does need to remember that it is part of a wider world. When the US was founded slavery was considered the acceptable norm in parts. The US fought a civil war because these acceptable norms changed. Likewise definitions of torture are not as important as the acceptable norm, and the acceptable norm says that the list Moderateman makes in this article is suffering and hence illegal by treaties signed and ratified by the US.

Paul.
Reply #141 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #140 By: Solitair - 1/16/2005 3:30:37 PM
That's where you rely on acceptable norms of society.

This is where the US does need to does need to remember that it is part of a wider world. When the US was founded slavery was considered the acceptable norm in parts. The US fought a civil war because these acceptable norms changed. Likewise definitions of torture are not as important as the acceptable norm, and the acceptable norm says that the list Moderateman makes in this article is suffering and hence illegal by treaties signed and ratified by the US.

Paul.


You missed the point entirely! If you can *define* one, then you can define the other
Reply #142 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you can *define* one, then you can define the ot


But you can't define pain and suffering. Even on a purely physical or physiological level the same applied stimulus will have different effects on different people. The act of trying to apply an acceptale level of torture is itself wrong. The concept of applying as much suffering as possible short of running foul of human right treaties is a morally bankrupt approach. It's akin to letting petty crooks out of prison to make way for murderers. Where do you stop, let the small theives out, the fraudsters, the bankrobbers, the child molesters, the man slaughters? All is wrong.

The only acceptable level is not to be applying anything that can be construed as torture in the first place.

Paul.
Reply #143 from JoeUser Forums Top

yall do realize the fact that--in addition to the provisions of the GPW--all americans abroad who commit war crimes (defined as a 'grave breach' of the geneva accords) are subject to federal prosecution under usc 18, 1, 118 §2441 otherwise known as the war crimes act?

gonzales and his associates anticipated members of the military or intelligence agencies would likely be prosecuted for doing what the president intended them to do.  that's why they put so much time and effort into devising possible defenses in advance. 

i must be loonie because i believe any candidate for the position of attorney general should be experienced in finding ways to enforce--rather than evade--the laws of this country.

if the president prefers a 'mouthpiece' to an ethical lawyer, id suggest he need look no further than bruce cutler--john gotti's former attorney--since he demonstrated time and again his skill at doing what gonzales et all ultimately attempted and failed to achieve when the matters were finally brought into court.

Reply #144 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: kingbeePosted: Monday, January 17, 2005yall do realize the fact that--in addition to the provisions of the GPW--all americans abroad who commit war crimes (defined as a 'grave breach' of the geneva accords) are subject to federal prosecution under usc 18, 1, 118 §2441 otherwise known as the war crimes act?gonzales and his associates anticipated members of the military or intelligence agencies would likely be prosecuted for doing what the president intended them to do. that's why they put so much time and effort into devising possible defenses in advance. i must be loonie because i believe any candidate for the position of attorney general should be experienced in finding ways to enforce--rather than evade--the laws of this country.if the president prefers a 'mouthpiece' to an ethical lawyer, id suggest he need look no further than bruce cutler--john gotti's former attorney--since he demonstrated time and again his skill at doing what gonzales et all ultimately attempted and failed to achieve when the matters were finally brought into court.


again i say....... is what we are doing really torture kingbee? and yes anyone that commits an act of torture should be condemed and dealt with harshly...
Reply #145 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #143 By: kingbee - 1/17/2005 5:49:56 AM
gonzales and his associates anticipated members of the military or intelligence agencies would likely be prosecuted for doing what the president intended them to do. that's why they put so much time and effort into devising possible defenses in advance.


This is getting old. Just what is Gonzales going to be prosecuted for? He did nothing wrong. If your refering to his *supposed* advocation of torture in the memo on Jan 25th then you need to go reread the memo. He himself did not form any opinion. All he did was inform Bush that the DOJ had formed an OPINION. And that the *DOJ had said* that the detainees were not POW's.
Here is an excerpt from the memo and a link to the original. Show me by using the memo what he's done wrong.


On January 18, I advised you that the DOJ had issued a formal legal opinion concluding that the GPW does not apply to the conflict with Al Queda. I also advised you that DOJ's opinion there are reasonable grounds for you to conclude that GPW does not apply with respect to the Taliban.I understand that you decided that GPW does not apply and accordingly, that Taliban and Al Queda detainees are not POW's under the GPW
The Sec of State has requested that you reconsider that decision. Specifically he has asked that you conclude that GPW does apply to both Taliban and Al Queda. I understand however, that he would agree that Taliban and Al Queda fighters could be determined not to be POW's but only on a case by case basis following individual hearings by a military board.


Link