Who do you believe?

old europe wrote:

woiyo wrote:

Being put in a locked cell 24/7 could be percieved as SEVERE PSYCHOLOGICAL PAIN by the one locked in it.

Lame attempt by the Bushwackers to re-define the English language.

torture
n 1: extreme mental distress [syn: anguish, torment]
2: unbearable physical pain [syn: torment]
3: intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical
pain; "an agony of doubt"; "the torments of the damned"
[syn: agony, torment]
4: the act of distorting something so it seems to mean
something it was not intended to mean [syn: distortion,
overrefinement, straining, twisting]
5: the act of torturing someone; "it required unnatural
torturing to extract a confession" [syn: torturing]
v 1: torment emotionally or mentally [syn: torment, excruciate,
rack]
2: subject to torture [syn: excruciate, torment]

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)


So, woiyo, if you state that something could be perceived as severe psychological pain, and Webster's Dictionary lists "acute mental pain" as torture, then, I think, it's not re-defining the English language to state that this amounts to being torture.

Sure it is since you have not defined what "severe" or even "acute" is. These are relative terms that mean different things to different people or situations.

Reading some of your posts could be defined severe torture.

The president's approval rating seems to be slipping in the forums too. A decline in rabid defending, although several going-down-with-the-ship blind loyalists remain.

"Someone give him a blow job so we can impeach him."

woiyo wrote:

old europe wrote:

woiyo wrote:

Being put in a locked cell 24/7 could be percieved as SEVERE PSYCHOLOGICAL PAIN by the one locked in it.

Lame attempt by the Bushwackers to re-define the English language.

torture
n 1: extreme mental distress [syn: anguish, torment]
2: unbearable physical pain [syn: torment]
3: intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical
pain; "an agony of doubt"; "the torments of the damned"
[syn: agony, torment]
4: the act of distorting something so it seems to mean
something it was not intended to mean [syn: distortion,
overrefinement, straining, twisting]
5: the act of torturing someone; "it required unnatural
torturing to extract a confession" [syn: torturing]
v 1: torment emotionally or mentally [syn: torment, excruciate,
rack]
2: subject to torture [syn: excruciate, torment]

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)


So, woiyo, if you state that something could be perceived as severe psychological pain, and Webster's Dictionary lists "acute mental pain" as torture, then, I think, it's not re-defining the English language to state that this amounts to being torture.

Sure it is since you have not defined what "severe" or even "acute" is. These are relative terms that mean different things to different people or situations.

Reading some of your posts could be defined severe torture.

LOL Talk about brainless posts.

Oh what rapier wit, is that the best you can do? LOL

twin_peaks_nikki wrote:

Oh what rapier wit, is that the best you can do? LOL

You're not worth the effort.

DrewDad wrote:

woiyo wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Shall I do a Google image search on Abu Ghraib and post the rest of the pictures? This is a family site, after all.




For the record, however, are you (McG and woiyo) asserting that Bush spoke the truth?

Spoke the truth about what? Be specific.

Let's start witht the quote at the beginning of the thread and move on from there.

That is our policy and so far, I see very little that deviates from this policy. Those few, who have used torture, have been identified and action has been taken.

All the while begging the question, why oppose the Senate bill forbidding it if you don't do it? Why try to get an exemption for the CIA?

.....We like problems to have easy solutions in America, just as we like stories to have neat, happy endings. The show illustrated to me some of the wishful thinking, mythmaking and confusion that surround the difficult issues of torture, coercion and prisoner abuse which our nation seems incapable of thinking about coherently. Sen. John McCain has tacked a provision on the annual defense budget that would ban cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment for anyone in American custody. Having been terribly abused himself as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, Sen. McCain is a national hero, and brings a heavy load of moral authority to the table. His measure has passed the Senate, but faces trouble in the House, and a likely veto if it ever reaches the White House.

I don't understand why. The provision offers nothing new or even controversial. Cruel treatment of prisoners is already banned. It is prohibited by military law and by America's international agreements. American citizens are protected by the Constitution. I see no harm in reiterating our national revulsion for it, and maybe adding even a redundant layer of legal verbiage will help redress the damage done to our country by pictures from Abu Ghraib and reports of widespread prisoner abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan. One thing it will not do, sadly, is stop the abuse of prisoners.

The story line of "Commander in Chief" portrayed a classic "ticking bomb" scenario, where a captive refuses to divulge urgent, life-saving information. Such instances do happen, but they are rare. The national debate over torture and prisoner abuse is about something different: the tendency of soldiers in a combat zone to mistreat enemy prisoners. This latter issue was brought to a head by the photographs from Abu Ghraib, depicting the grotesque treatment of Iraqi prisoners, and by reports of more severe abuses at prison camps there and in Afghanistan.

One of the myths of the American soldier is that he never mistreats a captured enemy. If our enemy dead had voices, a multitude would testify to having been summarily shot, tortured or otherwise abused in every war Americans ever fought. Some of the worst examples took place when Americans fought each other -- almost 13,000 Union prisoners died of malnutrition, disease and exposure at Andersonville Prison in Sumter County, Ga. As a race, we are no worse, or better, than anyone else.

Where there are prisons there is prisoner abuse, and where there are prisons in a war zone, whether makeshift ones in the field or the established ones like Abu Ghraib, such behavior is commonplace. Abuse should be considered the default position whenever one group of men is placed under complete supervision by another.

Laws and rules are vitally important, but enforcing them requires good soldiers and strict, vigilant leadership. Even in an ideal situation, say, in a civilian prison in peacetime that is well-funded and well-run, and where the guards and prisoners share the same language and culture, abuse can at best be minimized.

War is the exact opposite of an ideal situation.

Reading some of your posts could be defined severe torture.

Stepp - you might find this article dealing with the thorny issue of torture interesting. It's written by Mark Bowden (the author of Black Hawk Down).

I'm posting just a part of it, but you can read the entire thought-provoking column at the link.

In the vast majority of such cases, there is no justification whatsoever for breaking the rules. Apart from moral considerations, there are practical ones. In a world of digital cameras, the Internet and global telecommunications, abuses will be reported and broadcast with graphic illustrations, and deservedly or not they will color the entire war effort.

Abu Ghraib has hurt the American mission in Iraq more than any insurgent bombing or beheading. So it is terribly important that we not accept mistreatment as inevitable, and we should do everything in our power as a nation to make sure that those who break the rules are appropriately disciplined. Congress ought to pass Sen. McCain's provision and the president ought to make a great public show out of signing it.

JustWonders wrote:

Stepp - you might find this article dealing with the thorny issue of torture interesting. It's written by Mark Bowden (the author of Black Hawk Down).

I'm posting just a part of it, but you can read the entire thought-provoking column at the link.

JW, interesting article indeed.

I wonder if people would agree with what Bowden says here:

Quote:

In the vast majority of such cases, there is no justification whatsoever for breaking the rules. Apart from moral considerations, there are practical ones. In a world of digital cameras, the Internet and global telecommunications, abuses will be reported and broadcast with graphic illustrations, and deservedly or not they will color the entire war effort.

Abu Ghraib has hurt the American mission in Iraq more than any insurgent bombing or beheading. So it is terribly important that we not accept mistreatment as inevitable, and we should do everything in our power as a nation to make sure that those who break the rules are appropriately disciplined. Congress ought to pass Sen. McCain's provision and the president ought to make a great public show out of signing it.