1
   

Ture torture

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 12:27 pm
Is Cyclops accusing someone of lying again?

I'll alert the media.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 12:29 pm
Lol, you go right ahead and do that.

You know as well as I that when the politicos make flat statements like 'the US does not torture,' it simply isn't true; there are verifiable cases of us doing exactly that. That's known as a 'lie' even though a lawyer such as yourself could never admit that.

So take your insinuations elsewhere.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 12:36 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
... and I certainly didn't belong to a frat when I was in law school.


I had you pegged as a P.D.P. I'm a P.A.D. man myself.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 01:03 pm
Isn't praticing torture at any level allowing the US to be lowered to the level of Iraq? It the fact that Iraq practiced torture commonly and without any cause, reason to make its practice allowable in the US?

Does anyone think that damages our sense of honor and what this country stands for?

I love the US.

I would rather be tortured here than in Iraq.

Does that mean that the the practice of torture by the US, which is characterized as a little less torture that is a little less harmful, a little less evil?

Have our values dropped so low?

Finally, what kind of harm or injury does anyone here consider allowable for the US to use on suspected terrorists?
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 01:07 pm
Thank you, Diane.

No one argues here that Saddam wasn't a thug. But the US is supposed to be ciivilized and a model to the world. The fact that we're even having this discussion shows how bad things have gotten.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 01:15 pm
D'art. that is what saddens me most about the last few years of this administration.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 01:21 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
I do think that some here think that Saddam's actions excuse torture by US personnel and allies.

Are you one such, Tico?


Of course not. But the point is when the leftists refer to the "stress position" techniques used by the US as "torture," they trivialize the word and essentially equate what the US does with what Saddam did.

Consequently, if you ask me whether I condone the "torture" being done by "US personnel and allies," we must define the word, as joe has pointed out. The leftists have used the term to include fairly innocuous interrogation techniques.

I've asked several times, and Nimh has expanded, whether certain techniques constitute "torture." But so far, no one has given a response.

Ticomaya wrote:

DD wrote:
I already know that McGentrix is.


You must have missed it when McG said:

McGentrix wrote:
There is no doubt that there has been some degree of torture done by American and coalition troops and I in no way condone or excuse it.



As Cyclops would say: Sheesh.

I didn't miss it, I simply discounted it as meaningless. According to his own statement, McG believes the word "torture" cannot be used in a meaningful debate.


___________________________________________________________

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary wrote:

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

Main Entry: 2torture
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): tor·tured; tor·tur·ing /'torch-ri[ng], 'tor-ch&-/
1 : to cause intense suffering to : TORMENT
2 : to punish or coerce by inflicting excruciating pain
3 : to twist or wrench out of shape : DISTORT, WARP
synonym see AFFLICT

I definitely think McG's argument fits number three.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 01:36 pm
DrewDad wrote:
I've asked several times, and Nimh has expanded, whether certain techniques constitute "torture." But so far, no one has given a response.

Of course, I'm not surprised at the lack of a response, given that the US Attorney General is reluctant to define "torture."
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 01:46 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
But the point is when the leftists refer to the "stress position" techniques used by the US as "torture," they trivialize the word and essentially equate what the US does with what Saddam did.

Yes, sheesh, how can people compare "stress positions" to torture.

Actually, wait a minute - what is a stress position, anyway? What is currently justified as non-torture in the US under the label "stress position"? Here we are:

Quote:
Authorized techniques also may have included the "Palestinian hanging," a "stress position" in which a detainee is suspended from the ceiling or wall by his wrists, which are handcuffed behind his back.

Ah. Having your wrists handcuffed behind your back, then chained up to the ceiling so you hang from them. How trivialising of misguided leftists to call such a thing "torture". I mean, how much harm can such a thing do?

Quote:
It was this enhancement that preceded the death of Manadel Jamadi, an Iraqi who died in CIA custody at Abu Ghraib in November 2003, according to government investigative reports. When Jamadi was lowered to the ground, blood gushed from his mouth as if "a faucet had turned on," said Tony Diaz, an MP who witnessed his torture. Later, other guards posed with Jamadi's battered corpse, and the leaked photos shocked the world.

Ah. Well, still, obviously such "stress positions" are nothing quite like "real torture", in Tico's book.

To find out what such a thing as a "stress position" feels like, one need not look far. Actually, right at this moment I'm reading George Paloczi-Horvath's memoirs, progressing slowly because the bit I'm at now, where he recounts his time in the Stalinist prisons of Hungarian dictator Rakosi, are a bit tough to get through. I keep feeling nauseous. But let me quote the "stress positions" that were used back in the fifties:

Quote:
And at nights the most horrid concerto conceivable began. For the least little offense, convicts were sentenced to "short-iron". [..] They manacle one's right ankle to one's left wrist and vice versa. Then they fasten one to an iron bar [..]. Elderly people suffer incurable injuries at once. Most people faint instantly. [..] After fifteen minutes the whole body, above all the feet and hands, is completely numbed. Even a touch is horribly painful. [..] Each night on the ground floor five or six or more victims were lined up. We only heard the commands. Then one by one a curious scream. A scream full of surprise. "Can things hurt so unbearably?"

I'll spare you the rest of that page...
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 02:01 pm
McGentrix wrote:
No, I am not. I am suggesting that the liberal use of the word "torture" has become meaningless as they appear to have no real understanding of the definition anymore.


Rice said yesterday (and repeated it today) that America's obligations under the International Convention Against Torture "are interpreted and enforced by U.S. law and by our Justice Department."

This means, we are talking about the very same, I suppose, but obviously outside the USA people are more whiny-hearted.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 02:06 pm
Quote:
"We are not going to torture, period," said Gonzales....

...

Gonzales added, somewhat discordantly, that although he could not share the particulars of the administration's secret definition of torture, everyone in the federal government was already thoroughly aware of those details.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/the-white-houses-torture_b_11743.html
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 02:12 pm
Results of an AP poll released Tuesday revealed that around two-thirds of people living in Canada, Mexico, South Korea and Spain, where the CIA is said to be conducting secret investigations, said they would oppose allowing the US to secretly interrogate terror suspects [poll results] in their countries, with a similar number in Britain, France, Germany and Italy noting the same.
Almost two-thirds in the United States support such interrogations in the U.S. by their own government.


Poll Shows Divide on Question of Torture
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 02:25 pm
nimh: You have failed to understand my point. Willfully, I believe.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 03:02 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Results of an AP poll released Tuesday revealed that around two-thirds of people living in Canada, Mexico, South Korea and Spain, where the CIA is said to be conducting secret investigations, said they would oppose allowing the US to secretly interrogate terror suspects [poll results] in their countries, with a similar number in Britain, France, Germany and Italy noting the same.
Almost two-thirds in the United States support such interrogations in the U.S. by their own government.


Poll Shows Divide on Question of Torture


Those results seem reasonable. I would expect similiar results in the US if the question was framed to suggest, say British Intelligence secretly interrogating terror suspects on American soil.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 03:07 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
nimh: You have failed to understand my point. Willfully, I believe.


The lefties will never understand your point.

When it is suggested the US tortures, the facts suggest as small number of suspects being subjected to various degrees of "torture". Some we would laugh at and some that may be actual torture.

Yet, the lefties agenda is to paint with the broadest brush possible to do everything and anything to disrupt the execution of this war.

Too bad GW is not bold enough to tell the opposition where to go and take a more aggressive approach to the tactics of this war.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 03:29 pm
Nimh understood your point, Tico. Did you understand his?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 03:51 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Nimh understood your point, Tico. Did you understand his?


I understood that he misunderstood my point. That was his point.

If he understood my point, he did a poor job of explaining it.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 03:54 pm
joe: You've become a "major award."

http://www.able2know.com/forums/images/avatars/16059680844395daeb2981f.jpg
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 04:07 pm
What I love about these discussions is that on the outside chance anyone was swayed by someone's else's argument ("Golly, maybe I've been wrong all this time!"), would he or she ever admit it here?

That I'd like to see!
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 05:54 pm
Hey, I think I deciphered the hidden message in McG's post.

He's finding similarities between George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein!

People were tortured under Saddam's regime.

People were tortured under Bush's administration.


I never realized how much McG hates George Bush....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Ture torture
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/06/2024 at 10:09:13