What is Torture?

Published on January 9, 2005 By Moderateman In Politics

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 ...

Comments (Page 10)

136

Solitair

on Jan 15, 2005

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.

137

Moderateman

on Jan 15, 2005

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...

138

drmiler

on Jan 15, 2005

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?

139

drmiler

on Jan 15, 2005

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?

140

Solitair

on Jan 16, 2005

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.

141

drmiler

on Jan 16, 2005

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

142

Solitair

on Jan 17, 2005

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.

143

kingbee

on Jan 17, 2005

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.

144

Moderateman

on Jan 18, 2005

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...

145

drmiler

on Jan 18, 2005

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

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!