Forcing someone to remain in one position is corporal punishment, like push-ups, or calesthenics, or spanking. There are many places where corporal punishment is not allowed and most places err on the side of caution and do not allow corporal punishment.

let me tell you a little sumthin sumthin about torture.....

salad bar.....fresh romaine.....nicely shredded carrots...thinly sliced onions...
marinated mushrooms...ya..its all good..throw on some croutons..and then it happens
right next to the croutons(where they are always supposed to be) an empty container
where the BACON BITS should be!!!!

left right or center my friend....it hurts my soul.

Reply #39 By: Solitair - 1/10/2005 9:37:28 AM I love your use of a dictionary definition of the word torture. Interesting attempt to deflect critism from the real issue. Why is torture wrong? Because the US has signed legal documents forbidding it's use. What documents? The Geneva Convention. What does it actually say? To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: ( a ) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; and furthermore, No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever Now, you may be willing to spend days arguing about whether terrorists are covered (this is dealt with under the special protocols to the Geneva convention) but the fact remains that whatever you define totrute as doesn't matter. Your list (for the dense) is all illegal under the Geneva convention. Paul.

Maybe 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.

Solitair, excellent points all around.

We're in trouble, the righties have gotten the dictionary out again. I don't want my government using torture or extortion to gain information. We are the United States of America and we hold our nation to a higher standard. I don't know what's so hard to understand there.

Yes, and who wants such annoying things as proper word definitions used, correct?

Let's play it hypothetically, and look at it this way: let's say that any information obtained through torture is disallowed by law, and is therefore unable to be used or disseminated through official channels to the general public.
Now, one of the things a torture victim in question (could have) related was that 5,000 lbs. of explosives was going to be used to blow up the stadium during the Super Bowl.
Since torture was unable to be used, however, this information isn't obtained and/or isn't properly acted upon, and thousands upon thousands are murdered when the bomb explodes, collapsing part of the stadium.
Would you feel bad, knowing that, even though your opinion carried the day, thousands died anyway?

Drmiler,
as commented in my original post the protocols to the Geneva convension (put together in 1978) were written to deal with this whole issue of stateless wars and terrorists. They were in fact put in place after the experience of Vietnam. They give very clear definitions of how any enemy combatants should be treated. I've posted these in a separate article a long while back so will just link to that rather than repost.

Link

Basically the result of these protocols is that people cannot fall between the legal cracks.

Paul.

Would you feel bad, knowing that, even though your opinion carried the day, thousands died anyway?

Would I feel bad that they died, yes, but torture is not acceptable. Anyways, you would be more likley to get the information from the person from bribing them with special treatment or better detainment or something or lesser charges for helping. Enemy combatants must be tried. And convicted. Period. So they would like better treatment and if they have information, then they, like inmates, will reveal information to get it. I would rather live knowing 1000 people died yet also knowing we will never torture anyone no matter what they do, and knowing that there are geneva conventions to protect our own soldiers and people by other countries.

Maybe 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.

JUST ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT SEEMS TO SLIP BY THE BLEEDING HEARTS

Reply #51 By: Rightwinger - 1/11/2005 5:25:32 AM We're in trouble, the righties have gotten the dictionary out again. I don't want my government using torture or extortion to gain information. We are the United States of America and we hold our nation to a higher standard. I don't know what's so hard to understand there.

FUNNY i GET TRASHED BECAUSE OF BAD SPELLING AND GRAMMAR.... THEN WHEN i USE A DICTIONARY i GET RIDACULED..

Reply #53 By: sandy2 - 1/11/2005 1:40:00 PM Would you feel bad, knowing that, even though your opinion carried the day, thousands died anyway? Would I feel bad that they died, yes, but torture is not acceptable. Anyways, you would be more likley to get the information from the person from bribing them with special treatment or better detainment or something or lesser charges for helping. Enemy combatants must be tried. And convicted. Period. So they would like better treatment and if they have information, then they, like inmates, will reveal information to get it. I would rather live knowing 1000 people died yet also knowing we will never torture anyone no matter what they do, and knowing that there are geneva conventions to protect our own soldiers and people by other countries.

Just a simple question sandy... when has anybody we ahve wared with paid attention to the geneva conv. when it was our people being held prisoner?

Reply #52 By: Solitair - 1/11/2005 6:55:10 AM Drmiler, as commented in my original post the protocols to the Geneva convension (put together in 1978)

Sorry but we never ratified that section of the protocols. We did sign them but without ratification we do not have to follow them. Scoll to bottom of page in the link.



Link

Reply #57 By: drmiler - 1/11/2005 2:09:58 PM Reply #52 By: Solitair - 1/11/2005 6:55:10 AM Drmiler, as commented in my original post the protocols to the Geneva convension (put together in 1978) Sorry but we never ratified that section of the protocols. We did sign them but without ratification we do not have to follow them. Scoll to bottom of page in the link. Link

there ya go again drmiler trying to reason with the bleeders....

Reply #51 By: Rightwinger - 1/11/2005 5:25:32 AM We're in trouble, the righties have gotten the dictionary out again. I don't want my government using torture or extortion to gain information. We are the United States of America and we hold our nation to a higher standard. I don't know what's so hard to understand there.

Just wanted to make sure you're laying blame at the right door here, Mod....this was a quote I took from #12, by Whoman69 (big surprise), that avatar of liberal sarcasm and bad humor. ----RW

Anyways, you would be more likley to get the information from the person from bribing them with special treatment or better detainment or something or lesser charges for helping. [/quote)---Sandy2

I see your point, but I have to ask a question; how much is the reward for information leading to the capture of bin Laden up to now? We've been offering that since 2001, and it's gotten us exactly nowhere. Offering them money, "better conditions" and/or "lesser charges" wouldn't work. They don't have due process, so they perhaps wouldn't understand plea bargaining, and wouldn't have expected things like that back home, anyway, so they're not prepared to accept them from us. And besides, what "better conditions" could they ask for? They're fed regularly, clothed, given beds to sleep on and medical treatment as needed, allowed their regular time to pray. This is, quite probably, much better than they had it when they were free, out there trying to kill innocent people in the name of a bloodthirsty god.
Besides, these aren't gangbangin' thugs from the 'hood. They don't put the same emphasis on material comforts as Westerners.

How reliable would the info collected under torture be? Who knows? That's why we have intelligence experts review the data and decide.

Allow me to point out once more Modman's point that we're not talking about medieval torture here; no excessive pain; no rack, no bamboo shoots under fingernails. Not even wiring a crank generator to the scrotum or nipples. We're talking varying degrees of discomfort, not pain. There's a big difference between the two.

Reply #59 By: Rightwinger - 1/11/2005 4:12:19 PM

Just wanted to make sure you're laying blame at the right door here, Mod....this was a quote I took from #12, by Whoman69 (big surprise), that avatar of liberal sarcasm and bad humor. ----RW

got cha!! { knew this btw}