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 5)

sandy2

on Jan 11, 2005

Not even wiring a crank generator to the scrotum or nipples

It seems to me I saw pictures of people with various electrods coming off said body parts. Seems pretty a) grossly innapropriate, because if sexual harrasment is such a big problem for normal people then sexual abuse of prisoners should be outlawed. and

it seems pretty painfull to me.

Dr Guy

on Jan 11, 2005

it seems pretty painfull to me.

Seems to me I saw that same picture, with Hillary's hand on the switch!

Moderateman

on Jan 11, 2005

it seems pretty painfull to me.

not as painfull as having your head sawed off at the neck..... which the terroist do alla time.

Moderateman

on Jan 11, 2005

that avatar

whats an avatar?

Rightwinger

on Jan 11, 2005

whats an avatar?

Get out that famous dictionary of your'n.

a) grossly innapropriate, because if sexual harrasment is such a big problem for normal people then sexual abuse of prisoners should be outlawed. and

it seems pretty painfull to me.

It's been acknowledged that none of those wires were attached to anything.

Moderateman

on Jan 11, 2005

Reply #66 By: Rightwinger - 1/11/2005 8:54:56 PM
whats an avatar?

Get out that famous dictionary of your'n.

lol thanx for the definition. and the smile ya brought to dis ol mug o mine

drmiler

on Jan 11, 2005

Reply #66 By: Rightwinger - 1/11/2005 8:54:56 PM
whats an avatar?

Get out that famous dictionary of your'n.

Is that famous or "infamous"?

Solitair

on Jan 12, 2005

Sorry but we never ratified that section of the protocols

I'm well aware that the US never ratified the two additional protocols to the Geneva conventions, but they did sign them and never contested those signatures. Enough countries did ratify the accords to bring them into international law, and 25 years of accepted use throughout the world gives very strong legal precedence. For the US to argue that it can now treat 'enemy combatants' outside of the accepted norms of international society is both legally unsound (as recently proven by the US supreme court), morally wrong and diplomatically stupid. The fact that the US was the primary motivator in writing these protocols in the first place (primarily to cover special ops and spys) just worsens the situation. To try to treat any prisoner as inhuman (or beneath human right law) is morally bankrupt and not too surprising generates much hatred for the US around the world.

Paul.

drmiler

on Jan 12, 2005

Reply #69 By: Solitair - 1/12/2005 4:59:44 AM
Sorry but we never ratified that section of the protocols

I'm well aware that the US never ratified the two additional protocols to the Geneva conventions

Ain't no buts to it. No ratification, nonbinding. Signature or not. That's one of the major things about the protocols. And as you might be aware from previous posts from me, I could care less what the world thinks.

Deference

on Jan 12, 2005

You attempt to soften the blow of the tactics used by calling them "uncomfortable" and by removing them from the context of the situation ( by the way, 40 degree temperatures can create the onset of hypothermia, certainly uncomfortable and undoubtedly dangerous) . You also fail to mention all the tactics used that have been released via the media, cherry picking the most vanilla on the list - why? This would be unacceptable treatment for U.S. soldiers, would you not agree?

whoman69

on Jan 12, 2005

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.

It may not be torture in the classic sense, but at the very least its extortion to try to use sexual humiliation to force infomation from the prisoners. If they're not pows or civilians, what are they. Using that line of reasoning, any country could torture their rebels and have no problems. The US is to be held to a higher standard because we bear that responsibility. They have to be classified somehow and any classification that we give them does not mean that we can extort them by telling them we will tell their families of the shame they went thru.

Do you really want our allies to look at this country and say its not torture, just extortion and that's ok because they're not really pows?

Solitair

on Jan 12, 2005

Actually drmiler,
it's not legally as simple as that. As you are no doubt aware, the lack of ratification on a treaty does not automatically make it non binding. The signature alone, coupled with 25 years of tacit ascent to the protocols makes a legal case for a contractural ratification. You need to remember that the US has referred to the protocols as in force in numerous instances, especially when discussing treatment of it's spies. It has used the protocols in it's yearly human right reports. At no case has it ever suggested that it did not abide by then, despire having failed to actualyl ratify them. The fact that it has tactitly acknowledged the protocols and demanded that it's special forces and spies be treated by them makes a very strong case for them to be considered in effect. Even the US supreme court has used the aspects of the protocols in legal decisions.

Paul.

sandy2

on Jan 12, 2005

That is in fact not true. Ratification is just a clause that requires a number of countries to ratify it before it becomes binding on all countries who have signed the protocols.

Dr Guy

on Jan 12, 2005

That is in fact not true. Ratification is just a clause that requires a number of countries to ratify it before it becomes binding on all countries who have signed the protocols.

However, in this country, a President cannot enter into any type of treaty without the express consent of the senate. So if the Senate does not ratify it, it is not 'signed' by the US, only the man who signed it can be held accountable, not the nation. That is the Constitution, and it trumps all other laws, foreign or domestic.

sandy2

on Jan 12, 2005

Dr. Guy, that is flawd logic. The fact is, the president DID enter into the treaty whether he had senate aproval or not. He was not representing himself, he was representing the american people, and the United States, and therefore the United States is bound by its laws. The question then becomes was it legal for the president to sign it, but that also becomes void because the public, and congress knew about his actions, and since they did not question it at the time, he had congressional approval. Therefore, the congress, the american public and the president did bind the United States legally and wholy to the entire Geneva Conventions.

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!