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 7)

Dr Guy

on Jan 13, 2005

you are confusing legally binding within the US with legally binding in international courts nad laws. While the US may decide that it's presidents signature and 25 years of support may not constitute acceptance the rest of the world will not. Once treaties reach the required quorate then they become international treaties and are in force worldwide. Yes individual countries can ignore treaties on their own soil, but trying to wiggle out of international accepted behaviour on the excuse that the US did not actally ratify all the required treaties will not work with world opinion.

No Paul, you are confusing the rule of law. At this time, and as long as there is breath in my body, our laws will not be subjugated to any international law. By your logic, we can now dictate to all other countries what their laws should be. And that, I know, you oppose vehemently.

A country cannot be forced to obey laws that are counter to its own constitution. That goes for every country. Therefore, while the rest of the world can be held accountable to that part of the convention, the US cannot. It never ratified it

Moderateman

on Jan 13, 2005

Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Thursday, January 13, 2005

of course that is what the left wants drmiler to have other countries acceptance thru allowing them to dictate to the united states what is right or wrong and to seek the approvel of the U.N. when we can go to war..

drmiler

on Jan 13, 2005

Reply #90 By: Solitair - 1/13/2005 7:41:54 AM
Drmiler,
you are confusing legally binding within the US with legally binding in international courts nad laws. While the US may decide that it's presidents signature and 25 years of support may not constitute acceptance the rest of the world will not. Once treaties reach the required quorate then they become international treaties and are in force worldwide. Yes individual countries can ignore treaties on their own soil, but trying to wiggle out of international accepted behaviour on the excuse that the US did not actally ratify all the required treaties will not work with world opinion.

The bottom line is that there are international treaties giving the accepted norm for dealing with terrorists (which the US signed) and the US is flouting such treaties.

Paul.

Like I was inferring to before, *you* don't know what your talking about. Here....read....

According to the Red Cross/Red Crescent, the U.S. has signed each of these international agreements. However, a signature does not bind a nation to the treaty unless the document has also been ratified by that nation (in the U.S., Congress ratifies such treaties). Generally, these treaties are open for signature for a limited time period after they're written. The U.S. ratified all the Geneva Conventions with the exception of the two protocols of 1977.

This quote is from the *Red Cross* which in case you don't know are the ones who initiated the accords. Which in case you don't know, the protocols from 77 are the ones we're talking about. Get all your facts straight first before you speak. I told you that I had already done *my* homework. You just didn't feel the need to confirm what I said with any research of your own.

cactoblasta

on Jan 13, 2005

Yes, the US has a happy history of carefully avoiding being part of treaties that might conceivably limit its ability to act. After all, who cares about some arbitrary Rights of the Child, or laws regarding enemy combatants, or rulings of world courts? That's what the sword is for, not the scales.

Moderateman

on Jan 13, 2005

Reply #94 By: cactoblasta - 1/13/2005 7:30:57 PM
Yes, the US has a happy history of carefully avoiding being part of treaties that might conceivably limit its ability to act. After all, who cares about some arbitrary Rights of the Child, or laws regarding enemy combatants, or rulings of world courts? That's what the sword is for, not the scales.

you really HATE the united States ..... How come?

drmiler

on Jan 13, 2005

This post shows your ignorance. Since you didn't take the time to read the provided material either.....The US has signed AND ratified ALL but the 77 accords. So stick that in your pipe and puff on it.

Moderateman

on Jan 13, 2005

Reply By: drmilerPosted: Thursday, January 13, 2005Reply By: ModeratemanPosted: Wednesday, January 12, 2005Do 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?dear whoman I have just spent 7 years in a dark cage imersed in fecal matter and urine, I am fed once a day, rotten rice and on a good day decayed fish. I am constantly being beaten. My wounds are becomming gangerous. but I cannot have any meds. because I am a war criminal according to my captors. I have seen many of my comrades give up and die... there bodies left there to rot. Rats are my companions and cockroaches the size of my fist... I was 225 pounds now I am 131 pounds. I cannot even stand straight in my cage and have to stoop or bendover. I cannot sleep because of the cries of many captives. When I do doze my dreams are filled with horrors. I wakeup screaming and see a smiling face shouting at me.Now this is torture,signed vietnam vets....Now what do you say whoman69?He ain't gonna say spit.

funny how that works is'nt it? The rail and cry alla time, but when confronted with what WAS very real.... they stfu..

Moderateman

on Jan 13, 2005

Reply By: drmilerPosted: Thursday, January 13, 2005

So stick that in your pipe and puff on it.

ohhhhhhhh drmiler, resorting to the stick it OFFENSE..... lmao..........

Dr Guy

on Jan 13, 2005

In the end, bad or good, you have to live by laws. you do not like them? Then change them, dont break them.

100

Moderateman

on Jan 13, 2005

Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Thursday, January 13, 2005Yes, the US has a happy history of carefully avoiding being part of treaties that might conceivably limit its ability to act. After all, who cares about some arbitrary Rights of the Child, or laws regarding enemy combatants, or rulings of world courts? That's what the sword is for, not the scales.No, unlike most of the nations on earth, we have laws. Absolute laws. Some would call them bad. Some (perhaps many as they have been tried to be duplicated since we came up with them) would call them good.In the end, bad or good, you have to live by laws. you do not like them? Then change them, dont break them.

yikes dr guy..... talking sense to "them" again... I salute you and your never giving up on trying to reason with the unreasonable

101

cactoblasta

on Jan 13, 2005

The US does have a history of avoiding international obligations through either refusing to ratify treaties or through withdrawing from them completely. I don't see how you can contend this. 20th century history is littered with the relics of this kind of thing. The US is nearly always instrumental in drafting new international treaties, yet it is extremely reluctant to sign them. When it does so, there's always a way out, as happened in the '80s when the Nicaraguan government won a case against the US in the world court and the US simply withdrew from the treaty the court was based on. It's simply political reality, and I don't see any reason to deny that reality to save face.

No, unlike most of the nations on earth, we have laws. Absolute laws. Some would call them bad. Some (perhaps many as they have been tried to be duplicated since we came up with them) would call them good.

In the end, bad or good, you have to live by laws. you do not like them? Then change them, dont break them.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make about this. Do you mean that nations shouldn't have to change their internal laws to better reflect international requirements? Do you mean that US law should only be changed by internal courts? Or that only legislators should change laws? I meant that the US was a 'playa' on the global scene, not that there should be no laws or that US law is entirely inadequate (even though it has serious weaknesses regarding copyright and frivolous lawsuits).

Can you please explain to me, the hard of thinking, exactly what you mean with this?

102

Rightwinger

on Jan 13, 2005

post deleted

103

drmiler

on Jan 14, 2005

Reply #101 By: cactoblasta - 1/13/2005 9:08:49 PM
The US does have a history of avoiding international obligations through either refusing to ratify treaties or through withdrawing from them completely. I don't see how you can contend this. 20th century history is littered with the relics of this kind of thing. The US is nearly always instrumental in drafting new international treaties, yet it is extremely reluctant to sign them. When it does so, there's always a way out, as happened in the '80s when the Nicaraguan government won a case against the US in the world court and the US simply withdrew from the treaty the court was based on. It's simply political reality, and I don't see any reason to deny that reality to save face.

No, unlike most of the nations on earth, we have laws. Absolute laws. Some would call them bad. Some (perhaps many as they have been tried to be duplicated since we came up with them) would call them good.

In the end, bad or good, you have to live by laws. you do not like them? Then change them, dont break them.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make about this. Do you mean that nations shouldn't have to change their internal laws to better reflect international requirements? Do you mean that US law should only be changed by internal courts? Or that only legislators should change laws? I meant that the US was a 'playa' on the global scene, not that there should be no laws or that US law is entirely inadequate (even though it has serious weaknesses regarding copyright and frivolous lawsuits).

Can you please explain to me, the hard of thinking, exactly what you mean with this?

Go back and reread post #96.

Do you mean that nations shouldn't have to change their internal laws to better reflect international requirements?

No they should not have to. Because then that lets *other* people dictate american laws, and that's BS.

104

cactoblasta

on Jan 14, 2005

Go back and reread post #96

Unfortunately this sheds no light either. So what if the US has ratified every single treaty it's signed save the 77 accords? It's still dropped out of them or refused to join up to others to avoid political difficulties. I suppose I shall have to live in ignorance of the hidden truth.

No they should not have to. Because then that lets *other* people dictate american laws, and that's BS.

I was hoping to figure out the intent of the post with this, not make a statement about how things should be. But surely if the US signs and ratifies a treaty it has a responsibility to make that treaty a part of its legislation? Or is that misguided rather than logical?

105

Moderateman

on Jan 14, 2005

Reply #102 By: Rightwinger - 1/13/2005 11:09:35 PM
post deleted

what? and why? huh! explain
please

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!