Tom,
Maybe dressing in womens clothes and standing around naked is part of your culture, but it is not part of Arab culture, to them it is cruel, inhuman, and degrading, and that is how you define what is torture and what is not.
The USA has behaved criminally in these matters. Bush's Law is not God's law, not even close to it.
It is evident from what you have written on the subject that you have not experienced any of the forms of abuse and torture yourself, so your opinion can hardly to be taken seriously.
Clarification/Follow-up by purplewings on 10/12/05 9:23 pm:
Ronnie,
Do you never tire of criticizing the USA? Have you ever found a 'right' that we have done? Your statement is just silly.
We all know what torture means. It certainly does not mean being naked or dressing in women's clothing. That may be embarrassing but no way is it torture. Get a clue. This is war. A rat in a pillow case tied around a mans head is torture. That I would fight against. I say let em go naked and let em dress in women's clothes. Big damn deal!!!!
Do you actually live in this country? And WHY?
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 10/13/05 3:59 am:
Ron ;I can honestly answer that I would not strap bombs on my body and murder children in a pizza parlor; I would not drive a car loaded with explosives and detonate it next to a crowd who's only fault is that they are on line looking for work ; nor would I be part of a group that would do so. If harsh interrogation prevents even one of these incidents then I do not see the moral problem . Our Senators passed this bill without having the testicular fortitude to define what they are outlawing .
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 10/13/05 7:45 am:
Ronnie,
So you've migrated over to the politics board I see. No, if some foreign occupying power was to take my wife, kids, parents, I would not be ok with degrading them. They were probably working in the garden, watching TV, attending church or otherwise minding their business as opposed to being captured on the battle field with grenade launcher in hand.
Steve
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 10/17/05 6:50 am:
Excon,
>>>You know what pornography is (and so do I), and I know what torture is (and so do you).<<<
Oh really?
Does torture include pain? Or is it any experience that is mildly humiliating? Does torture include deprivation of rights? Does torture include deprivation of luxuries? Do verbal insults constitute torture? Does forcing a person to put a pair of underwear on his head constitute torture? Or is torture limited to causing pain for the purpose of illiciting a response to interrogation? I don't know, and neither do you?
I know that what Special Forces soldiers go through during BUDS training constitutes torture, and if they were forced to go through it under any other environment than training, the people perpetrating it would be subject to the full rigors of the Geneva Convention. THis has been admitted to by the "powers that be" and attested to by the SpecForce guys themselves.
What the capured terrorists (and let's not forget that that is what they are) have gone through doesn't even begin to approach that level. Humiliation? Yes. Deprivation? Maybe (though based on the menu at Abu Ghraib, I would tend to doubt it). Torture? Not by my definition. I didn't see any blood in the pictures taken with Lynndie Englund or any of the other pictures I saw. I didn't see any burn marks, major bruises, knife cuts, or anything else that would indicate torture. I saw captured terrorist being forced to endure humiliation and privation, but nothing that amounts to torture.
Your definition of torture is clearly different than mine.
As for your pornography argument, I have ALWAYS argued against the government being involved in censorship. I have always argued that WE, not the government, are responsible for our actions. I personally thing that the "you know it when you see it" argument is terrible legal logic. And while I have always been in favor of ratings for informational purposes, I have always been against government censorship. I think that PARENTS, not government are the ones who should be making decisions regarding what their kids watch, play, read, etc. Your argument may apply to some other conservatives here, but they do not apply to me.
See this old discussion between the two of us for more on my perspective vis-a-vis government intervention and regulation.
http://answerway.com/viewans.php?category=163&ansid=67337&quesid=19485&ret=rate
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 10/17/05 9:17 am:
Hello again, El:
Cool! I got it. You don't know what torture is. You're in great company, too. Bill Clinton doesn't know what sex is either.
Most people, however, who are not blinded by partisanship, know what torture is. They know what porn is, and some of ‘em even know what sex is.
excon
PS: You again, use Al Quaida as the standard by which we should measure our own behavior. You suggest that our behavior is acceptable as long as we’re not as bad as “them”. I reject that assertion outright. They cut people’s heads off. Using your logic, I guess it’s ok if we only cut off an arm?
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 10/17/05 10:11 am:
>>>You again, use Al Quaida as the standard by which we should measure our own behavior. You suggest that our behavior is acceptable as long as we’re not as bad as “them”.<<<
NO!!! I suggest that as long as we are fighting people who are as bad as "them", and who don't follow the rules of war, we aren't going beat them by playing by nice guy rules. That sort of thinking (that we need to be "better" than the enemy and hold ourselves to a higher moral standard) is what got us so screwed up in Vietnam. You've riled about how terrible Vietnam was, and that you believe that Iraq is another Vietnam, but you are perpetuating the philosophy that caused Vietnam in the first place... the idea that we have to be the nice guys while the enemy ignores the standard rules of war.
Elliot
