Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 11/04/05 11:05 am:

Hello again,

In posing my question, I wondered how many would deny my premise that we torture. I guess there are still some. To me, the evidence is overwhelming that we do, and not just a few rogues either As proof, I don’t need to look any farther than the conversation of the Bush administration. I don’t hear ANY talk about human rights. Indeed, the conversation I hear, is about how can we get out of our commitment to the Geneva Convention and how can we avoid the Constitution.

I know why they’re doing that. Don’t you?

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 11/04/05 11:32 am:
>>>So, I gather that you agree that this war too, is a mistake, the wrong war and is based on a lie.

Otherwise, why would you say, as you apparently are, that since JFK lied, it's ok for Bush?<<<<

Uh... no... I think that Vietnam was the right move. It slowed the progress of Communism, and as a result, Communism never reached the Philipines. It would have been nice if the war had been fought correctly and we could have kept South Vietnam from being subsumed by North Vietnam. But the goal was correct. So I supported Vietnam for the same reason that I support Iraq... to fight a threat against the USA on foreign soil.

I was just questioning YOUR reasoning for being against the war in Iraq, but supporting JFK on Vietnam.

>>>In order to excuse Bush, you constantly point out how others have done the same thing or worse. That stuff doesn't work with me.<<<

That's not what I was doing. I was attacking YOUR logic. And the argument still stands. You count JFK to be your favorite president, despite the fact that, by YOUR logic, it was a war based on a lie that became a quagmire and caused the deaths of 58,000 Americans and 4 million Vietnamese civilians. How do you justify JFK as your "favorite" under those conditions, which are no different, according to your logic, from the conditions of the war in Iraq, for which you so hate Bush?

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 11/04/05 11:41 am:
I also noticed that you didn't answer DRGADE's question. What is torture? How does it differ legal methods of interrogation? Where do you draw the line?

Your statement that the question sounds like something a torturer would ask doesn't cut the mustard. Trying to make everyone who asks what you mean by torture out to be evil doesn't answer the basic question.

So, what is torture? How do YOU define it? Please give specifics of what is and what is not allowed when interrogating terrorists and illegal combatants. Because I have no idea what torture means to you, and clearly others on this board have the same question.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 11/04/05 11:43 am:

Hello again, Elliot:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question, or are you chicken???

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 11/04/05 11:47 am:
Your question:

>>>Do you think I should change my views - or my country?<<<

Either one is fine with me. Which country are you planning on changing to?

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 11/04/05 11:48 am:


Hello Elliot, and the rest of you who are in denial:

TO ASK WHAT TORTURE IS, IS AN EXCUSE TO TORTURE.

It's an excuse to break fingers, if breaking fingers isn't listed in the definition of torture. It's an excuse to chain someone to a cold floor, if cold floors aren't listed. It's an excuse to poke someone’s eyes out, if poking someone’s eyes out isn't listed.

We've talked about lists before. What I've told you regarding why our founders didn't list our rights, is because someone would say, well THIS right isn't listed... Just like you have a penchant to do.

It's the same reason why torture cannot be defined to your satisfaction. To list what is torture, would excuse every other inhumane act not included in the definition (listed).

It's like I said to gade, if you were treated inhumanely, you’d know it. Plus, if we can’t determine what torture is, then how have we avoided doing it up till now? You’re perplexed? You can’t define it?

Fortunately for the last 250 or so years, we’ve had people in charge of this country who DID know what torture is.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 11/04/05 1:33 pm:
>>>TO ASK WHAT TORTURE IS, IS AN EXCUSE TO TORTURE.

It's an excuse to break fingers, if breaking fingers isn't listed in the definition of torture. It's an excuse to chain someone to a cold floor, if cold floors aren't listed. It's an excuse to poke someone’s eyes out, if poking someone’s eyes out isn't listed. <<<

Bull$h!t. It's an attempt to make sure that we are using the same language.

Does feeding a prisoner only rice for a week constitute torture?

Does making him wear the same pair of underwear for a week constitute torture?

Does letting him only shower on sundays constitute torture?

Does not giving him soda instead of water constitute torture?

Does giving him only cold food constitute tortuer?

Does lumps in his oatmeal constitute torture?

Does giving him Anacin instead of Beyer for a headache constitute torture?

Does giving him nothing for his headache constitute torture?

Does making him wear burlap instead of cotton constitute torture?

Does a lumpy mattress constitute torture?

Does not giving him any mattress constitute torture?

Does forcing him to wear womens' clothing constitute torture?

Does not letting him wear any clothes constitute torture?

Does calling him names constitute torture?

Does forcing him to stand still for long periods of time constitute torture?

Does tying him up for long periods of time constitute torture?

Does making him eat pork (if he's Muslim) constitute torture?

Does not letting him eat constitute torture?

Does sleep deprivation constitute torture?

Does pulling hair constitute torture?

Does breaking fingers constitute torture?

Does burning him with hot irons constitute torture?

Does cutting off body parts constitute torture?

Does asphixiation constitute torture?

Does the use of drugs (the so-called "truth serums") constitute torture?

You see, I went from the cases that are obviously NOT turture to the ones that obviously ARE torture. But there are a few in my list above that are "grey areas". I want you to define the grey areas, so that we will be talking the same language. Until we are using the same terminology, any discussion of "torture" as a nebulous concept is a waste of time. So if you are so against torture, then explain to me what it is you are against? Are you against anything that causes pain? Anything that causes great discomfort? Anything that causes minor discomfort? Anything that causes embarrassment? Where do you draw your line?

>>>Fortunately for the last 250 or so years, we’ve had people in charge of this country who DID know what torture is. <<<

Do you really believe that George Washington and his men never used harsh methods to interrogate POWs? Do you think that the Union and Confederate generals never used harsh methods? Out military and our intelligence agencies have been using harsh interrogation methods since our inception. Yes, they used out and out torture. That's what intelligence people do to get information that keeps us safe so that we can have open conversations about whether torture by intelligence people is right or not.

And this isn't an argument of "they were worse". It's simply a response to your rediculous statement.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 11/04/05 1:58 pm:

Hello all:

So, there it is. You guy's think that we've always tortured our prisoners, so what else is new? And, because we've always done it, it's ok??

Uhhh,,,,, no it isn't! Let me say it again, no it isn't!

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 11/04/05 2:46 pm:

Hello Elliot:

So, you can't quite figure out how to treat your prisoners. A proper standard eludes you. Let me get this straight, you're the party of "values", but THIS standard - how to treat another human being - escapes you.

You know that two men shouldn't sleep together, but you're not sure about whether one should hit the other. And, you're the party of "values"? Right.

You want a standard. How about you don't do anything to them that you wouldn't do to your grandma?

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 11/07/05 7:53 am:
>>>A proper standard eludes you. <<<

My standards are the ones set forth in the Geneva Conventions. Since the conventions do not apply to illegal combatants, there are no standards for "standard treatment". You wish to set a standard. Fine. Stop dancing around the subject and tell me what your standards are.

>>>You know that two men shouldn't sleep together,<<<

Yep. I've got a written standard on that one: Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a male as you would with a woman, since this is a disgusting perversion." That one's simple enough.

>>>but you're not sure about whether one should hit the other.<<<

You have now clearly stated that "hitting" should be prohibitted. Fine. No hitting allowed. Anything else?

>>>How about you don't do anything to them that you wouldn't do to your grandma? <<<

My Grandma has Alzheimers. We don't let her go out by herself. We don't give her the same freedoms that people without disease would have. And we do not give her anything she asks for, because what she asks for is unreasonable. We force her to take her medications, and we have someone who ostensibly guards her and curtails her freedoms. Ergo, we do not treat her as we would a normal person. If that is the standard you wish to apply, then fine. From now on, we will treat illegal-combatants the same way we treat my grandmother: we'll force them to wear diapers, force feed them when necessary, give them pharmaceuticals they don't wish to take, and not allow them the freedoms of normal people. Now we're getting somewhere. That sounds like a fine standard to me.

Besides, that is hardly the standard set by the Geneva Conventions. The "grandmother" standard is pretty unreasonable. What use would there be for any POWs, legal or illegal combatants, if not to interrogate them to obtain information. Under than unreasonable standard, it wouldn't pay to take ANY prisoners. So let's just stop taking them, and kill every enemy combatant, whether they surrender or not. Keeping them alive would be an unreasonable and unneccesary burden if there was no payoff in information. The standard you are trying to set actually works against the civilized treatment of prisoners.

Let me try taking this from another point of view: what methods of interrogation would you allow for the recalcitrant illegal-combatant prisoner? If you refuse to tell me what you believe is inappropriate, then tell m,e what you believe is appropriate.

Excon, you are dancing around the issue and refusing to answer the question, and it is NOT an unreasonable question. You know that your argument would be weakened if you actually had to set a standard, so you avoid setting one. Fine, that is your perrogative. But if you refuse to ennunciate what you feel is wrong, then you have nobody but yourself to blame if people do things that you feel are inappropriate. If you set a standard that you feel is reasonable and people disagree with it, then you have something to talk about. But by not setting such a standard, there's nothing to talk about.

Elliot