Bush Accepts McCain's Ban on Torture

HKRockChick · No More Peas! Joined: 25 Nov 2003 Posts: 1513

news.yahoo.com/fc/us/terrorism

WASHINGTON - President Bush embraced Sen. John McCain's proposal to ban cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of terrorism suspects on Thursday, reversing months of opposition that included White House veto threats. Bowing to pressure from the Republican-run Congress and abroad, the White House signed off on the proposal after a fight that pitted the president against members of his own party and threatened to further tarnish a U.S. image already soiled by the abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

**********

DT, still think torture is a good idea? Now Bush has accepted it, that should change your mind, what?

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

HKRC - "DT, still think torture is a good idea?"

Never said I thought it was. It all goes back to how you choose to define "torture".

Melody and Instruments for the soul...

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

What's this? I thought "Bush would block any bill launched by McCain" and "McCain only did this to get Bush in a tight spot".

Hmm, now that Bush approves, will we then see a pro-torture bill from McCain?

Is it possible that DT is Walking Eagle?

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

You must have missed the part where they practically had to hold a shotgun to Bush to get it through, Galmin. *Sigh* Selective vision at its best...or is that worst.

Melody and Instruments for the soul...

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Shotgun? The guy's the Pres'dent, he can VETO anything he want. Selective vision? Probably. At your end. :excite

HKRockChick · No More Peas! Joined: 25 Nov 2003 Posts: 1513

Quote:
Never said I thought it was. It all goes back to how you choose to define "torture".

Oh?? We have a choice? There are different definitions???? Is this like American English Vs English English?

What else can I "choose" to define in the English language?

:bigeyes

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

Deb...go read the definition, and post your definition of choice here for all to see.

I might consider being forced to listen to RAP torture. My point is that it's subjective. So unless you define it (at least for purposes of a discussion), you're going to be all over the map as far as what people consider "torture". Obviously some things would be, while other things won't be...but there's a rather large grey area in the middle. The media regularly takes advantage of this one. Not giving a prisoner a pair of nail clippers when they have a hang-nail might be considered "torture" by the media just so they can print "US Tortures Prisoners!" in the headlines. (Just making a point...I don't honestly think they'd go that far. But then again, they are the media...?)

Without a working definition, further discussion along lines of "torture" is problematic.

HKRockChick · No More Peas! Joined: 25 Nov 2003 Posts: 1513

Quote:
Without a working definition, further discussion along lines of "torture" is problematic.

Classic DT cop out. I give thanks every day that you are not in the business of making public policy that affects me. Unfortunately there are others of your ilk who are.

Seems to me that McCain has defined it quite nicely, don't you think?

For example, nobody forces you to listen to rap, and even if you did it would not be cruel or degrading (except in your own little mind... HA). But when you are subjected to cruel and degrading treatment in captivity, what would you call that?

And your comparison of the nail clippers to physical and mental abuse is nothing short of asinine.

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

Deb - LOL! You don't want to discuss it, I see. As you wish...but mewonders why post it on a message board if you don't want to discuss it?

What is torture for some is not for others. Period. And unless the definition (for discussion purposes) is nailed down, there will always be a tendancy for some people to deviate from the generally accepted norm for the purposes of making their point...as opposed to purposes of finding the truth.

BTW, who are you to say being forced to listen to RAP is not torture for some? I must have missed your coronation or some such thing. What might bother me might not bother you...and visa versa. I've read where the media was harping on how Iraqi prisoners were subjected to Metallica at loud volumes...obviously they felt that was torture, or they wouldn't have mentioned it in the article about how the Iraqi prisoners were being treated badly. N'est pas?

HKRockChick · No More Peas! Joined: 25 Nov 2003 Posts: 1513

Who FORCED you to listen to rap? Did they bind and gag you and sit you there and play rap? You live in a free country dontcha? The people who are being tortured are FORCED - they are incarcerated, and tied up. Comprendez vous??

I am discussing it. Read my previous post. YOU wont discuss it, you came back with exactly the same argument.

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Quote:
What is torture for some is not for others. Period.

Then again there is torture for some that is torture for all. Let's call it universal torture. Using pliers and red hot iron, pulling nails out, drilling holes, waterboarding, stretch-racking, iron maiden (no, not the group, silly), fake executions, rape or other forms of sexual assault, etc.

In fact, Ronald Reagan singed "the Convention Against Torture" in 1988. There you have your definition so you can stop hound Debbie about it.

Quote:
Torture is explicitly prohibited by a number of international human rights instruments, and particularly by the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, (the Convention Against Torture). President Reagan signed the Convention on Torture in 1988 and President Clinton ratified it in 1994. As binding legal authority on the U.S., the Convention Against Torture is applicable not only to the federal government, but also is supreme over state law.

According to the Convention, the main elements of torture are

a. acts which intentionally inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering;

b. or an illicit purpose;

c. committed, consented, or acquiesced to by a public official;

d. not arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Rap? You are being silly, DT.

HKRockChick · No More Peas! Joined: 25 Nov 2003 Posts: 1513

What is torture for some is not for others.

I bet if someone pulled out your toenails one by one, you'd scream as much as the detainees. I bet if someone peed on you or made you crawl on the floor naked you'd have as much to say about it as the detainees. Or wouldn't you? Maybe some people actually LIKE being incarcerated, physically abused and degraded, is that what you're saying??? Maybe the CIA guys, as they cruise down the street, point to a guy on the road and say "say, that guy looks like he'd LIKE to be hurt and degraded, let's make his day, what?" Is that what you're saying?

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

HKRC - "YOU wont discuss it, you came back with exactly the same argument."

I'm not making an argument, Deb. I'm requesting you define your terms.

Galmin - "There you have your definition so you can stop hound Debbie about it."

Only if we all agree to this definition, and to its suitability for purposes of the discussion. I'll go along with The Convention definition...but will note that we'd still have to agree with what does and does not constitute "severe" mental or physical pain or suffering.

Galmin - Rap? You are being silly, DT."

I only used RAP as an example to make my point...however, I truly can't stand it. It is the media that were being silly when they labelled being forced to listen to some kind of music as torture for purposes of the hype generated along their agenda lines.

HKRockChick · No More Peas! Joined: 25 Nov 2003 Posts: 1513

Quote:
but will note that we'd still have to agree with what does and does not constitute "severe" mental or physical pain or suffering.

Who has to agree, the torturers or the tortured??? With each other or as separate groups?

You think the torturers would still be doing it if they thought it was all fun and games for the tortured?

Your arguments are always so much hot air - I think you argue for the sake of arguing. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because it's really too mind boggling to think that you geniunely think the way you do. :ohno

Edited by: HKRockChick at: 12/20/05 4:23

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

Deb - It's easier to understand when you understand that the goal is mutual understanding...NOT to convince somebody else of the validity of your own point of view, or communicate how stupid you might think they are.

The problem in communication here seems to be that you have already decided for us all what constitutes torture, and are therefor not willing (or are not able) to discuss possible differences of opinion on the matter. If we were to discuss the subject of this thread further, we might be speaking about the same incident that you would consider to be torture and I wouldn't...or the other way around. Agree to a definition ahead of time, and we avoid the miscommunication...unless you are just looking for an argument.