CIA Releases Documents Fmr. Vice President Cheney Requested Be Made Public

ib1yysguy said:
22vlazna.jpg
Click to expand...

do you think making a guy stand on a box with a hood over his head is torture?....would it be better if they made him stand on a chair?......
 
uscitizen said:
So you think nothing wrong was done at Abu Grabass?
Click to expand...

you're the one that chose the picture illustrating what you felt was wrong at Abu Graib.....as I recall, the media didn't even get involved there until after charges had been brought against the people who did what was wrong at Abu Graib....
but wait a sec.....I find it amazing that I am debating in a vacuum.....I ask all these questions and nobody ever answers them......does anyone else find that strange......perhaps it was a problem with my hearing....I will try again....

do you think making a guy stand on a box with a hood over his head is torture?....would it be better if they made him stand on a chair?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
do you think making a guy stand on a box with a hood over his head is torture?....would it be better if they made him stand on a chair?......
Click to expand...

It would depend on the situation. How long do they make him stand on the box? What else is going on in the meantime? How high does he think he is?
 
WinterBorn said:
It would depend on the situation. How long do they make him stand on the box? What else is going on in the meantime? How high does he think he is?
Click to expand...

no it doesn't...it depends on whether they intended to harm him or not....scaring the everloving crap out of someone isn't torture.....harming him is.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no it doesn't...it depends on whether they intended to harm him or not....scaring the everloving crap out of someone isn't torture.....harming him is.....
Click to expand...

That is your definition. The problem is that its not the defintion that the US agreed to and signed conventions to uphold.

We (The USA) signed and ratified an agreement with the following definition of torture:

"1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."


Whether the other side or the enemy follows these rules or not is beside the point. We signed this agreement and we should abide by it.
 
WinterBorn said:
That is your definition. The problem is that its not the defintion that the US agreed to and signed conventions to uphold.

We (The USA) signed and ratified an agreement with the following definition of torture:

"1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."


Whether the other side or the enemy follows these rules or not is beside the point. We signed this agreement and we should abide by it.
Click to expand...

exactly... and that very precise definition of torture is the supreme law of the land.
 
WinterBorn said:
That is your definition. The problem is that its not the defintion that the US agreed to and signed conventions to uphold.

We (The USA) signed and ratified an agreement with the following definition of torture:

"1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."


Whether the other side or the enemy follows these rules or not is beside the point. We signed this agreement and we should abide by it.
Click to expand...

only an idiot would think making someone stand on a box with a bag over his head is the affliction of "severe pain or suffering".....my definition of "harming" is even more restrictive than the one you cite.....
 
Why is it so hard for some people to just call this for what it is?

America stands for something in the world, like it or not. We do hold ourselves to a higher standard, as we should.

Images like this, and techniques like waterboarding, are well beneath what we as Americans should accept or condone. Period.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
only an idiot would think making someone stand on a box with a bag over his head is the affliction of "severe pain or suffering".....my definition of "harming" is even more restrictive than the one you cite.....
Click to expand...

If it were "just making someone stand on a box" it wouldn't be torture. And it also wouldn't be used to get someone to give up information.

Making someone stand on a box for 30 hours would be torture. Having someone stand on a box for that long while making them think they are 50 feet off the ground would be torture.

And are those wires coming off his arms?
 
WinterBorn said:
If it were "just making someone stand on a box" it wouldn't be torture. And it also wouldn't be used to get someone to give up information.

Making someone stand on a box for 30 hours would be torture. Having someone stand on a box for that long while making them think they are 50 feet off the ground would be torture.

And are those wires coming off his arms?
Click to expand...

I suspect they are.....let's assume they told him the wires were hooked up to the electric power grid....let's assume they told him he was 110 feet above the ground.....now let's assume that he wasn't and that the wires weren't.....let's go all the way to assuming that they have succeeded in scaring the crap out of him......

what's your point....that scaring the crap out of someone is torture?....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I suspect the aftereffects of liberalism....
Click to expand...

Come on PMP, you can honestly think they made him stand on the box for a short while and he gave up information.

Its not even about liberalism or conservatism. We signed and ratified an agreement that we would not participate in any sort of torture. If it is something that would make extremists give up info, it would fall into the torture category.

And we, as a nation, are better than that.
 
WinterBorn said:
Come on PMP, you can honestly think they made him stand on the box for a short while and he gave up information.
Click to expand...

lame....now we don't have evidence of torture, we just have to assume that they tortured him because that's what conservatives do, right?.....

do realize how stupid you sound?.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I suspect they are.....let's assume they told him the wires were hooked up to the electric power grid....let's assume they told him he was 110 feet above the ground.....now let's assume that he wasn't and that the wires weren't.....let's go all the way to assuming that they have succeeded in scaring the crap out of him......

what's your point....that scaring the crap out of someone is torture?....
Click to expand...


the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental...

Would it qualify as mental suffering?

And how do we know the wires weren't attached? Because the people who were doing this tell us they weren't?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lame....now we don't have evidence of torture, we just have to assume that they tortured him because that's what conservatives do, right?.....

do realize how stupid you sound?.....
Click to expand...

No, it is not stupid. The picture shows a man being forced to stand on a box with wires coming out and going up the wall with the electrical conduits.

To think that this man gave up any valuable information with torturing him, that he wouldn't give up in a regular interogation is what is stupid.

Do you honestly believe that nothing was done wrong to that man, and that he still gave up info?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top