Today, Bush held a news conference and was asked "a simple question": what was his definition of torture? As alsways, he said "The US does not torture. As for the definition, he refrrerred the questioner to US Law, or some such nebulous place. Why can't the man just answer the question and give us HIS definition of torture--- succinctly?
Originally posted by PinkFloydLet's have your definition then.
Today, Bush held a news conference and was asked "a simple question": what was his definition of torture? As alsways, he said "The US does not torture. As for the definition, he refrrerred the questioner to US Law, or some such nebulous place. Why can't the man just answer the question and give us HIS definition of torture--- succinctly?
Look, he's the President. The Office of the President has a definition of torture which is the same as the the position of US law.
His own individual view is irrelevant and that is why he did not give it.
Of course, you can carry on believing that it's just because he is stupid. But let's face it, genuinely stupid people don't get to be President of the US.
Bush didn't answer the question because his administration is operating under a definition of torture that permits basically anything short of something like "pain equivalent to organ failure". He won't give his exact definition of torture because it's bad PR to tell people that "the US doesn't torture", but then have to admit that you don't consider inflicting significant pain and stress on a human being to be "torture" unless the person almost dies.
Originally posted by knightwestWe don't know that that's why he didn't give it. If it is, he should've said so.
His own individual view is irrelevant and that is why he did not give it.
The President does seem to think his own individual view - and that of the administration - is relevant, since his treatment of detainees has differed from the determinations of the judiciary in many respects. Since we know from past experience on this issue that WH policy and US law are not necessarily the same, the president's view should at least be considered relevant, since that's what he tends to act on.
Even if we bend over backwards to be fair to Bush, and assume he's acting under an honest interpretation of US law, it'd still be nice to know specifically what that interpretation is.
Originally posted by darthmixTo cause physical, mental or emotional harm to a human being.
Okay, what's your definition of torture?
& there can be only 2 reasons why Bush did not answer the question:
he was unable to do so (in which case, the argument that stupid people can't be president is shot all to hell), or
he was unwilling to do so (in which case he tacitly admits that his definition is likely different than most people's).
I haven't ruled out either.
Originally posted by PinkFloydDoes the other side have similiar laws against torture? I think it may behoove us to wait until all countries have the same laws. Oh yeah, the terrorists arent a country so they have no such laws. Do you condemn all countries that use torture? .....or do you only have a woody for the US.
To cause physical, mental or emotional harm to a human being.
& there can be only 2 reasons why Bush did not answer the question:
he was unable to do so (in which case, the argument that stupid people can't be president is shot all to hell), or
he was unwilling to do so (in which case he tacitly admits that his definition is likely different than most people's).
I haven't ruled out either.
G.
Originally posted by smw6869I condemn all countries that use torture, but I have a particular duty to condemn my own country if it does so. I'm a citizen of a democratic republic, and so I bare some civic responsibility for the morality of my country's policies. I don't have the same responsibility for the policies of, say, Uzbekistan or someplace like that.
Does the other side have similiar laws against torture? I think it may behoove us to wait until all countries have the same laws. Oh yeah, the terrorists arent a country so they have no such laws. Do you condemn all countries that use torture? .....or do you only have a woody for the US.
G.
And waiting for every country in the world to prohibit torture before we prohibit it ourselves is a monumentally stupid idea.
Originally posted by darthmixDo you not think your position on torture would be in anyway a detriment to the ability of the US to gather information on the enemy, or would you rather cut your nose off to spite you face. I'm not talking about gross physical torture. Should we put our military at more risk because of your way of thinking. Do you have more compassion for the enemy than you do for your own soldiers. You must live with Tinker Bell in la la land.
I condemn all countries that use torture, but I have a particular duty to condemn my own country if it does so. I'm a citizen of a democratic republic, and so I bare some civic responsibility for the morality of my country's policies. I don't have the same responsibility for the policies of, say, Uzbekistan or someplace like that.
And waiting for every c ...[text shortened]... the world to prohibit torture before we prohibit it ourselves is a monumentally stupid idea.
G.
John McCain, who was actually tortured in a POW camp in North Vietnam, is against torture. He says that torture DOES NOT increase the chance of the interregator receiving true information from the prisoner. Many who are tortured will make almost anything up that they think will make the torturer stop.
Originally posted by smw6869
Do you not think your position on torture would be in anyway a detriment to the ability of the US to gather information on the enemy, or would you rather cut your nose off to spite you face. I'm not talking about gross physical torture. Should we put our military at more risk because of your way of thinking. Do you have more compassion for the enemy than you do for your own soldiers. You must live with Tinker Bell in la la land.
G.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin
If you're willing to ignore basic human rights and dignity in order to protect yourself, then you've sacrificed the thing about your society that's most worth protecting. And besides, it's a false dichotomy; we can take a stand against torture and still protect ourselves. We cannot condone torture under any circumstances.
Originally posted by PinkFloydIn that case having your girlfriend break up with you could be classified as torture
To cause physical, mental or emotional harm to a human being.
& there can be only 2 reasons why Bush did not answer the question:
he was unable to do so (in which case, the argument that stupid people can't be president is shot all to hell), or
he was unwilling to do so (in which case he tacitly admits that his definition is likely different than most people's).
I haven't ruled out either.
Originally posted by SMSBear716In some cases having your girlfriend not break up with you could be classified as torture. 🙂
In that case having your girlfriend break up with you could be classified as torture
Having to listen to Pelosi and Harry Reid bad mouth our Country is also torture. Shame Bush didn't say that.