The Geneva Convention DOES NOT say : You can't rip toenails out

Neither does the revised War Crimes Act of 1996 - revised to accommodate Bush's practice of torture -the original War Crimes Act said ANY breach of the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention was a violation.

Additional source stating the WCA of 1996 has been revised to reflect the changes Bush wanted so he could continue his torture program.

The revised WCA of 1996 says any "grave" breach is a violation of Common Article 3 - and what constitutes a "grave breach" is now to be defined by Bush.

The Convention Against Torture doesn't say you can't.
The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 doesn't say you can't.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 doesn't say you can't.

None of the above state that a person can't:

- rub a detainees face in feces.
- stack naked detainees in pyramids
- use dogs to intimidate and terrorize detainees
- hang detainees from the ceiling by their shoulders



So I guess none of the above count as torture or 'outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment'.

What's that you say? The above fall under the categories of torture and 'outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment'?

Oooh..

But let's say I wanted to do those things anyway - couldn't I just claim they weren't prohibited because no law or treaty explicitly spells out each and every form of torture or 'outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment' that can be thought of? - so that gives me a lot of leeway on what I can do, yes?

And if someone says what I am doing is illegal, how can I truly be held accountable if the law and treaties didn't say, explicitly, that I couldn't do it? If they didn't spell out each and every way a person can be tortured or degraded or humiliated, how can you say I'm torturing them because I rip their toenails out?


After all, you didn't say I couldn't rip their toenails out - you only said I couldn't torture them.

And if toe-nails grow back they aren't really being mutilated, so you can't say I'm mutilating them either.


This is precisely the logic - defense - Bush is using about water-boarding.

And people are falling for it. Worse, some in Congress are playing along with it.

If Bush can make Congress continuously define torture, then Bush will continuously use any and all forms of torture and then claim it's not torture because the laws and treaties didn't spell it out as torture.

It's a game to get away with torturing.


And people are falling for it. Worse, some in Congress continue to play along with it.


People have the capacity for coming up with all manner of ways to abuse and torture other people - of ways to enact 'outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment' - so stating every single way a person can be tortured or abused or degraded or humiliated is impossible.

Playing Bush's game of - define inhuman, define cruel, define torture, define humiliating, define degrading, define abuse - does nothing but enable him to continue his war crimes.


Stop falling for it.

say things like "If it doesn't work, why does everybody use it?"

This assumes everybody uses it of course. But the truth is most civilized countries don't torture. A few civilized countries do like to use torture, and the US is one of them.

Torture doesn't work as an interrogation technique. But it works just fine if you want to terrorize a population (like the British did to Americans during the revolutionary war). It gets you compliant prisoners, and makes you feel like you are a tough guy while symbolical punishing your enemy through a handful of captives. It also works to ensure your enemy will fight back, never ever surrender and torture your troops they capture. It also guarantees that the country using torture is an example of tyranny and shame throughout the world.

Look at all the wonders a Republican government has brought the United States of America. In torture we trust is our new motto.

game (Mukasey vote)

It's a definition game to provide legal cover for torture

(Mukasey vote)

'waterboarding isn't torture because no document explicitly says it is', I couldn't believe someone on DU would even think about using that kind of garbage as an argument but they have, sadly.

Otherwise someone can slightly change (for example) the angle of the board and then say that it doesn't fit the definition of waterboarding. If the definitions are specific, then there will always be ways around.

The bush people will switch to pouring coca-cola down prisoner's throats and go on about their business.

and if you are listening to the Mukasey vote, you'll hear some using the exact same "logic"

He just says that the United States does not torture. When someone asked him what his definition of torture was, he said, "What the laws say it is," and quickly moved on.

as well as Addington, etc

His whatever the law says is meant to be misleading because he knows he doesn't follow the law

But he is redefining torture by pretending that unless the laws and treaties specifically spell out a method of torture, then it isn't torture

any bill specifically banning waterboarding won't pass anyway and they all know it. lieberman won't support any such bill nor will enough repubs to get the numbers to counter a filibuster.

You don't need specific laws against each form of torture for Christ's sake!



That says it all.

making it confusing and all that does is give Bush legal cover

I remember Rep. Sparkman (R-DeepSouth) on the House Impeachment committee yelling for "specificity" during Watergate.

Torture is like Porn; I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

What part of that logic don't people get?

screaming that it is all congress's fault for not defining waterboarding as torture, and no one effectively counters with the statement that torture is already defined as anything that causes physical or emotional harm--

and the corporate media plays along and lets them get away with this bs. And mr. bunana head seems to be screaming his guts out at us on every possible media outlet.

as well as loud-mouths like Buchanan

the semantics of definitions. It has been successful, sadly, thanks to people like Fienstein and Schumer and the enabling of the media (I leave the repubs out of the equation because it is expected of them).

As successful as it has been, the fact remains torture is illegal and the US is using torture. It is a simple fact and no semantics will change it.

and Thank you!!!

So says CNN this morning. I take the number with a grain of salt, but realize it's likely not far from the truth. (In 2002, a poll showed that 1/3 of Americans favored the use of torture.)

A democracy that continues to enact the minority viewpoint, isn't.

Bottom line, anyone who supports torture -- and waterboarding is included in the definition -- is a paranoid ghoul who lets fear rule their mind. Which aptly describes Bush** and his base.

if the question was phrased, "would you find it acceptable if American soldier's held as POW's were water boarded during interigations?" how would that 40% respond.

But they wouldn't make the connection. For that 40% it's all about them and what makes them and those they extend their support to feel safe. Laws and logic mean nothing in the face of their self-absorbed fear.

and say that's why we must kill them all...