Wow, I completely agree with you. That's gotta be a first!


>A line has to be drawn somewhere, though, doesn't it? Defining torture so broadly that it becomes synonymous with "making one uncomfortable" doesn't make much sense. If someone may have participated in terrorist plots, or may have knowledge of future plots, I am all for making them uncomfortable. That doesn't mean we should conduct policy from the other end of the spectrum, where all manner of physical abuse and degradation is acceptable. There are supposed to be some rules of civilized society that are in effect even in wartime. That is the whole idea of the Geneva Conventions.
>
>I also don't think we have any business holding prisoners for years without charging or trying them. Make the case within a reasonable period of time (a year?) or kick them loose.
>
>(BTW, see how well behaved I am being today by saying nothing about you reading the bible naked?)
>
>
>>No. That is the problem with these generalizations and lack of concise definitions in the world today. For example, if I read the bible in front of you naked, are you really 'tortured?' If that is done to a Muslim, it is considered torture. There is no 'torture is torture' period. What EXACTLY torture is to you, may not be to me. There is not definitive definition. The way it reads now, if it makes you 'uncomfortable' then it is torture. You cannot interrogate that way. It is not even that general (and open to interpretation) in our own judicial system!
>>
>>
>>
>>>>This bothers me a LOT. Even with our recent history with torture techniques, Iran far SURPASSES the U.S. in torture techniques. There is NO comparison. Get real. Doesn't excuse the U.S. for Gitmo and Iraq, but it does NOT give Iran a free pass either. There is not a question the sailors are being manipulated to confess something they did NOT do. Manipulated is putting it far far too mildly...
>>>
>>>Isn't that like "a little bit pregnant"?
>>>Torture is torture. If you torture you are inhumane in your treatment of the person. Would "I'm better at torture than you" mean that I do it less severely or more severely? Either way it's a losing proposition for those of us (countries) who profess humane treatment of our captives and expect the same in return.
>>>
>>>You correctly observed in another message that anyone undergoing torture will say what he believes his torturers want to hear. In other words, whatever a tortured person says attempting to get relief is not worth anything. But since torturers see it otherwise, it can in fact lead to far greater "mis-adventures", especially when a country has changed its policy to one of preemptive attack.
>>>
>>>I believe the UK sailors are under duress, and it may well be "torture". But Gitmo and Iraq are current and on-going exemplars of U.S. policy. And any amount of torture being done there is too much torture.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Actually, I find Bush too liberal. He talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. Did you see Iran violating the Geneva convention - parading prisoners with blindfolds in front of the cameras?
>>>>>
>>>>>Technically, and using the same spiteful excuses your country uses, they are not at war, so there are no war prisoners therefore you can not apply the Geneva convention.
>>>>>
>>>>>Let me guess, next you will complain Iran tortures prisoners.