Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
I think this quibbling about 'what is torture' is only entertainment to keep us occupied while they do whatever the hell they want.
Most importantly above, as rb mentions, is that this country (or at least the current administration) is questioning adherence to the Geneva Conventions. What does our complacency with that say about our answer to the question, 'what is torture'? Fact is, we are questioning at least one method of interrogation that we have used in this decade (waterboarding). One that has been deemed torture by this country in the past and one for which we have convicted military personnel for performing, as recently as Vietnam. This to me says that we are not a reliable arbiter of our own standards when it comes to the use of and our comfort level with the practice of 'aggressive interrogation techniques.' I don't trust that most people in this country have the imagination and empathic ability to realistically consider and envision the consequences of torture and, importantly, an America that tortures. And, in fact, it really disgusts me that this is even a matter for discussion in the public square. We need to unite in our agreement about the use of torture? No, not for me. We needed to be there already. This is not the country I was raised to be a part of.
|
This is exactly what I am talking about. Closed mindedness. One asks for a person's definition and what the "least" is considered and the person blows up saying "Torture is torture and we don't need to unite in an agreement on use."
It's not an agreement on use it is what is torture? Like I keep saying withholding 1 days rations and exercise to me is not torture, it is probably an uncomfortable and maybe unpleasant treatment of a POW or prisoner.... yet not 1 person has stood up and stated "I agree with that".... Instead we get definitions of what torture is and condemnations for asking what they consider torture... but not 1 iota of true discussion of what THEY personally believe to be the difference between torture or "uncomfortable, unpleasant treatment".
How can we treat our prisoners and POW's in anyway if we do not have a discussion on what is torture and what isn't and then arrive at something that the majority on both sides can agree with?
Are we to turn over our sovereignty and how we treat POWs and prisoners (and I am talking about federal, state and local criminals in prison also) to some other country or outside authority?
And who approves of what they decide?
I am not so quick to turn over any type of self rule our country has to anyone, not without a fight at least.
BTW this is not a discussion of whether or not we needed to be there or not. I have never been for this war, but I'll be damned if we have treat POWs better than our own men. And I'll be truly damned if I was serving and had someone that killed my friends and was told to treat him like he was an innocent and give him every amenity possible.
Sorry no fucking way. I'm not going to "torture" torture you but I'm not going to make your confinement a pleasant stay in a 5 star hotel either.