Originally Posted by roachboy

well, if the definition was vague, you'd hardly be able to explain that various contortions that the neocons inside bushworld went through to enable torture: refusing to classify people capture in the context of the "war on terror" as prisoners of war because....well....yeah. exploiting perceived vagueness in the definition to legitimate waterboarding, sleep and light deprivation, making people stand in one place for hours and hours, threatening with dogs, exploiting personal phobias, violating religious or social norms with the sole intent to humiliate/degrade, physical violence of various kinds--you know the drill i'm sure--->not a single element of which is ethically acceptable--->not a single element of which is legal---->not a single element of which has worked to generate information that is worth a shit--->but which has been EXTREMELY damaging to the political and moral position of the united states internationally.

and who knows but that colin powell may turn out to be correct in the longer run: not only is this horrific in itself, but it may well end up exposing american pows to similar treatment in the future.

there is no good outcome of screwing about with the notion of torture in order to open space for barbaric actions on the part of the americans.

*and* the damage this has done the bush people politically is very considerable indeed---worse in some ways than the overall--and staggering---incompetence of the conduct of the war in iraq as a whole.



this is an example of the contextual ignorance that makes the "questioning of the notion of torture" here incomprehensible.
surreal business.