These people are a**holes...

[Pangloss]

You guys really disappoint me whenever this subject comes up. You do so well in other areas, but whenever Abu Graib rears its ugly head, it's back to the "Nazi" calls.

 

Deliberately avoiding defining the meaning of "torture" makes this a partisan/ideological argument, not a logical/objective one.

[bascule]

You guys really disappoint me whenever this subject comes up. You do so well in other areas, but whenever Abu Graib rears its ugly head, it's back to the "Nazi" calls.

 

I said nothing of Abu Ghraib, and I don't think Godwin's Law applies to discussions of torture. My real problem is that Bush has finally elected to use his veto power, and what has he been saving it up for? Stopping a bill that bans torture... which passed the Senate 90-9 at that...

 

Deliberately avoiding defining the meaning of "torture" makes this a partisan/ideological argument, not a logical/objective one.

 

To keep this from descending into a semantic argument, how about we use the definition from the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which Republican John McCain chose to use as the basis of this bill, which from the votes it received certainly does not seem to be a partisan issue.

 

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

 

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

[Pangloss]

You understand that Congress can override a veto with that kind of majority, right? And that Bush hasn't actually vetod it yet?

 

I'm not saying you don't have a valid argument, bascule, and I'm definitely not trying to single you out. It's just that when you speak in such absolutist terms like "The use of torture in any form makes us no better than the Nazis...", you make it sound like Bush is running around Guantanamo with a pair of pliers and some Turtle Wax. The points you outlined from the UN are painted in very broad strokes, not procedural specifics, and as such they leave room for interpretation. There is a position here that merits some critical thinking regarding the level of comfort we allow prisoners to have, and I don't think that should be dismissed out of hand by pawning every single thing we don't like as "torture".

 

As Libertarian Neil Boortz put it on his talk show recently, I don't like to see anybody being harmed. But if a little ridicule will save American lives, then I say "stack 'em up like cordwood".

 

And obviously we're not the only ones who feel that way, either. France, Israel, Russia, and a host of other countries do the same thing, and you're not calling them Nazis. Isn't torture always torture no matter where it takes place?

 

In short, I agree that you have a legitimate argument, but I believe that we can establish some reasonable boundaries without resorting to ideological demonization.