Let's get our definitions straight here

Posted on

Not all bad treatment, as the Democratic Party would have us believe, is equal to torture. Kos needs to update his vocabulary.

The Jawa Report: Kos Says U.S. Torture ‘Equal’ To that of Saddam Hussein (A comparison)
Almost all of the accusations of ‘torture’ are NOT REAL TORTURE. Instead, they are minor instances of harsh treatment–the kind of treatment you probably wouldn’t want to be subjected to–but they aren’t TORTURE.

And while we’re on the subject, if I myself thought it would save lives, I’d shred and flush any number of Korans.

Real religion deals with the human spirit in its interactions with God. Real religion is not a book fetish.

5 thoughts on “Let's get our definitions straight here”

  1. From Wikipedia:

    “Torture is the infliction of severe physical or psychological pain as an expression of cruelty, a means of intimidation, deterrent or punishment, or as a tool for the extraction of information or confessions.”

    Note the definition does not distinguish between ‘good’ torture and ‘really horrific’ torture. What Saddam did is beyond torture and ventures far into the realm of atrocities.

    Does this mean that the prisoners at Guantanamo are not being tortured?

    And what about the practice of rendition which was initiated under President Clinton? (exporting suspects to torture friendly countries like Syria) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendition)

    Whether it is done on American soil, or outsourced to another country does not remove the responsibility.

    It’s not just bad treatment. “Stress positions”, humiliation, and physical beatings are in fact torture.

    Is is “equal” to the torture Saddam inflicted on his people? Probably not.

    Here’s where I find the debate interesting.

    Kos writes:

    “On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. . . . On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.”

    Jawa’s response is to minimize the facts and to add the following:

    “There are some instances of abuse and perhaps even the occasional act of real torture, these, of course should be investigated. But to say that the occasional abuse is somehow equal to the institutionalized and routine torture of the Saddam Hussein regime is disgusting, immoral, and anti-American.”

    Yup, he’s playing the Anti-American card. (“If you’re not with me, you’re against me”)

    I think we live in dangerous times when dissenting opinions get called “Anti American”.

    Notice how Jawa tries to diminish the facts by posting the following caption on a photo of 3 people who seem to have been shot.

    “These three victims of Saddam Hussein did not survive to complain about the air conditioning at Camp X-Ray or that guards there desecrated the Koran.”

    This is exactly the kind of misdirection that adds much heat but little light to the debate.

    The “air conditioning” comment evokes images of pampered prisoners sheltered from the sun, but the reality is far different. Yet, in order to blindly score one for his side, Jawa takes the cheap shot.

    The same is true for both sides of the debate. There seems to be precious little discussion and far too much posturing.

    sigh.

  2. Other intersting tid-bits from Senator Durbin’s speech (source: congresional record)

    “During the Civil War, President Lincoln, one of our greatest Presidents,
    suspended habeas corpus, which gives
    prisoners the right to challenge their
    detention.

    The Supreme Court stood up to the President and said prisoners have the right to judicial review even during war.

    Let me read what that Court said:
    The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances.

    No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions could be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.

    Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.“

  4. Just saw this on Google news:

    http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2005/06/23/1101474-ap.html

    Apparently people at the UN say they have reliable evidence that torture is happening at the detainee base in Cuba.

    Intersesting how they have been trying to send in inspectors to monitor the handling of prisoners – and how the U.S. government has been stalling.

    Ya know.. if you’re gonna call them ‘enemy combatants’ you should’nt be surpised that the United Nations gets involved.

    Irony upon irony. Look at who doesn’t want an inspection now. What conclusions should the rest of the world draw from this?

  5. Pingback: white pebble » The detainees, and the UN, and stuff

Comments are closed.