Latest

Lobby

Search

Options

Help

Login

Question: why not one vote - up/down - waterboarding is torture?

Printer-friendly format

Email this thread to a friend

Bookmark this thread

This topic is archived.

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)

DrZeeLit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 01:00 PM
Original message

Question: why not one vote - up/down - waterboarding is torture?

I might be naive, but has this ever been done.
One issue.
No amendments.
No b.s.

Just pass a single law.

They'd filibuster?
Good. Shows the world who's moral.

This would give our enemies an edge?
One tactic makes the enemy gleeful and ready to rumble.
Oh dear, we are deluded, aren't we?

Just wondered.

And then, the Idiot-in-Chief vetoes the law.
And... the senate passes it again.
And again,
and so on.

Cajones.... the Dems needs a moment of truth.

Oh well, just an idea.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

me b zola

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 01:03 PM
Response to Original message

1. Because that would piss off the republicans

Keepin that powder dry and all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

blondeatlast

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 01:12 PM
Response to Original message

2. Sorry, but I smell a RW talking point with this one. It isn't necessary.

The Viet Cong, the Chinese, and the Spanish Inquisitors did it. You want MORE???

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

dflprincess

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #2

3. And we called it a war crime when the Japanese did it.

n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Basileus Basileon

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #2

5. The Viet Cong and the Chinese also drank tea.

Where is the law explicitly defining waterboarding to be torture?

I want the practice ended as much as you do. I realize that simply huffing about how outrageous it is won't change anything. There is no firm law on waterboarding, and that is why the Bush administration is able to continue practicing it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

blondeatlast

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #5

6. Apples=oranges? I think not. That we have to debate that suffocation torture is

indeed torture is a RW tactic and I won't bite.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Basileus Basileon

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #6

7. Then torture will continue.

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

HiFructosePronSyrup

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #5

11. So is it OK if I cut people's head of with a machete?

I know murder is illegal, but I've never seen a law that specifically mentions cutting people's heads of with a machete.

How about a chainsaw?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Basileus Basileon

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #11

18. Those both fall under definitions of murder, which are extremely explicit.

Torture requires an agreed-upon definition of "unreasonable" or "excessive."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

HiFructosePronSyrup

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #18

19. So does torture.

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Basileus Basileon

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #19

21. Again, torture requires an agreed-upon definition of "unreasonable" or "excessive."

There can be no disagreement on whether a person is dead. There can be a disagreement on whether pain inflicted was excessive or unreasonable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Justitia

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #5

12. We don't need to "legislate" every FORM of torture, there is no equivocation on the issue.

Our own military, intelligence svcs, and gov'ts all over the world have already defined this tactic as "torture" - it is NOT up for debate. It's been clearly labeled as torture for over 500 years.

Trying to trap Congress into "legislating" that water is "wet" is a RW evasive, distraction tactic.

No matter if Congress even did such a stupid thing, this administration would simply change it up a bit, re-package it, and then it wouldn't technically be "torture", now would it?

Don't fall for this empty argument.

Besides, anyone who thinks they can debate what is not torture, should be willing to submit their own mother to the treatment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Poiuyt

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #12

16. Exactly. Definitions of torture are purposely kept vague

It would be too easy to change one little parameter and make it legal

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Article 1

1. 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.

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

Tell me what's hard to understand

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

magellan

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #5

13. It's illegal to drive drunk

Do you need to be told what forms/brands of alcohol you can't drink before getting in your car?

Your logic plays right into the pro-torture camp's hands. The legal battle would rage endlessly, and needlessly.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kingshakabobo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #13

15. Not only that, it will give bush legal cover to say "well, it wasn't illegal when I did it."

Besides, bush will just switch liquids and go on about his business. Next we will be arguing whether pouring milk down a prisoner's sinuses is illegal or not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Basileus Basileon

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #13

17. A better analogy is

Edited on Tue Nov-06-07 01:50 PM by Basileus Basileon

"It is illegal to drive while intoxicated. Many people are bypassing this and driving while high, believing that does not count. Therefore, we should amend the drunk-driving laws to explicitly include all mind-altering substances."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

magellan

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #17

22. Yeah, but you still don't have to list those substances, do you?

Duh.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Basileus Basileon

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #22

24. In most laws, they generally do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

magellan

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #24

29. Really? Quote them.

Edited on Tue Nov-06-07 02:27 PM by magellan

on edit and to the point: I think you'll find that a police officer doesn't have to identify exactly what he believes you to be intoxicated with to haul your butt to the station. An investigation follows.

Bush** is under the influence but Congress aren't interested in hauling him in to answer questions. They're too busy excusing his weaving down the road.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

populistdriven

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #2

10. they also all ate rice

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

librechik

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 01:16 PM
Response to Original message

4. Kennedy introduced a bill in August--

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/10/kennedy_on_torture/

and we should get it on the floor.

here' the actual bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1943:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

lazyriver

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 01:23 PM
Response to Original message

8. Even if they don't pass a law...

Why not vote on another "non-binding condemnation" of torture? If they can waste time debating and voting on whether or not to condemn a newspaper ad attacking Saint Patriot of Petraeus, they can surely find the time to go on the record with their view of waterboarding. Right?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

populistdriven

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 01:25 PM
Response to Original message

9. cojones nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

shraby

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 01:39 PM
Response to Original message

14. Then what happens if it passes and Bush vetoes it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Basileus Basileon

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #14

20. Make it clear in the wording

that the purpose is not to create law but to reiterate law.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Spazito

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #20

23. Why would one formally re-iterate a law that is already the law....

unless the hope is to change the existing law into something else? You enforce the law or you change it, re-iterating is, imo, a pathetic attempt to hide the intent to CHANGE the law.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Basileus Basileon

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #23

25. Because the current Executive does not officially believe it is the law?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Spazito

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #25

26. LOL, because they don't believe it is the law does NOT change

the fact that it IS the law. Some silly bill "re-iterating" the existing law will do nothing to change the bush cabal's belief, you know that as well as I and the only thing such a bill will do is try to pull the wool over the publics' eyes that the bush cabal is breaking the law.

I have to say I find the attempts to sell this meme about such a bill to be fascinating, both how it is done and by whom.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Basileus Basileon

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #26

27. It would certainly put the Mukasey wordplay to rest. nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Spazito

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-06-07 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #27

28. Not confirming him would do that....

some silly "re-iteration" bill will not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sun May 12th 2024, 07:12 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate

About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC