I need more info on this un parenting law we are trying to pass. On the basis of the meager information I possess it is scary

I need more info on this un parenting law we are trying to pass. On the basis of the meager information I possess it is scary

Beautifully written. The left has mangle the word right,as in right to life, to vote, to healthcare, to a house, to welfare. Marriage is under massive assault. The last Democrat President destroyed the word is. Now we have lost two more good English words: hope and change. The word truth left town decades ago, along with statesman. At this rate, patriot, honor, duty, will soon become endangered items, what with all of us veterans and Christians being labelled right-wing radical extremist by the Department of Homeland Security and being accused of being intent on causing man-made disasters.... Control the dialogue and the 24-hour news cycle and you control the dumb masses. America is losing its meaning to many of us; getting it back will not be easy, if at all possible.

Great post. Bookworm Room (http://www.bookwormroom.com/2009/04/25/torture-real-and-imagined/) has a great one as well this a.m. as she recounts her mother's experiences with the Japanese in Malaysia during WWII. Her money quote:

"In a psychiatric, self-actualized, self-realized, navel gazing world, torture can be anything that makes you unhappy."

This is the same point Dennis Prager makes about "rape". If "rape" is defined as any sex the woman wishes she hadn't had, or any unwanted flirtatious behavior, there are no words left for actual forcible rape. At best, a person is left asking "what do you mean by rape?" At worst, concluding that rape is no big deal.

If "torture" is defined as any behavior that's not nice, you have no words left for gouging out eyes, or boiling in oil, or forcing people to listen to Roseanne Barr sing. At best, people have to ask "what do you mean by torture?" At worst, people justifiably conclude torture is no big deal.

Dafydd-

Over on your (and my) favorite blog, Scott Johnson posted Liz Cheney’s MSNBC interview wherein she says all the enhanced interrogation methods -- not just waterboarding -- have been, and are still being, used in Navy SEAL training. Has anyone disputed this? Alternatively, has anyone claimed that we’re torturing our own military personnel?

If it’s really torture, why would anyone volunteer for such duty?

You’re right, sir, the word has lost its meaning.

[BTW, I’m sure the Big Trunk felt duly complimented by your April 23 reference to him. I suspect he wonders, though, how the lizard knows such intimacies.]

The left loves to mangle the language. Words are left empty and hollow as they strip all meaning. "Fascist" means "someone with who I disagee" as does "racist". "Torture" means "any technique of which I disapprove". "Hate" means "opposition to my goals". Lefties don't speak English. We need a dictionary of the dialect they speak.

My favorite lefty misuse of the language is "compassion" which has come to mean "forcing someone else to pay for what I consider good, so I can feel good about myself without contributing anything".

I wrote a response to Rick Moran that you might find of some interest Dafydd (and the post is not broken into parts - decided to go with that change to the blog) as it ties in with your theme. At any rate, the post is Words Have Meaning Rick

Dick E.

BTW, I’m sure the Big Trunk felt duly complimented by your April 23 reference to him. I suspect he wonders, though, how the lizard knows such intimacies.

Haven't you ever been to Grauman's Chinese Theater in Hollywood and looked at all those cement imprints movie stars have left of their feet and hands (or in Jimmy Durante's case, his schnozzola)?

Well evidently, Scott has also been there...

GW:

I already read it, of course; I always read Wolf Howling at least twice a day.

Dafydd

I've often wondered just exactly why anyone would think these mass murderous pukes would give us any information without coersion. Dafydd is exactly correct about the torturing (cough) of our language by the left. Rick Moran has jumped the shark on this one. Read Howlin Wolf's post. It is excellent.

Another use of language that I find so irritating on the left:

"It's for the children."

I guess they mean all the children that are left after wanton abortions. Then for those poor souls that actually get birthed, well, they get suffocated under a mountain of debt. Being a child, from the left's point of view, has become very dangerous.

Nothing would please some factions more than drawing and making stick a "moral equivalence" between "harsh techniques" and "...gang raping women, stoning people to death, lopping off limbs, shoving a cattle-prod up a prisoner's anus, cutting off a captive's nose and ears, gouging out his eyes, and finally beheading him -- on video?". It underlies the "Bush is the biggest terrorist" meme. Feh.

Evidently waterboarding cannot be classified as torture because it cause KSM to give up information which was accurate and timely. Everyone knows torture is not capable of doing that. It has been pronounced by both left and right torture never leads to factual information. Ergo, waterboarding is not torture.

Dafydd-

I read GW’s post at Wolf Howling and was duly impressed. Then I read Rick Moran’s post and was underwhelmed -- but I was disturbed when I read the definition of torture under US law. Moran links to it at Cornell Law’s web site.

Is this definition correct? What am I missing?

Under this definition, how are the following threats not torture?

“I’m going to use this big knife to chop off the little finger on your hand that I have tied to a chopping block.” [sec. (2)(A)]

“There’s just one bullet in this revolver, but I’m going to stick it in your mouth and pull the trigger. Again.” (Maybe I removed the firing pin first, but you don’t know that.) [sec. (2)(C)]

“I’m going to keel your seester.” [sec. (2)(D)]

Can somebody please convince me that mere threats do not constitute torture under US law?

(I still think that, if done carefully and avoiding threats of actual harm, waterboarding, sleep deprivation, cold temperatures, yelling at prisoners, etc., can be legal under this definition. That must be what Bybee et al concluded.)

Dick E: The first two are threats of actual torture / imminent death and therefore unlawful under U.S. law. In fact, I forget which memo, but one of them warns against threats to KSM or Zabaydah that might constitute unlawful threat of torture. And yes, Bybee concluded that all ten (?) proposed enhanced interrogation techniques were lawful as falling below the threshold of severe pain and suffering that the law contemplates as actual torture.

GW, Dick E:

And yes, Bybee concluded that all ten (?) proposed enhanced interrogation techniques were lawful as falling below the threshold of severe pain and suffering that the law contemplates as actual torture.

True enough; but it's also true that William Haynes, General Counsel to the Department of Defense, refused to approve three of the four category III interrogation techniques on a general basis... each would only be available on an individual basis, requiring specific approval for that particular detainee on a single particular occasion.

(The one Cat III technique for which blanket approval was given was technique 4: "Use of mild, non-injurious physical contact such as grabbing, poking in the chest with the finger, and light pushing.")

Although Rumsfeld accepted the Haynes recommendation, he did whine a bit about military interrogators not being allowed to make the detainees stand for more than four hours; the 70 year old SecDef scribbled on the top copy -- sort of a signing statement, I suppose -- "However, I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?" (Or maybe "4 hairs;" Rumsfeld's writing is atrocious... but I guess "standing for four hairs" doesn't make much sense, so it must be hours after all.)

The memo is here, if you want to plough through it; it's like reading a multiply forwarded e-mail, with about 347 different layers of people who had to sign off both up and down the chain of command. And of course it only applied to military interrogators; the Company did its own thing, as usual.

(The list of interrogation techniques is in the original memo from Gitmo up to the GC; it consists of the final three pages of the PDF, 12-14. Waterboarding is Cat III, technique 3, bottom of page 13.)

Dafydd

GW-

I was just looking at the Cornell Law definition of torture again. It says “‘severe mental pain or suffering’ means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from…” (Emphasis mine)

So, back to the threat examples I gave. Does “prolonged” refer to the duration of the threat? Or does it mean the subsequent mental anguish the poor, suffering terrorist endures as a result of having been once threatened? The former is measurable. The latter is not and could be claimed as unending.

I can see how a “Pit and the Pendulum” scenario could amount to a prolonged threat. But one quick, painless game of simulated Russian roulette? It’s over in a jiffy.

(Work with me here. I’m trying to convince myself that a momentary threat of bodily harm doesn’t become torture just because the interviewee claims to be scarred for life.)

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)