The definition of torture is NOT vague!!!

[Zodiak]

It really irritates me how easily these Republicans warp the premise of a debate before the debate even begins. Of course, the media doesn't do their homework and we, as Democrats, are stuck with having to argue based on a false premesis.

This is the Republican talking point: "The Supreme court says we need to obey Article 3, but article 3 is vague, so we need to define torture so we can go forward"

What bullshit. The definition of torture in the United States is clear:

18 U.S.C. § 2340A (2000).
10
Section 2340 provides in full:

(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under color of law specifically
intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering
incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

The many, many people who have died at Abu Ghraib as a result of "blunt force trauma" would fall in this category for sure. So would electrical charges applied to various extremeties.

(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting
from—

(A)
the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

Anything under #1 will certainly cause #2A to occur, according to the law. All one has to do is threaten these things, which means that every prisoner shown pictures of the torture of other prisoners is in violation of this law.

(B)
the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of
mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
the personality;

Hooding people for days would fall under this category. So would sensory deprivation of any kind. Also, the "poppers" we have been hearing about (microwave weapons mounted on rooftops in Iraq that alter personality) wuld fall into this category, as well.

(C)
the threat of imminent death; or

Any time we threaten to kill someone in our custody, that is a violation of the conventions. How many examples of this can we dig up?

(D)
the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical
pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other
procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

I wonder if the family members that we have catored of insurgents were threatened in any way. The same applies to any threatening notes we leave behind to the insurgent about what is to hapen to his family.

(3) "United States" means the several States of the United States, die District of Columbia,
and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States,

Do we "possess" Gitmo? I bet we do. Also, I would argue that we "possess" our secret prisons, as well.

So any idiot can clearly see that there already is a legal definition of torture that was applicable when Bush hurt those detainees. Clearly what we have in the media and what we have representing the interest of the civil rights of the Americans in our media are less than idiots.

I am sorry if this has been posted before. Know where I got this? From Gonzales' own twisted account on why the law should be changed. The Bush administration CANNOT argue that they were unaware of this.

[Tesha]

1. Yeah, but *YOU* didn't go through Frat hazings like the Chimperor did.

He probably developed his fine sense of sadism there.

Tesha