How the Repubs will spin the Torture bill.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

We are in a battle to stop this bill. We need to anticipate the methods of the other side.

To the average American, torture means beatings, burning slivers under the fingernails, the rack, broken bones, electical shocks, staked out on a bed of fierce ants, and stuff like that - really rough stuff.

We know that torture has already been defined by treaties that we have agreed to, as encompassing far more than that. The problem is that ours is a legal defination, while the general public undertands it differently.

The Repubs will then talk about some of the things that are done as if they were trivial. We have already heard them say things like, "Oh, BooHoo, He had to watch a Koran being flushed down a toilet." Or, "He had to watch a good looking naked woman dance. How much do guys pay for that?" "He had to stand in one place for a few hours? I do that everyday at my job." "The termostat was too cool? My house isn't heated well enough in winter." "The thermostat was too warm? Hell, he was raised in a hot desert with no AC." and similar things.

In the general public's eyes, none of the above things are torture. LEGALLY, ALL OF THAT CAN BE TORTURE. We know that, but the general public doesn't.

The problem is to educate the general public that it really is torture, and not sound like pansies ourselves. That is going to be difficult, but it has to be done, somehow.

[greyl]

1. I think one of our best arguments is that torture doesn't work.

Torture doesn't result in good intelligence, and the bushadmin Pentagon is already severely lacking in that regard.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

2. And the media will help them spin away....

n/t

[sui generis]

3. It's not torture unless it results in organ failure

I'll agree, but I'd add "and we should make your kid stand in a freezing room with their eardrums blasted out shocking them to keep them awake while waterboarding them IN FRONT OF YOU to get you to talk. Hopefully you'll talk before their organs fail, but if not, you won't be able to sue the interrogators under war crimes."

These monsters have been living among us all along. The only thing I would tell them is if any of my family or I were picked up for "effective questioning" you'd better make damn sure it results in MY organ failure, because I won't particularly care about war crimes either way when I come after you.

I am just disgusted that these people call themselves Americans. We need to take it back.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

5. Why would you agree that it's not torture without organ failure? If your

fingernails were pulled out, no organs would fail.

If you were raped, no organs would fail.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

?????

[sui generis]

8. you know I was playing devil's advocate right?

however the sticky point in the past was that it couldn't be called "torture" unless it resulted in organ failure - that's what I was mocking.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

10. No prob it wasn't obvious to me from the way you wrote your post.

:hi:

[Kashka-Kat]

4. Well how about the fact that torture by their definition has occurred, and

is occurring-- deaths, dismemberments, serious injuries, etc. as documented by Red Cross, ACLU, Amnesty International, journalists .... The bill as I understand it gives BUSH the authority to define "torture" however he wants.

Something about this doesn't quite sit right with me. So, we tell the world that we will do torture "LITE" on them - scare them with mean dogs and flush Korans in the toilet-- but we we'll oh so carefully draw the line at severe injury, pain & death? How effective is that going to be? Wouldn't a tortured person just hold out knowing he or she isn't going to be killed? Or will the torturers continue to push the limits and boundaries so as to get the desired result (ie terror, intimidation, punishment)

AS THEY HAVE BEEN... thus resulting in the aforementioned documented deaths and injuries.

Sorry I don't have a good answer to your question. ... mainly because this legislation and Bush's logic, as it often is in its justification of this war, is just so skewed and doesn't really address the real problems.

The only thing I would suggest is to insist that representatives from the Red Cross or some impartial observer be present to ensure that the line is not crossed.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

9. Grrrrrrrrr !

Your are right, I won't argue with you at all. I am upset by the last sentence.

The only thing I would suggest is to insist that representatives from the Red Cross or some impartial observer be present to ensure that the line is not crossed.

Franky, I understand what you are trying to do. You are trying to limit the damage, and that is a good idea that you have. Kind of like having a lawyer present when the police are questioning you. It is just that in trying to limit the damage, we first have to admit that we can't stop it completely. It feels like we are agreeing to it. I know, intellectually that we aren't, - it just feels like it.

[Kashka-Kat]

6. PS what are statistics for people held & then freed-- if its stil

around 70-90% as it was 2 yrs ago then this could break thru the misguide dnotion that only the "guilty" and those who "deserve" it are getting imprisoned and tortured... would illustrate that it really has more to do w/ punishment, intimidation and brutality than legitimate law enforcement.

[bridgit]

7. i agree & feel the need "to anticipate the methods of the other side"...

to be vital here, we know they will be shitty & inconclusive...that much we already know for sure :patriot:

[mhatrw]

11. Torture isn't even half the issue!

This isn't about whether we are or are not too squeamish to waterboard terrorists, folks. Everybody hates terrorists. Nobody wants to coddle them. Sure, many of us don't think torture should ever be legal, for many reasons including the potential for even worse abuses than those that we've already seen at Abu Ghraib and the fact that the information gleaned from this sort of questioning is almost never reliable. But the torture aspects of this bill are no more than the sensationalistic cover story for a wide ranging assault on the fundamental rights of US citizens (as well as all other human beings in the world).

This is about the same people who told us the best way to fight terrorism was to start a war that had nothing to do with it now telling us that we all have to give up our basic right to a fair and speedy trial at the whim of our monarchical executive. This bill reverses over 790 years of Anglo Saxon legal tradition starting with the Magna Carta and extending through our revered Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

12. You have said it well.

I may battle you heavily on the 9-11 forum, but we are on the same page here.

BTW - You have stated their spin far better than I did. This isn't about whether we are or are not too squeamish to waterboard terrorists, folks. That is how they are going to spin it - that we are squeamish about playing a bit rough.

[BeFree]

13. All men are created equal

And women too.

So this bill and the sure to come add-ons are meant to make some more equal than others. It would make it so that a declaration by a government official about any individual becomes a defacto judge and jury, going against our inherited judicial judges and juries system.

I think what makes most people in favor of such a determination and subsequent throwing out of the constitution, is the idea that we are at war. That is their first mistake. But in that regard they feel that torture, if it will save lives, is an alternative to blowing up major cities; ya know like 'shock and awe'.

After all, we didn't torture the Japanese, now did we?