News-Record.com

Since the very existence of "infidels" could easily be taken as an outrage on the personal dignity of a dedicated jihadist I'm beginning to find the overly broad public definition of torture to be quite torturous.

Here is what we do Jan. Send captured jihadists to the "Friends". Require them to attend Friends meetings and learn about Christianity, peace and love for all mankind. That's torture for a jihadist without physical harm!! Hell maybe a few of them will even convert to infidelism, become Friends, and write more LTEs.

LOL Dan, that's the first "real and comprehensive" strategy I've seen yet.

Dear Kara,
The Muslims hate Friends as much as they hate the rest of he Infidels. They will kill you as quickly as they will kill us, regardless of how you feel about them.
There has never been a single documented case of "torture" as defined by any legal authority committed as a matter of national policy or directives or lawful orders; only individual criminal acts committed by a handful of people operating outside the law and in violation of US policy and their orders.

when terrorists begin :
1) "to outlaw degrading, humiliating treatment of detainees and outrages on their personal dignity"
2) to ensure " safeguard protections for fairness and justice"
3) to "prohibit from wholesale invasions of personal privacy."......then we have common ground with which to operate (imo).

it has been pointed numerous times that the terrorists won't follow our rules and regulations - they have a much more important rules book which they adhere to ...it called the quran (koran, whatever). and they are gonna saw off heads and murder their own muslim brothers and sisters in their most holy places (mosques) and in the streets...if they can ruthlessly kill their own, how much easier is it for them to kill us the infidels. i also believe in peace, i will not go murder someone b/c i believe differently than they...but if a terrorist attacks my family, then look out, peace flies ut the window and survival kicks in. i sorta remember our Savior uttering these words " no greater gift can a man give than to lay his life down for his friends "...
quaker friends with the peace testimony will interpret this to mean they will get in front of the bullet to die for the friends/family while offering no resistance while the family is murdered.
others will intepret this to mean that they may be called to defend with force the right and liberties of others, even unto their own death. so there is one of the great divides we always face in scripture - interpretation. God will judge us according to His word.

Dan,
How would you react to one who sarcastically portrays your beloved Catholicism? A religion that has places women at the bottom of the totem pole, and places alter boys in jeopardy for their lives?

Munch on that for a while.

"There has never been a single documented case of "torture" as defined by any legal authority committed as a matter of national policy or directives or lawful orders;"

jcackbar- what do you make, then, of this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44849-2004Jun15.html

"Gen. Sanchez's command then issued a policy that included the use of stress positions and dogs, along with at least five of seven exceptional techniques approved by Mr. Rumsfeld in the revised Guantanamo policy. After further objections from uniformed lawyers, Gen. Sanchez modified the policy in mid-October, but interrogators and guards at Abu Ghraib went on using the earlier rules. They were committing crimes, but they were not improvising: Most of what they did originally had been sanctioned by both the defense secretary and U.S. Central Command.

It's not clear why interrogation techniques judged improper or illegal by a Pentagon legal team were subsequently adopted in Iraq."

Or how about this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56753-2004Jun20.html

"Did senior officials order torture? We know of two relevant cases so far. One was Mr. Rumsfeld's December 2002 authorization of the use of techniques including hooding, nudity, stress positions, "fear of dogs" and physical contact with prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay base. A second was the distribution in September 2003 by the office of the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, of an interrogation policy that included these techniques as well as others, among them sleep and dietary manipulation. In both cases lawyers inside the military objected that the policies would lead to violations of international law, including the convention banning torture. Both were eventually modified, but not before they were used for the handling of prisoners. In the case of the Abu Ghraib prison, the policy apparently remained in effect for months."

I'm interested in your opinion.

Uh, Deacon?

I don't get it.

Althouh Dan's remarks concerning the sending of Jihadists to "Friends" meetings was certainly stated sarcastically, the underlying assertion that it might convert them to a more peaceful religious affiliation didn't seem to be an insult to a religion that prides itself on their pacifistic intent.

As someone who not only enjoys your posts but respects your opinions I find myself confused as to why you'd feel the need to attack his religious affiliation rather than rebut his logic when you found yourself in disagreement.

The Catholic Church, of which I am not nor have I ever been a member, has been involved in quite a bit of scandal, but unless there has been a Pope Dan that somehow missed my notice I don't hold him personally responsible.

Do you?

Wars are not won from moral high ground, which is why Quakers have never won a war. The operative definition of torture seems to be gravitating toward any condition that involves discomfort, and while reasonable people might disagree as to the level of discomfort that constitutes "torture," it seems unreasonable to me to declare all forms of discomfort "torture" and hence as unavailable to U.S. interrogators.

janherman, I believe that I can better clarify what Deacon meant in his post. Dan stated, "Hell maybe a few of them will even convert to infidelism, become Friends, and write more LTEs."

Deacon then responds, "How would you react to one who sarcastically portrays your beloved Catholicism?"

As a member of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), I am striving to follow the Testimonies of Friends. In this case, most notably the Peace Testimony.

I find it extremely crude and arrogant for ANYONE to use the word infidel in correlation to Friends (Quakers). Whether it be sarcastically or otherwise, that is wrong! That shows a total disregard and lack of respect the religious belief of another, whether one agrees with that specific group or not. I feel this is, in some way, what Deacon was wanting to communicate. If not, Deacon can correct me on it while clarifying the comments.

I believe that Deacon was trying to see how Dan would feel should someone, whether sarcastically or not, would degreade Catholicism in a similar manner.

I still wonder why so many who post here want to ridicule a religious group who desires for the US to "adhere" to the supposed "high religious morals" that are so often touted, especially by many within the republican arena. With the brutalness of torture being widely discussed, it would seem that the "Christianity" of the US has been deemed null & void. However, I have never believed that any nation on the face of the earth could be Christian or any other faith. A nation has no soul like a human. Therefore, it would be impossible for a nation to have a set belief structure of faith.

Shalom

brian444, the reason a Quaker has "never won a war" would be due to the fact that a Friend who holds strongly to the Peace Testimony would not be found in military service.

To find out more on Friends, check out www.quaker.org.

Shalom

Denzien, those are *opinions* on the practices, not convictions in any court of law.
One's *opinion* of what constitutes torture does not represent a legal finding or court conviction of such acts.

First of all, there seems to be an assumption that Quakers advocate terrorism and the terrorists. That is the far from the truth. I am just as opposed to terrorism as anyone and think that terrorists should be punished for thier actions. This punishment, however, should not include torture. We in America are better than that. If we "do as they do" then what seperates us from those who we consider our "enemies".

And I can assure you that torture has a definited definition that has nothing to do with prisioner "discomfort". Heck, it was the Quakers that "invented" solitary confinement. The Quakers felt that if one committed a horrible crime, then if that person sat in Silence by themselves that God would bring the person to repentance and reform.

The root of terrorism is not the terrorist acts. It is fundamentalist Islam. That is where our work against terrorism should be directed. Of course we have our own "Christian" fundamentalists who blow up abortion clinics...radical religion that okays violence is wrong...completely wrong.

If you think Quakers have never won a war, perhaps not. But the ideas of pacifism have won quite a bit. Martin Luther King Jr. "won" freedom for African-Americans by way of non-violence. Ghandi won the liberation of India by non violence. There seems to be this idea that being non violent means doing nothing. That is not the case. It means active resistance to the powers.

For example, what would happen if instead of invading Iraq, we stopped buying any oil from them. This would, of course, mean that folks would have to give up their gas hog cars and trucks. There are many things we could do, things that have not been tried.

Even now, terrorism is worse that ever. And we have fought terrorism in a major way for at least eight years now. Again, terrorism and the terrorists are more widespread and more violent than ever. Perhaps it's time we start "thinking outside the box" and start fighting terrorism with brains, not bullets.

And Dan and all the rest of the Roman Catholics on this board. Quakers are saying the same thing as the Roman Catholic Church about war making and torture. You can condemn us, but in doing so, you are condemning yourselves.

None of us want to see people die. And I believe that is the case with folks who are not pacifists. So...instead of "fighting" among ourselves, lets begin to talk...and listen to each other.

There is a wonderful opportunity for that coming up on October 8th. Stanley Hauerwas, a Methodist theologian and Duke professor as well as a panel of area clergy, will speak at New Garden Friends Meeting on October 8th. Those who are pro-war and pro-torture are more than welcome to attend.

And just another question...do you all REALLY think that we should torture (I'm not talking about just uncomfortable jail cells)prisioners? If so, we are in sad shape. My understanding is that no matter how bad off things have gotten in the US, we Americans have always attempted to hold the moral high ground.

I guess I am just blown away that any American would advocate active torture.

Here is a website for people of faith against torture: http://www.nrcat.org

You will notice that there are mostly Roman Catholics active in this organization. But, there are evangelicals such as Rick Warren (Purpose Driven Life fame) as well as reps from the Presbyterian Church, the Baptist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Orthodox Church. We Quakers are not alone on this issue.

"Denzien, those are *opinions* on the practices, not convictions in any court of law."

You asked for a "documented case", not conviction. I would argue that the convictions of those who abused detainees at Abu Ghraib did what they did and were subsequently convicted due to Sanchez's policy. Your thoughts?

Darryl,

Thanks for the explanation. Maybe I was reading it improperly, but I took Dan's posted reference to "infidelism" as being in line with mine - from the Jihadist perspective, wherein every non-muslim is an infidel - and if that is correct I still don't see it as an insult. So I guess it's all in how one reads and interprets it.

Progressivexian,

I can only speak for myself, but at no point in time have I ever implied that Quakers have advocated terrorism, or for that matter any type of violent reaction to affect political change or accomplish a stated goal.

Contrary to your post however, in the realm of public debate on this issue there is no definitive definition of torture, and that is what I find to be so petty and at times even ridiculous about the entire discussion.

Some actions are of course obvious, but from that point on it deteriorates into varias subjective judgements that could never be resolved to the total satisfaction of all concerned.

I do not condone what I would refer to as torture, but your definition may be different.

was what Jesus was subjected to prior to the crucifiction and the subsequent crucifiction considered torture ? any thoughts?

Jan...I doubt that our definition would be very different at all. The US Torture Act is fairly clear on what is and what is not torture:

http://www.watchingjustice.org/pub/doc_417/Torture%20Act.doc

Heck,

While we're in the business of reading each others minds, let me add this.

I think Dan meant no slight towards Quaker beliefs by his "converting to infidelism" statement. It was apparent to me that he was not saying that he believed Quakers were infidels. Rather, that Muslims DO believe Quakers are infidels (along with all other non-Muslims) and would not afford Quakers the same respect of non-torture.

I try not to condemn other religions or sects and therefore kept my distance from this letter.

The problem with letters like these (and many from Christian perspectives) is there seems to be an underlying self-righteous tone that implicitly states "We are better than you". In this case, to many, it comes across that the Quaker writer is not just stating their belief but condemning those that hold beliefs other than theirs. I'm sure that isn't the intention, but it does come across that way sometimes.

My personal opinion:

I do not believe we should be involved in torturing prisoners as a method of interrogation. When we start doing those kinds of things, I start forgetting who the good guys are supposed to be. (I know there are always exceptions but I'll leave that to Kiefer Sutherland on 24)

"(AP) At least 108 people have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of them violently, according to government data provided to The Associated Press."

"Despite the military's own reports of deaths and abuses of detainees in U.S. custody, it is astonishing that our government can still pretend that what is happening is the work of a few rogue soldiers,"

Does being killed violently constitute torture? I ask because most posting here would answer no in regards to Muslims. But most would agree that Christ was violently killed and that He was tortured. But Christ's response was not to torture just because he had been cruely treated. Even after the "torture" of being stoned and beaten, then nailed to the cross, Christ asked for forgiveness for his tormentors.

Most of you claim to be Christian but advocate torture. You point out how cruel and sadistic the jihadists are but then want America to torture just because they do. It makes no sense to denounce terrorist tactics, then advocate retaliation by using torture.

While I know none of us are truly Christ-like, we can strive to adhere to the teachings of Christ in regard to torture. Unlike Quakers, I cannot commit to using no violence under any circumstances (but I do admire their commitment). If I or those I love were directly in harm's way, I would do whatever is necessary to protect me/them. But it would have to be an imminent, as in right then, threat and not a preceived one.

I believe God gave us the Bible as a guide for daily living. And I think torturing and killing just because you can or because you want to take something from someone or make them suffer or return lick for lick or extract information, is not following the Christian philosophy.

"killing just because you can or because you want to take something from someone or make them suffer or return lick for lick or extract information, is not following the Christian philosophy.'

Yeah, sure Carol. Don't you know that you can't win by adhering to your moral and ethical beliefs? Jeez. Get with the times.

yvonne,
i can agree with some of what you said. i hope i am not being heaped into your comment about those who claim to be Christians but advocate torture. earlier i said if the terrorist begin to work within a framework which is more humane then we could find some commond ground with which to work with them.
and i am a little confused about you statement "Even after the "torture" of being stoned and beaten, then nailed to the cross".... was that a faux pas about Him being stoned during His arrest and trial and crucifixion? perhaps you're mixing up the story about stephen or maybe paul ? just curious......

Yvonne,

I agree with what you wrote completely except for one thing. I don't see a whole lot of people who are advocating the use of 'torture'. (Although I do see where some have mentioned that we are not afforded the same from our enemy). It really seems to be more of a debate about what constitutes torture.

Dude,

When I was stoned back in the 70's, it was nothing like torture.

Funny, but I just saw a fellow on television who was in favor of torture in interrogations and is also a big "moralist" for the GOP. My feeling is if being tortured, I would say whatever got them to quit torturing me, no matter what.

Those advocating for torture would put us on par with those we despise.

For all you mulling about the meaning of my statement, please read it again. I said the Friends can teach jihadists about Christianity, which would be torture for a jihadist.

Then maybe some of them would convert to my made up word, infidelism, (for some of you folks who might be too slow to follow, that means Christianity). Then some of them could even convert to the Quaker version of Christianity.

Soooo, I'm saying that to jihadists that Christianity is infidelism, which includes the Quaker faith, Catholicism, other Christian faiths, and of course any other non-Muslim faiths.

No insult intended Darryl, calm down.

How would I react if someone sarcastically portrays Catholicism? Doesn't bother me DD, after all you do it all the time. I don't get my panties in a wad like Darryl. I don't munch on your statments, most of them are so regurgitated I just spit them out.

Dan, it would seem that to be one who professes Christian faith, it would be problematic to even hint that same faith in the realm of infidelism, whether in jest or not.

My "panties" are not in a tight wad. I am just trying to help you learn to communicate your thoughts much better. That way you would not perceive that people get their "panties in a tight wad." Oh well, I recall something about casting "pearls before swine."

Shalom

Darryl,
I commend your efforts to help Dan. Hope springs eternal.

Earth to Darryl, to a jihadist Christianity is infidelism, get it?

BTW Darryl, here is your quote:

"Dan, it would seem that to be one who professes Christian faith, it would be problematic to even hint that same faith in the realm of infidelism, whether in jest or not."

As these are your beliefs, please tell me if you support this statement:

Catholicism: A religion that has places women at the bottom of the totem pole, and places alter boys in jeopardy for their lives?

Let's see if you are true to your words Darryl.

Dan since you have failed to fully and rationally answer my question in the Saturday Counterpoint letter on this same topic, I therefore refuse to answer any further questions you pose to me.

Respectfully

Nice dodge Darryl, and I didn't even get a Shalom at the end :(

You seem to be thoughtful in your posts, albeit a bit too emotional, but you display a clear double standard. You profess the Christian faith and are very intolerant about anything that you slightly perceive as a negative comment, even in jest or in sheer misunderstanding the context, regarding your specific religion.

Let's see, on the other hand DD can say of the Catholic faith (hint: a Christian faith) that women are on the bottom of the totem pole and alter boys are in jeopardy of their lives, yet you dodge the question and thereby excuse such statements. Plead the 5th Darryl, but the hypocrisy is loud and clear.

First off, Yvonne- sorry!!! I accidentally called you Carol above. My apologies!

Second: Dan. Dan. Dan.

You are the last person here to be talking about dodges. You got a plan for terrorism like we were talking here before you ran off?
http://blog.news-record.com/staff/letters/archives/2006/09/any_amount_of_t.html#comments

Here we are in yet another torture thread, and I have yet to see good evidence that the use of coercive methodology provides reliable intel.

Can you do it, or are you going to dodge again, as is apparently your custom?

Denzien, the name is Dan. N&R won't let two or more people post under the same name, so Dan is fine ok?

I'm a guy in NC with a wife and two kids who works in the private sector for a living. I am not a member of the military, CIA, NSA, FBI or even the Greensboro Police Dept. I am not privy to interrogation methods of "detainees" (codeword for captured terrorists) and their efficacy.

I do not support beatings, beheadings, or photographing people naked on dog leashes, never said it if that is what you are implying.

On the other hand, I do not support providing captured enemy terrorists the right to the America judicial system, as they are not American citizens. Do you? Homegrown US citizen terrorists should have access to the US judicial system. Tim McVeigh did.

I'm not an expert on the Geneva conventions, but from what I understand is captured enemies can be held until the war is over. This war will last for a long time, so captured enemies ought to adjust to life in prison for awhile.

Sooo, I'm not dodging anything Denzien. Sorry I'm not an expert on interrogation techniques. Perhaps you can ask DD, he knows everything. Good night. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Dan. Dearest Dan.

What a coincidence: I'm also in NC, have two kids (one that's only 2 weeks old!), and work in the private sector. We have so much in common! Maybe we should form a club or something.

"I do not support providing captured enemy terrorists the right to the America judicial system, as they are not American citizens."

When has that happened? I know of some men detained in Guantanamo, but nobody knows if they're terrorists or not. Given the large numbers that have been expatriated, I'd have to wonder if how many were turned in for the bounty that America offered.

Further, I don't really care what you support, but I can tell you that, if you support the law, then you support the Supreme Court's finding in Rasul v. Bush back in 2004 that reaffirmed detainees rights in regard to habeas corpus. Check it out sometime. While you're at it, check out Hamdan v Rumsfeld, too. It's a hoot.

And, since you asked me and then ran off, it's my turn to ask you- AGAIN- what's your plan to fight terrorism?

I've answered you TWICE now, please do me the favor.

Denz,
Don't hold your breath for Dan to come up with anything other than a token break with the Bush administration on ANYTHING. He did, very weakly, come out in favor of having Gays in the military---so he is sticking his toes in the water of open mindedness. If Hannity or Rush didn't say it, it is rare to hear Dan say it.

Denzien:

An observation about Gitmo is it was quickly populated in the invasion of Afganistan .. a half-dozen hundred ... and the majrity of them remain. So for 4 years, it's been the same people, with only recently a couple dozen transplanted there from the rendition program.

So with only 24'ish exceptions, the first 600 we picked up were all the really bad guys, and we've not captured any since - Hey maybe that's why the Prez says things are going well! Now I get it!

Yeah. That's the ticket. Things are going great in Iraq AND Afghanistan these days. You uncovered it James.

You know, I do my best to begin an honest dialog with these folks- Nic Danger, Dan, neocon, whoever, but once they blow their load of bullshit posturing and recycled soundbites, I find that, in most cases (like this thread!), they run from their arguments like scared little bitches, tails between their legs rather than standing firm to discuss their beliefs.

Why is that, do you think? Is it lack of knowledge on the issues? Is it a lack of conviction? I wonder.

By the way, which one of you did i meet at the beer festival a while back over by the N&R stand?

"Why is that you think? Is it a lack of knowledge on the issues? Is it lack of conviction? I wonder"

If we're speculating, I'd say that those reasons you listed probably account for some of what you describe. Nobody can be knowledgable on all issues and folks will often pick their battles.

I'd guess that lack of time might also be a reason. Also lack of energy to research and put everything into writing. Also, I guess, might be a lack of motivation when one considers that regardless of what they write, it's pretty much going to be ignored by those who disagree with some exceptions.

Not pointing fingers cause I've seen it on both sides. Just wondering along with you.

Denzien,

Can't speak for anyone but me, but when someone starts hurling insults and calling names, as far as I am concerned, the dialog is over. When I post an opinion in these threads, that's just what it is - my opinion. It doesn't need references, it doesn't need a link to prove my point. So when you start asking for something to back up what I think, or say that if I was just a little smarter I'd see things the way you do, it's ignored. When you call those who do not think like you "little bitches," it's ignored. No tail between my legs, no lack of conviction.

When it comes to arrogance, nastiness, and cowardice, you may not be the worst offender in these threads, but I do consider you to be in the top 5. No link to back that up either, just my opinion.

I still believe that those who insist on framing this arguement in terms of "torture of detainees" are doing a huge diservice to our country. (The lte in question today did not). I believe those that have a public forum and do it are bordering on treasonous acts. Your tactics have not changed my mind about that. Nor will they often generate a direct response. I merely had a little extra time at lunch today, and thought you might like to know why at least one of us usually ignores you. You just aren't worth the effort, minimal though the effort my be.

Denzien poses a great question. The silence from Dan & neoCON, is deafening. I believe in both of those cases, it is lack of knowledge to support the opinions. At least NicDanger offers up some semblance of why he cannot back his up. That's seems all right to me. His opinion is usually his feelings and not a re-hash of Hannity or Rush like Dan & neoCON.

Denzien, Nit brings up a point, time. I had to conduct training all day yesterday in Charlotte and had a dinner meeting. Notice I didn't post until after 9 pm. Did another course today and just got back, now I'm loaded up with paperwork before leaving town tomorrow. I'm not sure about some of you folks, but my time is often limited because of my job and family responsibilities.

Nic brings up a more relevant point. When you say people blow their load of bullshit posturing and run like little bitches, what is my point in responding to that? Would you carry out a conversation with me in person using such language? I doubt it.

No matter what I say about anything DD will automatically, without fail, 100% guaranteed say all I do is parrot Bush, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, you fill in the blank, accuse me of lack of knowledge, call me a tin horn flag waver, etc.

When I do disagree with a conservative viewpoint such as today's LTE about gays in the military it is referred to as a weak token break from the party line. So even when I agree with DD, I'm still insulted!! Can't win either way with some folks.

I disagree with Nic, in the past you have been rather civil in your posts, maybe that is changing, but I hope not.

The reason why I post here and enjoy it is to express my opinions and read those of others, from which I often learn something. I'm not here to put up with a bunch of insults from name calling ideologues. If I wanted to do that I would have stayed married to my first wife.

So sorry I do not have the expertise in terrorist detainee interrogation issues, nor do I have the time to look it all up. Gotta go back to work, have a good one.

Nic- grow a thicker skin, bub, especially if you're going to call me a traitor to my country, or call my behavior "treasonous".

I'm not calling those that disagree with me "little bitches" (and please note the tail tucked aspect of that to indicate dogs, and not an epithet towards women), I'm calling those that will not stand up to debate or back up their contentions when called on them. Case in point:
http://blog.news-record.com/staff/letters/archives/2006/09/only_one_party.html#comments

"When it comes to arrogance, nastiness, and cowardice, you may not be the worst offender in these threads, but I do consider you to be in the top 5"

You so funnay. I'm only trying to start an open dialoge- if you can't take being challenged on your ideas, then maybe you need thicker skin.

I like how you chose to attack me personally rather than the subject at hand, tho.

"So sorry I do not have the expertise in terrorist detainee interrogation issues, nor do I have the time to look it all up. Gotta go back to work, have a good one."

Dan- Just trying to start a conversation. I'm one to hold convictions, and love to talk current events. I base my opinions on what I read (don't watch TV) in the paper and online. I consider myself pretty well informed and interested.

Thus, when somebody offers up a question like:

"BTW, Stevie, Yvonne, Denzien, or anyone else can answer my question.

Is praying for your enemies, turning the other cheek, and hoping for peace your solution to terrorism Stevie? Just like Darryl's and Marilyn's? If not, what is it?"
http://blog.news-record.com/staff/letters/archives/2006/09/any_amount_of_t.html#comments

I'm going to try and answer in order to start a civilized dialog, rather than the usual partisan prattle that occurs here. That's an example of the sort of behavior that I meant to call out with my post above.

Meh. Maybe I should go back to being over-the-top satirical.

Denzien, look at how I was insulted because I would not answer a question. Yet, I had responded to at the very least, one question. I only asked on at least two occasions to give a rational viable answer to ONE question. Then, when I would not answer two+ questions, I was called a hypocrit!

Then some complain that they cannot "win either way" when they post comments! Where I am from, that is called, "the pot calling the kettle black!"

Shalom

Denzien, define "torture" as you understand it. If I understand your links above, "torture" involves nudity, non-injurious contact, hooding of prisoners with threatening dogs, and sleep deprivation.

In my book, this isn't much more than frat boy pranks which I'm sure you and the world traveler are familiar with.

To me, pissing on their Quran or placing a pair of panties over their head pales in comparison to what true torture is... pulling fingernails, gouging eyes out, and of course, sawing one's head off while videotaping it for the 6:00 o'clock news.

I have a nephew in Iraq and were he captured by these "freedom fighters" and I was the interrogator of a suspected perp, I would take great pleasure in cutting the bastard's tongue out and throwing it at his dying ass... but that's just me. Your mileage will vary, I'm sure.

I'm sorry, neocon- I've read the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the 5th, 8th, and the 14th Amendments to the US Constitution, the War Crimes Act of 1996, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and I can't find the part where "your book" is cited.

Perhaps you can clue me in.

(The actions you cite, however, easily fall within the bounds of "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, … and any form of indecent assault.")

That's what I thought. You and the sources you cite define torture as "outrages upon personal dignity"... this could include calling someone "bitches with their tail tucked between their legs".

"this could include calling someone "bitches with their tail tucked between their legs"."

I think you are being intentionally dishonest in your reasoning if you would compare the UN's language concerning this topic to a guy's posting on the internet. I think you'll find standards pretty well set out in the policies I mentioned earlier and the case law surrounding them.

Still, it's good that you've conceded my point. At least we're getting somewhere. :)

At least you could concede that I didn't take the torture of being called a bitch lying down.

I'd bet a good chunk of my 401k that those who practice the art of true torture against Americans are cheering for you and the bleeding heart politicans who define torture as "outrages upon their personal dignity".
read this:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CarolPlattLiebau/2006/09/19/aiding_and_abetting
Excerpt:

But the political benefit to the Democrats is dwarfed by the boon the McCain/Graham/Warner approach bestows on America’s enemies. By offering terrorists the same status as that accorded uniformed military warriors, the legislation favored by the trio only rewards warfare that glorifies the deliberate killing of innocents and undermines a distinction between terrorist and soldier that should be cherished by all civilized people.

neoCON,
Check into rehab. You are just a "victim".

"neoCON,
Check into rehab. You are just a "victim"...

Perfect example of the parrot world traveler, who just has to have the last say on a thread. Never mind that it amounts to squat.