Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (6659)	5/23/2007 10:01:26 AM
From: Augustus Gloop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Do you believe we don't torture now? I think we do and I refuse to be ashamed of it

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (6659)	5/23/2007 10:31:02 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Thank you for providing definitions, we have had several submitted now and they seem to all line up, which should be common sense. We have the UN definition, the US definition, and you’ve submitted the International definition. What I see is a tendency to throw a lot more into it when you are anti- and to peal some stuff off when you are pro. The report you provided carries the usual suspicious language like ‘leaked’ and ‘MAY violate.’ which gives me pause to consider the issue more. Labeling something aggressive interrogation because it does not meet the classic definition of should not automatically give it a pass and arguing over whether it should be called torture or not is a distraction to that issue. If it is condemnable we can object to it without pushing it under the torture umbrella. The practice of sending prisoners to other countries knowing they will employ interrogation techniques we forbid is of great concern to me and I think this should be looked into using greater pressure than we have.