kumquatq3

Yes it does!!!! "intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering" That clearly means severe is applied to ALL three! remember, Yrkoon, READING COMPREHENSION unless you think causing any kind of sufferiung is torture. I purposely annoyed my sister a bunch of times, it wasn't torture tho (she says otherwise) Who's your daddy?

Is it "severe" tho? It might be, but have fun proving it in legal terms hence why the charges were not brought, again

Just the good ole' boys, never meaning no harm How stupid do you have to be...

o, and: again, do you have ANY evidence to support your origianl claim? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You didn't claim "Severe" being in the torture definition was "BS"? and whats this "Poland" I hear so much about?

To prove you wrong, I like taking out your initial arguements, and working my way down to your smaller ones. And it matters, because you claimed something, you mocked me when I asked for a source, and then the source you provided disproved your own claim. So it's funny and important

I already said I made a mistake on that point unlike you, I can admit them. But I'll start you off small: Is "Severe" in the legal definition of torture or is that still BS? then work your way to: again, do you have ANY evidence to support your origianl claim? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, they could just lie: again, do you have ANY evidence to support your origianl claim? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, but I was just saying how your definition, while practical in alot of situations, isn't complete Also remember we have several treaties to meet, in terms of our definitions. Under all sorts of different senerios.

Learn to use quotes if you want me to read what you write, but I'll leave you with this: again, do you have ANY evidence to support your origianl claim? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

my point is just that it's not that easy to get a good legal definition EDIT: thats not to say I don't expect that the people we pay to do these things shouldn't have the responsibilty to do just that. I just acknowledge that it's hard

Not if it is done painlessly. Obviously death by the electric chair is out but lethal injection is the most painless way to execute a prisoner and least violent. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You don't think KNOWING the goverment is going to kill you won't cause a person "deliberate mental harm"?

Well, wouldn't that depend on the prisoners metal status? but it's not just that. You could argue your definition covers LOTS of things we view as legal. what about legal police interrogations? Or hell, maybe even an audit! The death penalty, in case your for it, would be out of the question

But you have to be careful. I mean, isn't imprisoning someone causing them deliberate mental harm?

again, do you have ANY evidence to support your origianl claim? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!! but my arguement was, in response to the question as to why torture charges were nto brought, is because it would be too damn hard to prove. Too many loop holes, the trial would take forever. So they got them on several related charges

I refuse to address the ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT NON-POINT about whether or not our congress or the defense department has seen the THOUSANDS of torture photos that our army has. I promise that I WILL address this ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT NON-POINT as soon as you ANSWER the 4 ON TOPIC questions I have been posing to you and you have been refusing to answer for the last 2 pages. Get to them. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> OK, you know why you won't address it? The point from serveral posts back now that has been repeatedly asked? THE ORIGINAL ARGUEMENT? Because it one of the MANY lies you have posted in your crazed effort to make some kind of point

ooo, I guess you didn't know that if you don't meet your Geneva convention conditions, you essential break the treaty Only a fool would assume I was talking about freindly troops

I think they torture. I think they "knowingly" have a policy of torture. This arguement was about two (and a half) things: 1. Is the memo a "smoking gun" that flat out proves it 2. Were congressmen shown "THOUSANDS" of pictures of detainee abuses that have been supressed. and kinda: 3. Is what happened at Abu torture and inforceable as such, legally speaking.

again, do you have ANY evidence to support your origianl claim? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

PLEASE STOP AVODING OUR ORIGINAL ARGUEMENT: again, do you have ANY evidence to support your origianl claim?

He used the memos as an example of how not having clear rules hurts our image. Not as a smoking gun that the US uses torture So no, nothing like you argument Please, again, understand what your saying before you sling names. Around here, name calling is a good sign your on the ropes. Signatories of the UN Convention Against Torture agree not to intentionally inflict "severe pain or suffering". Also a common wording from the 3rd and 4th Geneva conventions. I'd expect you would know the legal definition of torture by the three big treaties banning it when making an argument about Bush illegally using torture. I am claiming that TERRORISTS held by the administration don't have POW status. According to the administration, which is currently being upheld by the courts. They are called enemy combatants The administration says this about Abu Ghraib "Both the United States and Iraq are parties to the Geneva Conventions. The United States recognizes that these treaties are binding in the war for the liberation of Iraq.". Hence they give them POW treatment. But Iraq wasn't part of either Geneva convention. So, legally, they can't have POWs. Hence you can't convict under such laws or, at least, it would be hell to prove. Hence why those charges were not brought. Your original point. It's already happened. References in the BBC story, with a caption and picture that says it all Again, you are working with incorrect info I mean, didn't you even google or something to check your info? 1. You used that information incorrectly as I have pointed out and you have skipped over. 2. There are MANY people who don't find the Washington Post as the most fair of newspapers. Liberal Atheist But I'll thank you NOT to paint all Christians with one brush. You'll find your time on these forums will be short lived if you spout bigotry 2nd times the charm right?:

2nd page of the memo: "As we have explained, in order to inflict severe (there is that word again) mental or suffereing, a defendent must inflict one of the four predicate acts, such as threating imminet death, and intending "prolonged mental harm"" Right before that it lists the 4 conditions for "Severe mental pain or suffering" Which takes up 1/2 of the roughly 1 and a half pages dedicated to "what is torture" (or "I"). Again, YOU ARE INCORRECT. Legally? Maybe, it depends, but your definition is not the legal definition of anything that the US is bound too. Because it prolly uses extreme methods that is in the legal grey area! But thats not what you argued. You argued that the document was essentially a smokign gun and proves Bush condoned torture a before AG. Which, of course, it doesn't. Legally. Your confusing morality and legality Actually, that is my mistake. She was not a appleate judge yet, but a lawyer who check it for legal "correctness". She apparently was good enough to become a federal appelate judge later tho.

and it will be on the UR3 engine if obsidian does it or maybe, but unlikely, a new engine

And that kids, is how a bill becomes a law

He's not only the OFVDS head He's also a client