What happened when Bush asked for the Geneva Convention to be updated to deal with these people?
That wasn't SUPPORT he was getting from the Left.
When not on our soil? Would they not be subject to the laws of the nation we were holding them??
I have not said otherwise. I have been steadily trying to point out that if you fail to outline specific rules - there will be abuse.
Don't change the subject. You said leave the definition of torture to the person enduring the pain - that would be every criminal, prisoner and terrorist in our custody as the sole arbiters of what constitutes torture.
Your angry and frustrated that you CANNOT define torture to a point that covers all your sensitivities.
You're simply lashing out with statements like this.
I don't want the US to "torture" anyone. BUT-However-In consequence of that - We must have a CONCRETE definition of torture - complete with an outline of acceptable and unacceptable activities - and these must remain CONSTANT so that we don't cross the line.
Thus far, no such concrete definitions or outlines are in place, and thats not from a lack of trying. Its from a lack of cooperation from people like yourself.
You, who would call someone names for wanting definitions. You, who would claim someone to be sadistic for insisting on an outline for acceptable activity. You, who likes to end by claiming moral superiority when its your side that has failed to protect the innocent by simply providing definitions, outlines and support to the effort.
I feel the same way but you insist on playing the moral relativism game, trying desperately to paint me as a horrible person that wants people tortured.
Pointing out abuses that have already happened and saying "This sort of thing shouldn't happen" is not productive in that it does nothing to stop the abuse.
Only definitions, outlines and rules can do that - When you're ready to talk about those things, we can have a rational discussion - one thats focused on realistic applications and not just intangible ideology.
