Bush Torture Memos Released

I am a bit confused, please highlight the parts where torture is specified.

Every single method described is a watered down version of a typical day in the military. meepty food, uncomfortable conditions, etc.

I see no smoking gun here, but I remain open to the idea that perhaps I missed something.

^

What you sympathise with here is the tortured use of language. Words are defined with other words. Parsing the definition does not change the meaning. So saying that an act is not torture because it isn't severe enough is not fooling anyone.

The Bush administration hi-jacked the meaning, by hiding behind the constitution and not allowing a public discussion. They changed the rules all on their own without the people's consent. IOW, for you to say that is okay doesn't make it okay. For the administration to think that it would be okay because no one who mattered would notice is just ignorant.

The Bush administration memos authorized keeping detainees naked, in painful standing positions and in cold cells for long periods of time. Other techniques included depriving them of solid food and slapping them. Sleep deprivation, prolonged shackling and threats to a detainee's family also were used.

These are all forms of torture, however 'light' they may be. I don't care if you're for or against torture, but there will be no debate on its merits until the meeping obvious is admitted to by both sides. Otherwise you're just meepting right in the mashed potatoes with your fingers in your ears.

from here:

'To violate the statute, an individual must have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering,' said an August 2002 memo from then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee to John Rizzo, who was acting general counsel for the CIA.

'Because specific intent is an element of the offense, the absence of specific intent negates the charge of torture. ... We have further found that if a defendant acts with the good faith belief that his actions will not cause such suffering, he has not acted with specific intent,' Bybee wrote.

haha, really?

'although the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death, prolonged mental harm must nonetheless result' to violate the law.

really?

Must you torture us with this discussion?

Ha Ha!

Keep meeping laughing America. It is all a joke to you pricks isn't it?

Well, yeah, I guess it is...

[still ruminating on the meepting in the mashed potatoes comment]