FROM THIS MORNING'S NY TIMES:
"His spokesman, Scott McClellan, refused Tuesday to discuss how Mr. Bush defines torture..."
How Bush defines torture. How Bush defines torture. How Bush defines torture?
Who *^%$@#! cares how Bush defines torture? His definitions, like his spelling, ain't worth shit.
Nobody but the U.N.- no head of state, no government agency- has the right to define what is torture and what isn't. That question has already been answered, thank you, by the "U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment":
Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Hear that, cretin-in-chief? You don't get to say what torture is. No statement along the lines of, "We've provided guidelines for the application of electrical burns to genitalia in Section 96.3.451 of the U.S. Code Annotated," will make such activities legal.
Once again, Naked Emperor, regardless of what your toadies and the brainwashed media tell you, you cannot arrogate the power to rewrite international law or the conventions to which all civilized peoples are signatories- you cannot rewrite reality to suit your narrow, uneducated, megalomaniacal, machismo-poisoned (and I use the next term very, very loosely) mind.
News and politics