when it wasnt manchin, it was lieberman or whoever. somehow, magically, there’s always just enough of them at any given time

correction, he ordered a bunch of israelis killed when he told the IDF to shoot at everything indiscriminately

the above article

no, the word torture has a meaning independent of the laws of the day. it’s been fairly stable for a long time.

also, why do they need to create “coercive techniques” (methods of torture)?

and yet britain kept on doing torture. strange how that works, eh

you cannot be this dense. it was torture. it’s still torture. laws dont define reality.

they always have just enough manchins to never have to do anything good

torture, what part of this is difficult for you? even the article calls it torture.

presentism, as if people werent aware that it was torture until the law changed, lol

the article is about instances of torture and how their legal category has changed in the torturer country

can they actually prevent soldiers from having phones though? isnt this a big problem in the ukraine war?

it’s about torture, not what the torturer UK decides is torture.

they were designed to slip below the legal definition of torture, which is not what anyone is talking about except you, in your desperate attempt to shift blame away from the torturers.

because the actual meaning of the word is something like this: The infliction of severe pain or anguish, especially as an interrogation technique or punishment; (usually in the plural) a technique, method, or device which is designed to inflict such anguish.

note how there’s no reference to the UN or the laws of the UK.

because i know what the word torture means.

oh that makes it so much better, that they were torture techniques deliberately and cold-bloodedly developed by the torturers to slip through a legal loophole

yes. (also, yeah sure, i absolutely believe that what SAS soldiers went through during training is the same thing as they then inflicted on captured people abroad, yes sir)

and it was torture before that. it would’ve been torture if the romans had done it.

you’re still doing it. nobody but you is talking about the legality, can you get that through your head?

this is what you’re calling not torture:

Declassified has previously found that while one member of the Shihuh tribe was being questioned, he refused to give up his ceremonial dagger and was shot in the arm, shoulder, and neck.

and this:

They were subjected to now banned methods of torture which involve sensory deprivation, such as completely covering someone’s head with a sack and bombarding them with noise.

and this:

They did this by forcing the Shihuh detainees into unnatural stress positions against walls, hooding their faces and subjected them to an “electronic noise machine” – the first use of its kind.

and this:

The unit’s methods were so extreme that a report written by military psychiatrists warned interrogation subjects could suffer “hysterical” dissociations, terror, delusions and suicidal ideation – even in training scenarios.

do you think the torturers didnt know that it was wrong to torture? that they needed the courts to tell them that torture is wrong? do you think the state which then promoted these torturers and put them in charge of more torture was unaware of the torture?

nuance is when you refuse to even recognise torture because the torturers hadnt yet decided to call it torture.

by the legal experts of the UK. who are irrelevant for determining what is torture in reality. this is you defending torture.