Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States

Journal orthogonal's Journal: The Bush Administration Dictionary 24

As you are aware, the Bush Administration's "Justice" Department wrote several memos defining torture in such a way as to permit its use, notably by saying that it's not torture unless the only reason it's being done is to inflict pain -- thus ruling that any use to extract information is, ipso facto, not torture.

As a patriotic citizen, I wish to do my bit to help the Bush Administration, so herewith I present

The Bush Administration Dictionary:

  • freedom (n), why the terrorists hate us; unnecessary luxury under the Bush administration
  • Bill of Rights (n) archaic, mere paper listing mere suggestions to the monarch
  • free speech (n), doctrine establishing the rights of Fox News and Clear Chanel Communications; applicable to corporations only
  • terrorist (n), anyone opposed to the King; a dissenter
  • patriotism (n), a fig-leaf that justifies anything

I hope you'll follow my lead by adding more patriotic definitions!

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Bush Administration Dictionary

Comments Filter:
  • America = AmerGhraib
  • Pacifist (Score:4, Funny)

    by Popadopolis ( 724438 ) on Monday June 28, 2004 @02:36PM (#9552972) Journal
    Pacifist - Unpatriotic person and possible terrorist

    France - Enemy state, opposes freedom (see above defintion of freedom), cheese-eating surrender-monkeys

    • Pacifist - Unpatriotic person and possible terrorist

      Hate to be a spoil sport, but...

      A patriot loves and defends his country. A pacifist, being opposed to violence in all its forms (good and bad) doesn't defend anything. Pacifists are, by definition, unpatriotic.

      And while being a pacifist doesn't make you a terrorist, pacifists are more likely to further the terrorists' goals (e.g. by agitating to stop fighting the terrorists) than non-pacifists are.

      So your definition is entertainingly correct.
      • Pacifist - Unpatriotic person and possible terrorist

        Hate to be a spoil sport, but... A patriot loves and defends his country. A pacifist, being opposed to violence in all its forms (good and bad) doesn't defend anything. Pacifists are, by definition, unpatriotic.

        I think Ghandi managed to prove that you can be both a patriot and a pacifist...
  • patriotism (n), a fig-leaf that justifies anything; additionaly "you're with us or against us"
  • evidence (n) -- The unverified statements of a paid informer. See also Chalabi.

    rumor (n) -- The source of unfavorable news. See also Wolfowitz.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Coalition of the willing = US, UK, or any other country without a real military that doesn't have to donate anything but goodwill.
  • Republican = member of CFR, also see Bilderburger

    Democrat = member of CFR, also see Bilderburger

    M.E.D.I.A. = acronym = manipulation, evasion, disinformation, intimidation, assimilation

    "detainee" = "boy, you in a heap 0 trouble.. .lemme hear ya squeal like a piggee.. you sure got a purty mouth..."

    "stress and duress" = a pre-new prosthetic interview

    interview = see "mengele"

    "collateral damage" = random parts collection

    boxcutters = radio control apparati

  • Serious response to a perhaps lighthearted journal follows. Stop reading now if you're looking to laugh.

    The reasoning in this case may have stemmed from Article 17 of the Third Geneva Convention [unhchr.ch].

    No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

    In isola

    • Usually laws are interpreted assuming the plain language meaning of a word where no definition is provided.
    • Re:'Torture' (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I don't really know what your point is, but you said:

      there is no definition of torture offered in the document

      Article 3.1.a states:
      [are and shall remain prohibited]
      (a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
      and Article 3.1.c:
      (c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

      So even without any definition of "torture", there is no question that the USofA was in contravention of the Third Genev

    • ITYM toeing someone else's line
    • Whatever about legalistic nitpicking. You argument sounds a bit like Bill Clinton arguing about the definition of "having sex".
      1. Is it morally right to torture. 2. Is there any evidence that detainees have been tortured?.
      I would like to hear your opinions. I'm sure you really don't need me to provide a definition of torture.
      • 1. Is it morally right to torture. 2. Is there any evidence that detainees have been tortured?

        I would like to hear your opinions. I'm sure you really don't need me to provide a definition of torture.

        But there's the rub. Would you consider being forced to hold a shoe in your mouth for minutes at a time humiliating or torture? I wouldn't. Someone else might, for instance if he comes from a culture where the foot, being at the bottom and in contact with the dirt, is the most degrading part of the body

  • "Liberate? You mean... liquidate?" -- "Real Genius"
    • I like that line, but are you sure it comes from "Real Genius"? I don't remember it.
      • are you sure it comes from "Real Genius"?

        Positive. It's in the very beginning, when the evil intellgence people are watching a movie about the proposed space-assasination vehicle. One of them dissents, and leaves after telling them all off, and another one says, "I think we're going to have to liberate George..."

        Anyway, it most certainly does.

        "--What do you want?
        --World peace, but now's not the time to talk about it."

  • by IshanCaspian ( 625325 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @12:01PM (#9560911) Homepage
    frank exchange of views = "go fuck yourself"

  • <troymcclure>
    Hello. You may remember me as "The Crazy Brazilian" in "That Other Forum".
    </troymcclure>
  • It's a shame you added this one. Not because I agree or disagree with your political views, just simply because you've managed to add nothing but venom to an already too-politicized debate.

    sev

    • I don't see how it is "too political". Our country was built on dissent! We should fight the current regime's oppression.
      • My problem is not that we are having debate and dissent. My problem is that the debate and dissent itself has become too politicized. That is, not enough facts, too much vitriol and illogical attacks. (When I say "illogical", I mean use of logic fallacies, such as ad hominem attacks, begging the question, assuming the antecedent, etc.)

        This particular journal entry is a departure from the rest of ortho's journal in that it adds to the problem I'm referring to. The other journal entries add an interestin

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Working...