Weasel Words and Political Agendas

The use of "weasel words," or words that are open to some fluctuation in definition, have become a staple of politicians and have become more prevalent over the past few years. This post arises because of the definition of torture that has come under intense study by the Bush Administration. The definition of torture on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Torture contains the weasel words, "extreme physical suffering," and "substantial curtailment." The specific words extreme and substantial are relative and are given no solidified form in the discussion of torture. From this point, the Bush Administration has chosen to redefine torture to include anything short of any action that will cause organ failure or death. As discussed in class, this opens the door to just about any type of torture because there are many other physical pains or mental pains that a person can be subject to without organ failure or death. While the Bush Administration is working around the Geneva Convention principles that no one will torture, I think that US politicians and especially the Bush Administration must be held accountable for their actions. The only solution to this ethical dilemma the Bush Administration has put the American people is to make an appeal to the United Nations and Geneva Convention participants as well as taking direct action to demand change from the government. If these changes do not occur I fear that the moral standards the United States has worked towards will be all for not because of the dire results of torturing.