Conservative talk show host waterboarded

[DaveC426913]

Indeed, one might wonder why the atrocities committed on our soldiers is virtually ignored,

: shakes head : ... uh, because we know terrorists are https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2215825&postcount=100" and don't wish to feed them?

 

[drankin]

: shakes head : ... uh, because we know they're publicity whores and don't wish to feed them?

the soldiers??

 

[DaveC426913]

the soldiers??

Snerk. See https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2215825&postcount=100" for context.

Post #106 updated.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

As lisab eloquently put it: To allow terrorists to re-calibrate your ethics and morals is absurd.

Not exactly. Torture has been used often through out history, including by our own government, and even relatively recently. I would say that standard ethics have been recalibrated by people who look at what terrorists and tyrants have done and are ashamed to see something similar in themselves and their own government.
Its not so absurd really even the other way. A terrorist may push one to act outside of their ethics and it may be unavoidable. I don't see the US government being pushed here though. I see them perhaps being baited.

Saying "We are the good guys because we are not as bad as they are" is really just a disingenuous moral arguement. One is trying to make themselves look better than their enemies rather than actually argue the morality of their actions. Its a deflection and doesn't really deserve great effort in refuting it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Not exactly. Torture has been used often through out history, including by our own government, and even relatively recently. I would say that standard ethics have been recalibrated by people who look at what terrorists and tyrants have done and are ashamed to see something similar in themselves and their own government.

Recalibrated by people who are against torture? That would suggest that torture is on the wane.

Oh. I see what you mean. You're saying that, historically, the default has been to torture, and we're trying to change that.

Its not so absurd really even the other way. A terrorist may push one to act outside of their ethics and it may be unavoidable.

Terrorists by definition target innocent people to scare or force a government into action. By definition they have no ethics about causing suffering on innocent lives. (Except, I suppose the Irish, who still love their Queen.)

Saying "We are the good guys because we are not as bad as they are" is really just a disingenuous moral arguement.

I don't think anyone is really saying that, the operative word in your phrase being "because".

I think the core argument is: "We think torture of any sort is immoral. As we are dragged deeper into a nasty war, we must use harsher and harsher techniques to defend the lives of our people." The crux of the issue is that "harsher techniques" is a slippery slope.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Recalibrated by people who are against torture? That would suggest that torture is on the wane.

Oh. I see what you mean. You're saying that, historically, the default has been to torture, and we're trying to change that.

Yes, I don't think it would have even been in question not that long ago though we apparently still have many citizens who support torture of terrorists.

I don't think anyone is really saying that, the operative word in your phrase being "because".

I think the core argument is: "We think torture of any sort is immoral. As we are dragged deeper into a nasty war, we must use harsher and harsher techniques to defend the lives of our people." The crux of the issue is that "harsher techniques" is a slippery slope.

"We're the good guys. We might as a last resort, waterboard, but we won't electrocute, burn, or maim you."

Seycyrus continually refers to what terrorists do. That is his argument. I was referring to that.

 

[Al68]

What's more, shouldn't we waterboard kidnappers in order to find a child? Or, shouldn't we be willing to dismember a person who is hiding information about a serial killer - say the killer's mother? Why draw the torture line with terrorists? Why not apply it anytime another innocent life is in jeopardy?

I would assume everyone on this board has the minimum level of intelligence to see the obvious fundamental difference here. In domestic law enforcement, there is a fundamental underlying assumption that the identity of the "actual perpetrator" is unknown until after conviction (ie, suspects are legally innocent pre-conviction).

This has never been an underlying assumption in war.

 

[turbo]

Now Mr. Cheney claimed last week that President Obama’s decisions have made us less secure and that abusive interrogation techniques worked. Mr. Cheney has said that the use of abusive techniques “prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent lives.” Mr. Cheney’s claims are directly contrary to the judgment of our FBI Director, Robert Mueller, that no attacks on America were disrupted due to intelligence obtained through the use of those techniques.

Mr. Cheney has also claimed that the release of classified documents would prove his view that the techniques worked. But those classified documents say nothing about numbers of lives saved, nor do the documents connect acquisition of valuable intelligence to the use of the abusive techniques. I hope that the documents are declassified so that people can judge for themselves what is fact and what is fiction.

http://www.isria.com/pages/29_May_2009_12.htm

Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has reviewed the classified documents that Cheney claims prove that our use of torture saved US lives. Levin's response is that Cheney is lying and that the documents should be declassified so that everyone can see for themselves what the truth is. As long as they are classified, Cheney can say anything he wants about them and continue his charade.

 

[turbo]

I would assume everyone on this board has the minimum level of intelligence to see the obvious fundamental difference here. In domestic law enforcement, there is a fundamental underlying assumption that the identity of the "actual perpetrator" is unknown until after conviction (ie, suspects are legally innocent pre-conviction).

This has never been an underlying assumption in war.

Also anyone on this board probably has the minimal level of intelligence to realize that when the US offers bounties for "terrorists" a lot of innocent men are going to get fingered 1) for the money 2) to settle scores between rival factions and 3) to pursue personal grudges held against the "terrorist" or his family. If a guy is caught building bombs or trying to employ one or some other terrorist act, that's one thing. If he is detained and tortured on hearsay "evidence", that is quite another thing.

And before we get too far down the road about an "underlying assumption in war", please consider that one of the key claims of the neo-cons was that the Geneva conventions do not apply to the people we captured and tortured because there was no war and they were not soldiers, but "enemy combatants" who have NO rights.

 

[mheslep]

http://www.isria.com/pages/29_May_2009_12.htm

Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has reviewed the classified documents

Levin does not say he reviewed them, he makes claims about them.

that Cheney claims prove that our use of torture saved US lives. Levin's response is that Cheney is lying and that the documents should be declassified so that everyone can see for themselves what the truth is. As long as they are classified, Cheney can say anything he wants about them and continue his charade.

As can Levin.

 

[turbo]

Levin does not say he reviewed them, he makes claims about them.
As can Levin.

Levin and his committee recently concluded an 18-month study on prisoner abuse, so it's pretty nit-picking to say that he didn't "review" the classified records, when it is quite evident that he did, and that he knows that Cheney is lying. As Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, he certainly has security clearance to have reviewed any records that the CIA had not destroyed.

Robert Mueller presumably has a pretty inclusive security clearance, since he is the director of the FBI, and he, too, claims that no attacks on the US were prevented by the information gained through the use of torture. Maybe Cheney has access to rare "double top-secret" documents that only he has seen?

Recently, General Petraeus told FOX News that our treatment of prisoners violated the Geneva Convention and that such violations of human rights gives our enemies tools to demean the US. Maybe Petraeus is turning into a pinko lefty, or maybe he knows what he's talking about.

http://s183.photobucket.com/albums/...&current=TLD-Petraus-Gitmo-torture-052909.flv

 

[DaveC426913]

As can Levin.

This would make no sense though. Why would Levin move to have documents made public that would prove him a liar?

 

[LowlyPion]

Levin does not say he reviewed them, he makes claims about them.

You think that the Committee Report would embrace this conclusion?:

http://armed-services.senate.gov/Publications/EXEC%20SUMMARY-CONCLUSIONS_For%20Release_12%20December%202008.pdf" Senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of legality, and authorized their use against detainees. Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority. ”

Yet they would fail to offer comment on the mitigating evidence contained by these "Secret" memos showing benefit? Given that Levin has access to those memos and he is categorically saying that they do not support Cheney's allegation that there was demonstrable benefit from resorting to torture techniques, I will have to think that the preponderance of appearances is that the alleged benefits of this Executive Branch sanctioned torture are about as believable as Cheney's once strident claims about Saddam building weapons of mass destruction.

 

[Al68]

And before we get too far down the road about an "underlying assumption in war", please consider that one of the key claims of the neo-cons was that the Geneva conventions do not apply to the people we captured and tortured because there was no war and they were not soldiers, but "enemy combatants" who have NO rights.

In that case the "neocons" are obviously and provably correct. Everyone is endowed with inalienable rights, but the Geneva Conventions simply don't prohibit torturing in this case.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Even if a terrorist group were considered soldiers in a war, they are not a party to the convention, and the convention's prohibition on torture only applies to an enemy who "accepts and applies the provisions thereof". This is clearly not the case.

That doesn't mean torture should be used, but we are not talking about an enemy who is a party to the Geneva Conventions. Why are so many people under the impression that we are talking about parties to the Geneva Conventions? Why do so many people falsely believe that they apply to this?

The "unlawful combatant" issue is ironically a result of added protection (by Bush) for POW's who are not covered by Geneva, to treat them as such anyway unless and until a tribunal determines they are an "unlawful combatant".

 

[LowlyPion]

In that case the "neocons" are obviously and provably correct. Everyone is endowed with inalienable rights, but the Geneva Conventions simply don't prohibit torturing in this case.

Actually I think you will find that a consequence of http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/03-6696P.ZO" is that the detainees are as a principle of Law covered by the Geneva Convention, regardless of the designation of combatant status. Not only did the Supreme Court find Hamdan was entitled to a habeas hearing, (and found that the Military Commissions were deficient in this regard), but found so on the basis of the Government's own published regulations concerning detainees, in which it asserts that the Geneva Conventions are controlling.

Army Regulation 190–8
1–1. Purpose
a. This regulation provides policy, procedures, and responsibilities for the administration, treatment, employment, and compensation of enemy prisoners of war (EPW), retained personnel (RP), civilian internees (CI) and other detainees (OD) in the custody of U.S. Armed Forces. This regulation also establishes procedures for transfer of custody from the United States to another detaining power.
b. This regulation implements international law, both customary and codified, relating to EPW, RP, CI, and ODs which includes those persons held during military operations other than war. The principal treaties relevant to this regulation are:
... (4) The 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (GC), and In the event of conflicts or discrepancies between this regulation and the Geneva Conventions, the provisions of the Geneva Conventions take precedence.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/ar190-8.pdf

I'd say this Neocon justification to deny something already codified from something published at least since 1997 and recognized by the Supreme Court as controlling, is really just a smokescreen in which they would hope to conceal Bush Cheney from war crime exposure, and has no substantive basis.

 

[Al68]

Actually I think you will find that a consequence of http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/03-6696P.ZO" is that the detainees are as a principle of Law covered by the Geneva Convention, regardless of the designation of combatant status. Not only did the Supreme Court find Hamdan was entitled to a habeas hearing, (and found that the Military Commissions were deficient in this regard), but found so on the basis of the Government's own published regulations concerning detainees, in which it asserts that the Geneva Conventions are controlling.

Nonsense. Like I mentioned, the regs say that such prisoners would be treated similar to Geneva standards even when they don't apply with some exceptions. This is a far cry from Geneva being "controlling".

I'd say this Neocon justification to deny something already codified from something published at least since 1997 and recognized by the Supreme Court as controlling, is really just a smokescreen in which they would hope to conceal Bush Cheney from war crime exposure, and has no substantive basis.

First, it's the accusation of war crimes that must have a substantive basis, not the denial. Second, I have no interest in justifying or defending anything or anyone in this matter because until there is some substantiation of such absurd claims, there is no point.

Third, the reg you posted doesn't back up your claims. Do you have any evidence that anyone has denied what that reg says? That reg is not part of Geneva, it's in addition to Geneva. Is that not obvious?

I was merely being a master of the obvious pointing out the clear and obvious fact that the Geneva Convention itself says it doesn't apply to this case. And the case you cited, when not mischaracterized, makes it clear that the habeas entitlement is due to U.S. regs that say certain prisoners have certain rights contained in Geneva even when Geneva doesn't apply.

And, some like to take advantage of the fact that most people have no idea what a "regulation" is, and they think it's the same thing as a law. A regulation is an instruction from the President to members of the Executive branch. No citizen has ever been convicted of "violating" a U.S. regulation. Every federal prosecution must cite a law passed by congress that was allegedly violated.

The obligation of executive branch employees to follow regulations is based on the constitutional authority of the President to control that branch. All executive power is vested in the President, and everyone who exercises executive power has that power delegated to them by the President, mostly by regulations.

Yet some claim that "violating" a regulation that congress never voted on is not only a crime, but a war crime. That's just preposterous. And that the President committed a war crime as a result of his instructing executive branch members to treat prisoners better than Geneva requires? Again, taking advantage of the fact that too many Americans have no understanding whatsoever of basic civics.

 

[LowlyPion]

Nonsense. Like I mentioned, the regs say that such prisoners would be treated similar to Geneva standards even when they don't apply with some exceptions. This is a far cry from Geneva being "controlling".

It's not nonsense at all. A separate but similar argument isn't indicated. The regulations include the manner of treatment, and as to the manner of treatment the Executive Branch didn't live up to their own regulations, which through their own statement adopts the Geneva Standards of treatment, irrespective of whether the Geneva Conventions would strictly apply to the individuals as to its definitions of combatants.

To suggest that the Executive Branch is free to disregard its regulations at the President's say so, merely evokes pictures of Nixon claiming that the President isn't a crook because he can't break the Law, he is above it. This is simply not the case.

Justice O'Connor and the Majority of the Court, would seem to support this argument in Hamdan as to the applicability of the Geneva Conventions. I guess they don't find these Neocon arguments quite so obvious.

 

[Al68]

It's not nonsense at all. A separate but similar argument isn't indicated. The regulations include the manner of treatment, and as to the manner of treatment the Executive Branch didn't live up to their own regulations, which through their own statement adopts the Geneva Standards of treatment, irrespective of whether the Geneva Conventions would strictly apply to the individuals as to its definitions of combatants.

That's what I said, the regs adopt the Geneva standards in some cases where the Geneva Convention doesn't apply.

To suggest that the Executive Branch is free to disregard its regulations at the President's say so, merely evokes pictures of Nixon claiming that the President isn't a crook because he can't break the Law, he is above it. This is simply not the case.

This makes no sense. The regs are the President's "say so". The analogy to Nixon is absurd. Nixon claimed he could ignore the law, not simply create new regs, which is the President"s job.

Justice O'Connor and the Majority of the Court, would seem to support this argument in Hamdan as to the applicability of the Geneva Conventions. I guess they don't find these Neocon arguments quite so obvious.

Because those weren't the arguments presented. The court found that members of the executive branch were obligated to follow the President's "say so", ie the regs. They said the Geneva standards apply as a result of the regs, not as a result of the Convention being applicable. There is a huge difference.

 

[mheslep]

This would make no sense though. Why would Levin move to have documents made public that would prove him a liar?

Cheney has made the same request.

 

[seycyrus]

Granted. But there's cigarette burns and then there's amputation. I just don't know.

Look through some of the other clips. Oh wait, some of the burns might have been caused by things besides cigarettes. Would cigar burns suffice? DO I have to specify whether I meant menthol or regular cigarrettes? it's pretty amazing how you are calling me on nits when my argument is/was clear.

No. The onus is on you to back up your claims that their tortures are worse than ours. I'm merely saying you haven't convinced me.

I'm not interested in you redefingin te discussion. The onus on me was to prove that terrorsits torture. This has been proven.

I'm not interested in convincing you whether their torture is worse than ours. You go on and keep believing that the terrorists are more humane than the US. No skin off my back.

I know you are. But you haven't made your case convincingly.

And frankly, I'm not comfortable with a moral equivalent of "we're slightly better than the lowest common denominator." If they step up their torture methods, does that mean we can step ours up?

And how exactly would they "step up" their torture? Exactly what guidelines and regulations do you think they follow? What line are they not crossing? How could it be worse?

As lisab eloquently put it: To allow terrorists to re-calibrate your ethics and morals is absurd.

And as I replied. Morally and ethically, I've always know that taking a blowtorch to someone is tremendously diffeent than waterboarding them. No recalibration needed on my end. Making those two acts equivalent is what requires the recalibration.

 

[LowlyPion]

Originally Posted by DaveC426913:
No. The onus is on you to back up your claims that their tortures are worse than ours. I'm merely saying you haven't convinced me.

I'm not interested in you redefingin te discussion. The onus on me was to prove that terrorsits torture. This has been proven.

You've seemingly missed the central issue of his point. Choosing to redact what is inconvenient and what I'd say is not exactly possible for civilized men to defend:

(And then, if you can back that up, to demonstrate that that then justifies how we behave. ...

The inhumane behavior of others is irrelevant to the lens through which we judge the behavior of those that were representing us, the standards to which we have every right that they would conduct themselves, to hold a position of authority and responsibility, to carry out our laws and represent our value for human life. Arguing that we aren't as bad seems to me to be a pretty low goal. I don't see how it offers the likes of Bush and Cheney and Bybee and Yoo the barest fig leaf of appearing to offer a defense, for their infantile wordplay in trying to justify their acts.

The more I see the Neocons offer up rubbish defenses of inhumane actions somehow being justified, because there may be an inhumane enemy, the more inclined I'm to be in favor of shipping the lot of these bad actors to the Hague and letting the Spanish have a go at making a finding of fact and straightening out the accounts for humanity.

 

[DaveC426913]

Oh wait, some of the burns might have been caused by things besides cigarettes. Would cigar burns suffice? DO I have to specify whether I meant menthol or regular cigarrettes?
...
You go on and keep believing that the terrorists are more humane than the US. No skin off my back.

Your sarcasm is unwarranted. It implies you feel your case is a foregone conclusion and I/we are just being obtuse. Well, we'll be the judge as you whether you've made your case, thank you. If your argument stands on its own merits then emotional pot shots are unnecessary.

If you wish to have a serious discussion, do so. (No need to respond to this, simply rephrase your rebuttal without all the sarcasm.)

 

[lisab]

My morals and ethics have not been recalibrated. I have always known that waterboarding and the other forms of torture we have discussed are NOT equivalent.

Then your ethics and morals have been at odds with what have been American ethics and morals, historically. Because we used to regard waterboarding as torture. In fact http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html" for doing it to Americans.

The scale we used then was recalibrated by the Bush administration. There's simply no arguing that.

 

[mheslep]

Then your ethics and morals have been at odds with what have been American ethics and morals, historically. Because we used to regard waterboarding as torture. In fact http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html" for doing it to Americans...

What does this or the post article have to do with seycyrus's statement comparing water boarding to permanent disfiguring, maiming and the like?

 

[seycyrus]

Your sarcasm is unwarranted. It implies you feel your case is a foregone conclusion and I/we are just being obtuse. Well, we'll be the judge as you whether you've made your case, thank you. If your argument stands on its own merits then emotional pot shots are unnecessary.

If you wish to have a serious discussion, do so. (No need to respond to this, simply rephrase your rebuttal without all the sarcasm.)

Excuse me? My sarcasm pinpointed the ludicrity of the response.

Not only was my discussion serious, but it was also in good faith. Attempting to attach an unwarranted obligation on me, (whi hc has been done on more than one occasion in this thread) is deceitful.

It was stated that "terrorists do not torture" I took exception to that comment, and proceeded to lay down evidence to counter said statement.

The fact that people let the fallacious statement that "terrorist do not torture" fly unopposed while nitpicking the specifics of my arguments is more than telling.

 

[seycyrus]

Then your ethics and morals have been at odds with what have been American ethics and morals, historically. Because we used to regard waterboarding as torture. In fact http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html" for doing it to Americans.

The scale we used then was recalibrated by the Bush administration. There's simply no arguing that.

You inherently know that there IS a difference between waterboarding and the forms of torture that terrorists use.

I object to the equivocation of waterboarding to these other methods.

This thread started with a discussion of mancow showing up to be waterboarded.

Can you imagine what would have happened if Mancow had shown up to be waterboarded and had been greeted with manacles and a blowtorch?

Mancow: "Hey what's this cra*&$#? Where's the water and the towel?"
Interrogator: "Waterboarding...blowtorch. Torture is torture ... Hey, it's all the same thing right?"

Ridiculous.

There IS a difference. You know it, I know it, and you can sure as heck bet that the terrorists know it!

 

[seycyrus]

You've seemingly missed the central issue of his point. Choosing to redact what is inconvenient ...

If you're using the definition of "redact" that I think you're using, I'd like to know exactly what you are accusing me of. Just state it.

The inhumane behavior of others is irrelevant to the lens through which we judge the behavior of those that were representing us, the standards to which we have every right that they would conduct themselves, to hold a position of authority and responsibility, to carry out our laws and represent our value for human life.

I have argued that waterobarding is not equivalent to various methods of torture. If you are trying to make the claim that they are, your lens is very clouded.

... I don't see how it offers the likes of Bush and Cheney and Bybee and Yoo the barest fig leaf of appearing to offer a defense, for their infantile wordplay in trying to justify their acts..

Get off the anti-Bush schtick. The argument that transient discomfort does not equal permanent damage can be argued without reference to politcs.

The more I see the Neocons ...

Oh yeah, the NEOCONS now.

...the more inclined I'm to be in favor of shipping the lot of these bad actors to the Hague and letting the Spanish have a go at making a finding of fact and straightening out the accounts for humanity.

More flippant trash talk.

Oh yeah? Well I'd be all in favor of forcing everyone who thinks that waterboarding and blowtorching are equivalent, the choice of having to undergo one or the other, and then after everyone chooses WBing, PROVING to them that can tell the difference.

How's dem words for grandeur?

 

[NeoDevin]

I have argued that waterobarding is not equivalent to various methods of torture. If you are trying to make the claim that they are, your lens is very clouded.

I don't think anyone is trying to say that waterboarding is "equivalent" to other methods of torture. What they are saying (and I agree with them) is that waterboarding is a form of torture, and therefore the US should not be engaging in it. The point is not if it's worse than having electricity through your 'nads, or a blowtorch, or whatever, just that it is bad, and therefore the "good guys" shouldn't be doing it.

Is your point that waterboarding is not torture? Or that this "less severe" form of torture is acceptable in these circumstances? Or something else entirely?

 

[seycyrus]

...
Is your point that waterboarding is not torture? Or that this "less severe" form of torture is acceptable in these circumstances? Or something else entirely?

It looks like you are arguing in good faith.

I do not believe that waterboarding is torture.

I am not making any claims about when/what/where the US might have backtracked on its definitions. I am not defending Cheney, Bush or anyone else.

I know people that have been tortured in what I would define as the "classical" way. They do not think WBing is torture. I am not saying that WBing is a pleasant experience nor am I saying that I volunteer to be WBed. I claim that the distinction between WBing and other forms of torture is fundamental.

I do not think that transient discomfort qualifies as torture. Note the word "transient".

Is puting a prisoner in a chilly room torture? Is showing an arachnaphobe pictures of spiders torture?

Yes WBing is more severe than those cases. (Is it always? I can imagine instances of extreme phobias ...) Perhaps WBing might be grouped together with torture as a "prohibited activity".

I disagree with the notion that Wbing is "the same" as other forms of torture.

And I certainly disagree with the claim that if the US waterboards convicted terrorists, then they are just as bad as those terrorists who use the classical methods of torture.

 

[DaveC426913]

It looks like you are arguing in good faith.

We are all arguing in good faith. It's just that some of us have disagreed with you more than others.

And I certainly disagree with the claim that if the US waterboards convicted terrorists, then they are just as bad as those terrorists who use the classical methods of torture.

OK, so you see levels of acceptability. Some of us think that there is a distinct line between good guy behaviour and bad guy behaviour, not simply a continuous scale.

By analogy, a bank robber might consider himself as committing a lesser crime than a serial murderer. But I would treat them both as the criminals they are.

Whether or not our methods are not as bad as someone elses, unacceptable is unacceptable. And we don't redefine what is acceptable based on what the bad guys do.

 

[seycyrus]

We are all arguing in good faith. It's just that some of us have disagreed with you more than others.

Oh please! I had to PROVE to people that terrorists torture. And then when I provided links, you went through the first batch, counting off on your fingers to see if I had shown every specific type mentioned, even though the specific acts mentioned were "brought along for the ride" by an earlier exchange between me and another poster.

OK, so you see levels of acceptability. Some of us think that there is a distinct line between good guy behaviour and bad guy behaviour, not simply a continuous scale.

I claim that my line is distinct. I have even provided aspects of a definition, in terms of transient nature, for further discussion. Your scale seems to be more continuous and loosely applied than mine, and based on your personal abhorration for the method.

Since you quoted from one of my more recent posts, I think it is fair to assume you read it, in entirety. How does your judgement deal with case of the chilly room and phobias?

By analogy, a bank robber might consider himself as committing a lesser crime than a serial murderer. But I would treat them both as the criminals they are.

1) You have pre-defined them both as crimes. It is not analagous to our discussion. We are discussing whether Wbing is torture, not whether Wbing is somethign that we have already agreed that it is (i.e. unpleasant).

2) Furthermore, I do not believe you would treat them in an equivalent fashion. Certainly, I don't think that you would claim that bank robbers are "just as bad" as serial killers?

Whether or not our methods are not as bad as someone elses, unacceptable is unacceptable. And we don't redefine what is acceptable based on what the bad guys do.

I believe that the argument has shifted to whether or not, I accept WBing as "acceptable", and why this might be the case. The continual re-utterance of variations on this catchphrase seem to be a bit puzzling.

 

[DaveC426913]

Oh please! I had to PROVE to people that terrorists torture. And then when I provided links, you went through the first batch, counting off on your fingers to see if I had shown every specific type mentioned, even though the specific acts mentioned were "brought along for the ride" by an earlier exchange between me and another poster.

And you would call this bad faith? This is what a discussion is.

I think the problem is that you assume that there is a large body of common knowledge that we* all agree on without discussing. While in more casual circumstances that might be OK, you are using this common knowledge as a premise to make a point.

*not sure who "we" is.

I'm not completely dismissing your argument, I'm just not granting everything you claim.

I claim that my line is distinct. I have even provided aspects of a definition, in terms of transient nature, for further discussion. Your scale seems to be more continuous and loosely applied than mine, and based on your personal abhorration for the method.

Since you quoted from one of my more recent posts, I think it is fair to assume you read it, in entirety. How does your judgement deal with case of the chilly room and phobias?

Frankly, I don't know. That is a hypothetical. The only purpose I can see for following this line of reasoining is as a straw man.

1) You have pre-defined them both as crimes. It is not analagous to our discussion. We are discussing whether Wbing is torture, not whether Wbing is somethign that we have already agreed that it is (i.e. unpleasant).

Yes, I have. Yes, I do define waterboarding as torture.

2) Furthermore, I do not believe you would treat them in an equivalent fashion. Certainly, I don't think that you would claim that bank robbers are "just as bad" as serial killers?

You are demonstrating a scale within crime; there is no scale for legal versus illegal. They're both crimes; they both get prosecuted.

As with waterboarding. It is torture. As good guys we don't do that.

I believe that the argument has shifted to whether or not, I accept WBing as "acceptable", and why this might be the case. The continual re-utterance of variations on this catchphrase seem to be a bit puzzling.

I do think the discussion has digressed enough that I'm not even sure what the original point was.

 

[Huckleberry]

There IS a difference. You know it, I know it, and you can sure as heck bet that the terrorists know it!

There is a difference. If I had to choose my own method of torture I would rather be waterboarded than have limbs severed. But it is also true that waterboarding is torture regardless of what it is compared to. Any torture method is a dubious way to extract information.

A separate point of concern to me is the heavy concentration on physical torture. Torture can be performed without ever touching a person. It can be just as permanently damaging as any results from physical torture.

I don't understand the usefulness of torture besides to inflict suffering on a dehumanized subject.

 

[BoomBoom]

Perhaps we can add a bit of perspective from someone who has been tortured:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,521157,00.html"

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, now, so that I can sort of set the table right so you and I are on the same page, is waterboarding torture or enhanced interrogation technique? What word should we use on this?

MCCAIN: It's torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Conventions, of the international agreement on torture, treaty of torture signed during the Reagan administration. It goes all the way back to the Spanish Inquisition. It's not a new technique, and it is certainly torture.

VAN SUSTEREN: It's now the subject of a great debate again today that President Obama spoke and former vice president Cheney spoke. President Obama says it's torture. Former vice president Cheney says it's enhanced interrogation techniques. Those are the words he uses. President Obama says it's a recruitment tool. Vice President Cheney says it is not. Is it a recruitment tool?

MCCAIN: Well, torture certainly is. I was at Camp Bucca a couple of years ago with Senator Lindsey Graham. And there was 20,000 prisoners in that prison at that time. We were taken by the Army general to meet in a secluded area with a former high-ranking al Qaeda member, a very tough guy. In the course of our conversation, I said, What was it that made you succeed so well? And he said, Two things. One, after the invasion was total disorder and chaos, murder, all kinds of bad things, and that allowed us to gain a foothold. He said, But my greatest recruiting tool, he said, I recruited thousands of young men -- Abu Ghraib.

And so you know, you hear it from al Qaeda operatives that when we torture people and it becomes public, then it helps them recruit. I think that's the end of the argument.

Oh Lord, I can't believe I just used Fox News to make a point!

 

[LowlyPion]

Oh Lord, I can't believe I just used Fox News to make a point!

It's permitted. It's called a statement against interest.