Proof that waterboarding is Torture: Calling on DogBert, Article_15, & StrollingBones

[PatekPhilippe]

are we accepting the defination of water boarding as being the temporary suffacation of a person?

No. You cannot temporarily suffocate someone. It's the perceived suffocation in the mind of the waterboardee.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Dog:

Is THAT really the definition YOU would be willing to rely upon if you were to engage in an honest to goodness formal debate?

Do you see any reason to question whether or not it is a reasonable definition when applied to THIS discussion (i.e., OUR use of this interrogation technique to extract information from suspected terrorists which we require to prevent them from succeeding in any further planned terrorist attacks against our innocent civilian population)?

You seem to think your opinion overrules legal precedent and signed treaties. Why, I have no idea.

and water boarding doesn't come under this definition.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

No. He pointed out (more politely than you deserved, skank) that you made no significant contribution in that post he was referencing. He was right.

You offer your one-liners without relying on honesty or facts; and your snide commentary is quite boring and unproductive.

Go back through your posts. When was the last time you actually cited a reference to any kind of non-opinion piece that supported a part of a meaningful debate?

You may have done it a few times in your history here, but it HAS to be pretty fucking rare.

DAMN! I've got to stop following you around like this.

That WOULD be a good start. And again, let it be noted that you are still not focused on the topic.

You have problems focusing, eh?

Marital problems, didn't you hear?

 

[Montrovant]

No. You cannot temporarily suffocate someone. It's the perceived suffocation in the mind of the waterboardee.

Why can't you temporarily suffocate someone? Or are you trying to say that's not how waterboarding works? It's unclear.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

No. You cannot temporarily suffocate someone. It's the perceived suffocation in the mind of the waterboardee.

Why can't you temporarily suffocate someone? Or are you trying to say that's not how waterboarding works? It's unclear.

Because that's not what's happening. In the mind of the waterboardee he thinks he's suffocating and his involuntary reflex's react appropriately. It's a mental perception of suffocation. If water were to enter the person's mouth and he/she breathed it in then that is water torture and an entirely different thing.

 

[rightwinger]

Chase J. Nielsen, one of the U.S. airmen who flew in the Doolittle raid following the attack on Pearl Harbor, was subjected to waterboarding by his Japanese captors.[110] At their trial for war crimes following the war, he testified "Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I'd get my breath, then they'd start over again... I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death."

In 1983 Texas sheriff James Parker and three of his deputies were convicted for conspiring to force confessions. The complaint said they "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning".[110] The sheriff was sentenced to ten years in prison, and the deputies to four years.

Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1st point. WRONG. He was subjected to WATER TORTURE. A totally different thing.
2nd Point. Generals are NOT allowed to write legislation in the field and if they issue a directive that says watrboarding is off limits it has NO MEANING OR ENFORCEMENT beyond the initial reason why the directive was written.
3rd point. Water torture and waterboarding are 2 entirely different things.

As usual.....you are WRONG

1st point: The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I'd get my breath, then they'd start over again... This is WATERBOARDING and TORTURE. We enforced war crimes charges and won. When the Japanese did it.....it was TORTURE. When we do it........"Enhanced interrogation"

2nd point: Our military still considered waterboarding to be torture and punished soldiers who did it

3rd point: included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating This is waterboarding and is torture

 

[strollingbones]

ahh such a thin line there swatch boy, isnt it?

 

[rightwinger]

Look here is an easy way to settle this

Why don't we just gather all the information relating to Americans performing waterboarding and we will present the case to an independent world court in the Hague. If the right wing conservatives are so confident that waterboarding does no meet the definition of torture, they should have no problem proving their case.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

2nd point: Our military still considered waterboarding to be torture and punished soldiers who did it

Cite your specific case and how it applies across the board to every single incident of waterboarding that took place from the date of your example.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Look here is an easy way to settle this

Why don't we just gather all the information relating to Americans performing waterboarding and we will present the case to an independent world court in the Hague. If the right wing conservatives are so confident that waterboarding does no meet the definition of torture, they should have no problem proving their case.

Fuck the Hague....you Wilsonites need to quit running to Europe whenever your bullshit progressive agenda is shot down in flames.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

1st point: The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I'd get my breath, then they'd start over again... This is WATERBOARDING and TORTURE. We enforced war crimes charges and won. When the Japanese did it.....it was TORTURE. When we do it........"Enhanced interrogation"

Hmmmmmmmmm...strangulation...why did you miss that word. I guess he had a ligature around his neck as well. Please don't use wiki as a credible source.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

3rd point: included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating This is waterboarding and is torture

Incorrect, It was NOT torture until it was officially, by law, banned. It wasn't specifically banned until 2007?...2008?

 

[Liability]

No. THAT is NOT "the" definition of "torture." It is, however, A definition of torture. It is not one which serves a truly useful purpose for present purposes, imho. I will explain that later.

I commend you for at least finally answering the direct question. We shall return to that matter after a while.

As to your (again!) rather straightforward response to my second question, I again commend you. Yes, I DO disagree with your position, but at least you GAVE a straightforward answer. ALthough I cannot go into much detail right now, I will preview my position for you. I believe that you are wrong. The alleged "reasonableness" of that defintion of "torture" in THIS context is beyond just dubious. My contention is that it is in fact NOT a reasonable defintional basis for purposes of this discussion.

I have to go, now. I may check in sometime later tonight.

I will pick up our discussion from here. As a matter of courtesy, I will address both of your answers to both of those questions as my next step in this discussion [bearing in mind that history offers many examples of negotiating things like the shape of the table that precede any actual negotiations].

I will address some of your other comments in due course, like your erroneous contention about what I believe regarding the utility of torture. For future reference, you are not actually permitted to state my position for me, especuially when you do so incorrectly. I throw that flag, now, for future reference.

That's the definition that we and 145 other countries use. Including the U.S. So yes, that is the definition that should be used. Not the one that Iran or North Korea think is okay.

I'm not trying to state your position for you, rather who is on your side for your position. Let it be known, you cannot define torture in such a way that it's not even the common usage but rather your own opinion. We're not playing semantics, we're going by the legal and international definitions. If you don't like it, take it up with the UN and U.S.

Dog:

You persist in repeating that line about "that's the definition we and 145 other nations use" as though that answer is responsive. It isn't.

Yes, for purposes of the U.N. convention against torture, the term DID get defined. And?

Are you actually attempting to be heard to claim that a definition adopted for use in one context is binding on all other contexts?

You are wrong.

I will, I hope, get a chance later today to come back and explain that response a bit more fully.

In any event, that definition you seem to insist upon is a non-starter for this debate. It is your way of simply assuming your desired conclusion as your premise and then, through a very trite syllogism, coming to your conclusion. Not exactly the stuff of which real debates are made.

As I noted before, if the only way you are willing to engage in a "debate" is to stack the deck in your favor like that, I can save you the bother. There is indeed a perfectly good line of reasoning that would make your conclusion a fair one. That amateur hour effort is akin to this one:

"1. If waterboarding is torture, then waterboarding is illegal. 2. Waterboarding is torture (because a treaty addressing it for one purpose has totally resolved that definitional issue for ALL purposes). 3. Therefore waterboarding is illegal."

Or, perhaps the argument you are making is more precisely summed up.

Resolved: "Waterboarding is torture." You take the "pro" side.

Premises: 1. Waterboarding causes a person to feel the sensation of drowning.

2. "Torture" is defined as anything inflicted on another human being by a government official intended to cause and which does cause pain and/or mental anguish.

3. Causing a person to feel the sensation of drowning causes that person to feel pain and mental anguish.
------------------------------------------------

Therefore, waterboarding is torture.

 

[Liability]

Look here is an easy way to settle this

Why don't we just gather all the information relating to Americans performing waterboarding and we will present the case to an independent world court in the Hague. If the right wing conservatives are so confident that waterboarding does no meet the definition of torture, they should have no problem proving their case.

Yeah! A great idea. Give up our own soverignty. Brilliant!

Oh, and who among us WOULDN'T JUMP at the "opportunity" to be charged with criminality and have that decision made by a kangaroo court which has reached the ultimate conclusion of "guilt" BEFORE any evidence is even entered!? Certainly EVERYONE would deem this a perfectly reasonable and fair way of resolving disputes!

Leftshitflinger is so transparent.

 

[rightwinger]

Look here is an easy way to settle this

Why don't we just gather all the information relating to Americans performing waterboarding and we will present the case to an independent world court in the Hague. If the right wing conservatives are so confident that waterboarding does no meet the definition of torture, they should have no problem proving their case.

Fuck the Hague....you Wilsonites need to quit running to Europe whenever your bullshit progressive agenda is shot down in flames.

Would you prefer another independent body?

Maybe Shaun Hannity?

 

[rightwinger]

Look here is an easy way to settle this

Why don't we just gather all the information relating to Americans performing waterboarding and we will present the case to an independent world court in the Hague. If the right wing conservatives are so confident that waterboarding does no meet the definition of torture, they should have no problem proving their case.

Yeah! A great idea. Give up our own soverignty. Brilliant!

Oh, and who among us WOULDN'T JUMP at the "opportunity" to be charged with criminality and have that decision made by a kangaroo court which has reached the ultimate conclusion of "guilt" BEFORE any evidence is even entered!? Certainly EVERYONE would deem this a perfectly reasonable and fair way of resolving disputes!

Leftshitflinger is so transparent.

Why so afraid Liability?

You know that waterboarding is not torture. You should have no problem convincing an independent judicial body.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Look here is an easy way to settle this

Why don't we just gather all the information relating to Americans performing waterboarding and we will present the case to an independent world court in the Hague. If the right wing conservatives are so confident that waterboarding does no meet the definition of torture, they should have no problem proving their case.

Fuck the Hague....you Wilsonites need to quit running to Europe whenever your bullshit progressive agenda is shot down in flames.

Would you prefer another independent body?

Maybe Shaun Hannity?

I would prefer another round of waterboarding on the current terrorists in custody....but that's unlikely to happen until we get a President with some fricken balls.

 

[rightwinger]

Fuck the Hague....you Wilsonites need to quit running to Europe whenever your bullshit progressive agenda is shot down in flames.

Would you prefer another independent body?

Maybe Shaun Hannity?

I would prefer another round of waterboarding on the current terrorists in custody....but that's unlikely to happen until we get a President with some fricken balls.

Or else another President with no moral values

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

My definition
Torture:
Any interview tactic that leaves a permanent physical scar or injury.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

sorry guys i haven't been around...i'm going to start trucking through the tread now starting at my last post....(well i have 6 more messages to check then i'll be here)