Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
However, the United States has a historical record of regarding water torture as a war crime, and has prosecuted as war criminals individuals for the use of such practices in the past.
In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese civilian who had served in World War II as an interpreter for the Japanese military, Yukio Asano, for "Violation of the Laws and Customs of War," asserting that he "did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for" prisoners, but, far worse, that he also "did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture" prisoners of war. Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor.[116] The charges against Asano included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward."[177] The specifications in the charges with regard to "water torture" consisted of "pouring water up [the] nostrils" of one prisoner, "forcing water into [the] mouths and noses" of two other prisoners, and "forcing water into [the] nose" of a fourth prisoner.[178]
Also Liability, the UN disagrees with you:
Torture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hell, even the U.S. in the past:
However, the United States has a historical record of regarding water torture as a war crime, and has prosecuted as war criminals individuals for the use of such practices in the past.
In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese civilian who had served in World War II as an interpreter for the Japanese military, Yukio Asano, for "Violation of the Laws and Customs of War," asserting that he "did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for" prisoners, but, far worse, that he also "did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture" prisoners of war. Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor.[116] The charges against Asano included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward."[177] The specifications in the charges with regard to "water torture" consisted of "pouring water up [the] nostrils" of one prisoner, "forcing water into [the] mouths and noses" of two other prisoners, and "forcing water into [the] nose" of a fourth prisoner.[178]
That's like tellin' me that the DUh disagrees with Mark Levin. Who the fuck CARES?AS I correctly noted before, no VALID definition of "torture" would include waterboarding as fitting under its embrace.
StupidLefty,
Simulating that ol' drowning sensation is as unpleasant as hell, no doubt; but not all things that are unpleasant constitute "torture." *
Young morons like you may not yet grasp it, so I'll give you an assist:
Words have actual meaning regardless of how very much a given subject makes you all emotional..
So you'd be willing to be waterboarded for charity then? How does a full minute sound?
EVEN the UN? EVEN? That's not an "even." That is only to be completely and totally EXPECTED, you idiot.
The fuckin' UN.
AS I correctly noted before, no VALID definition of "torture" would include waterboarding as fitting under its embrace.
Also, dogdirt, I said absolutely nothing of the kind. Why on Earth would I want to be subjected to that shit? It doesn't have to be "torture," you imbecile, to be (AS I said) "as unpleasant as hell."
So, chalk up another strike-out on your perpetually failed effort to engage in meaningful "debate," dogdirt.
A new U.S Army manual bans torture and degrading treatment of prisoners, for the first time specifically mentioning forced nakedness, hooding and other procedures that have become infamous since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Delayed more than a year amid criticism of the Defense Department's treatment of prisoners, the new Army Field Manual was released Wednesday, revising one from 1992.
It also explicitly bans beating prisoners, sexually humiliating them, threatening them with dogs, depriving them of food or water, performing mock executions, shocking them with electricity, burning them,causing other pain and a technique called "water boarding" that simulates drowning, said Lt. Gen. John Kimmons, Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence.
U.S. Army Bans Torture Of Prisoners - CBS News
AS I correctly noted before, no VALID definition of "torture" would include waterboarding as fitting under its embrace.
So, according to you, the Army Field Manuel is not valid.
Also, dogdirt, I said absolutely nothing of the kind. Why on Earth would I want to be subjected to that shit? It doesn't have to be "torture," you imbecile, to be (AS I said) "as unpleasant as hell."
So, chalk up another strike-out on your perpetually failed effort to engage in meaningful "debate," dogdirt.
It was quite meaningful before you came in like a blind bull in a china shop. And I don't mean that in a good way if you were curious.
It fits the definition of torture, though you clearly cannot read. And for that, I feel sorry for you.
The fuckin' UN.
Hannity should be tortured. not by way of waterboarding, though. He should be locked in a room with Chris and truthmatters for three years.
Hannity should be tortured. not by way of waterboarding, though. He should be locked in a room with Chris and truthmatters for three years.
It'd be fun to watch him and Chris go back and forth. Goodness knows which one would wear down first.
Dog, you were the one who claimed that Hannity has yet to 'prove waterboarding is not torture'. You cannot prove a negative. Surely you understand that?
But, I am wondering.... if Hannity went ahead and was waterboarded and managed it come out unscathed, would the liberals then accept that waterboarding is not torture? Would anyone change their mind just because Hannity did it?
It's funny how you won't answer one of my questions but you expect me to answer yours.
Again, if Waterboarding is not torture then surely Sean Hannity would be waterboarded for charity. ESPECIALLY if it's for the troops, no?
Hannity is being a coward, that was my point and it still stands. And to answer your question, Hannity won't come out unscathed. Take a gander at the numerous videos out there of those in the right wing media who thought they'd back up their talk and all say it's torture despite strongly saying it wasn't before that.
I doubt anyone would change their mind if Hannity did it, however he would no longer be a coward in that aspect.
And to ask my earlier question to you again, would you be waterboarded for charity? Think you could go a full minute?
Yeah, yeah, no one can prove a negative.
Hannity is still a mega-pussy for writing a check with his fat mouth that his ass couldn't cash.
I'll bet his pucker factor went up when he saw the Mancow video.
You didn't expect a chickenhawk like Sean Hannity to actually go through with this did you?
The guy is a pussy.
Hannity should be tortured. not by way of waterboarding, though. He should be locked in a room with Chris and truthmatters for three years.
It'd be fun to watch him and Chris go back and forth. Goodness knows which one would wear down first.
Hannity is a pussy.
I'd kick his ass.
You didn't expect a chickenhawk like Sean Hannity to actually go through with this did you?
The guy is a pussy.
The burden of proof is supposed to belong to the person making the charge.
Claiming the KSM was waterboarded over 150 times is a lie.....which pretty much puts a lie to the whole argument. Make a ridiculous claim knowing the government cannot win the argument in the media and Libs conveniently latch onto this mainly because they are willing to believe the worst.
This is just another way the enemy uses Political Correctness to kill Americans...something that was brought to my attention way back in 91' by a Muslim friend.
It'd be fun to watch him and Chris go back and forth. Goodness knows which one would wear down first.
Hannity is a pussy.
I'd kick his ass.
This seems to be true, but he is a wealthy pussy, and very afraid that the 'redistribution of wealth' might dip into his, and their collective bank accounts and give it to the "undeserving", I guess that's anyone who isn't in their cliques.
Could it be that they are using the Media to do nothing more than.
Stir up the masses to save their own asses?
