Waterboarding? 183 Times? Wrong...

[PubliusInfinitum]

I'm waiting for you to prove that assertion....thus far...nada....

Sweetcheeks - just saying it's so don't make it so.

Well Ok... I suppose this requires something of a graphic nature to illustrate what the lessor intellects are incapable of grasping through sound argument.

Below are four videos of actual TORTURE...

These videos are not suitable for children; they are not suitable for people with weak constitutions... they are video-tape recordings of gross inhumanity to man...

http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/files/1.wmv

http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/files/2.wmv

http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/files/3.wmv

http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/files/4.wmv


Compare that to stress induced interrogation techniques used by the US Military...

Judge for yourself...

And the point is that the US did not torture as bad as other groups or countries have? What a revelation. Thank for clarifying that. I'd have never guessed.

It's like linking to a pic of Hiroshima and arguing that the US never bombed Hanoi.

Well there it is kids... FINALLY! Some level of admission that THIS IDIOT understands that there are DEGREES TO TORTURE... even for someone who uses the word "TORTURE" to describe reading the posts of her opposition, on message boards in which she willfully participates... She uses the SAME word to describe the UNSPEAKABLE HORROR that the Imperial Japanese Army did to murder of HUNDREDS of thousands of people in the Western Pacific... and while she claims HERE that she's not impressed with video of actual torture... she USES THE SAME WORD to define the inducing of stress in the interrogation of MASS MURDERERS WHO ARE AT WAR WITH THE US. But most hysterically... she can't get her mind around the fact that she DEMANDS that "TORTURE" is ILLEGAL... while she sits on this board TROLLING in one post after another... where she willingly subjects herself and her fellow members to TORTURE.

It's one thing to do so casually... using the word to make an obvious overstatement... it's another to spend a week arguing that the word can mean everything to anyone... and MEAN IT!

Thus her position is rendered MOOT, as she has stated on this very board that in her opinion ANYTHING THAT INDUCES PAIN IS TORTURE, which renders the meaning of the word to MEANINGLESS!

And once again she's finds herself looking at check MATE!

 

[Iriemon]

Well Ok... I suppose this requires something of a graphic nature to illustrate what the lessor intellects are incapable of grasping through sound argument.

Below are four videos of actual TORTURE...

These videos are not suitable for children; they are not suitable for people with weak constitutions... they are video-tape recordings of gross inhumanity to man...

http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/files/1.wmv

http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/files/2.wmv

http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/files/3.wmv

http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/files/4.wmv


Compare that to stress induced interrogation techniques used by the US Military...

Judge for yourself...

And the point is that the US did not torture as bad as other groups or countries have?What a revelation. Thank for clarifying that. I'd have never guessed.

It's like linking to a pic of Hiroshima and arguing that the US never bombed Hanoi.

Well there it is kids... FINALLY! Some level of admission that THIS IDIOT understands that there are DEGREES TO TORTURE... even for someone who defines torture as reading the posts of their opposition, on message boards in which she willfully participates...

Thus her position is rendered MOOT, as she has stated on this very board that in her opinion ANYTHING THAT INDUCES PAIN IS TORTURE, which renders the meaning of the word to MEANINGLESS!

And once again she's finds herself looking at check MATE!

I like the big red letters, they really look persuasive, but your conclusion is all wrong. All you did was show that some groups torture worse than the CIA did; not that what the CIA did in the controlled drowning water torture 183 times was not torture.

Nice try though. Maybe try green letters next time, you might get luckier.

 

[Coyote]

Well alrighty then...
US Stress inducing coersive interrogation is demonstrably NOT torture and the assertions that it is, are baseless...

I'm waiting for you to prove that assertion....thus far...nada....

Sweetcheeks - just saying it's so don't make it so.

Well Ok... I suppose this requires something of a graphic nature to illustrate what the lessor intellects are incapable of grasping through sound argument.

Below are four videos of actual TORTURE...

Ok punkin, you have a bit of a problem here. It's called "logic". You (along with the the former Administration) unilaterally decided to change American policy by redefining torture and calling it "stress inducing coercive interrogation". That's awfully PC of you punkin...but, no matter what you label it "horizontally challenged" is still "fat", "developmentally challenged" is still "retarded", an environmentally correct human is still "dead" and ""stress inducing coercive interrogation" is still torture.

That's where the logic (or lack there of) comes in.

You don't change the essence of reality by redefining it.

And - just because what we are doing is quite as bad as the worst case examples - doesn't mean it's not torture. We may not be cutting their heads off with dull swiss army pocket knives but that doesn't mean it's ok for us to hang them from the ceiling for several days either and nor does the fact that some torture is more extreme make other types of torture "not torture".

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I'm waiting for you to prove that assertion....thus far...nada....

Sweetcheeks - just saying it's so don't make it so.

Well Ok... I suppose this requires something of a graphic nature to illustrate what the lessor intellects are incapable of grasping through sound argument.

Below are four videos of actual TORTURE...

Ok punkin, you have a bit of a problem here. It's called "logic". You (along with the the former Administration) unilaterally decided to change American policy by redefining torture and calling it "stress inducing coercive interrogation". That's awfully PC of you punkin...but, no matter what you label it "horizontally challenged" is still "fat", "developmentally challenged" is still "retarded", an environmentally correct human is still "dead" and ""stress inducing coercive interrogation" is still torture.

That's where the logic (or lack there of) comes in.

You don't change the essence of reality by redefining it.

And - just because what we are doing is quite as bad as the worst case examples - doesn't mean it's not torture. We may not be cutting their heads off with dull swiss army pocket knives but that doesn't mean it's ok for us to hang them from the ceiling for several days either and nor does the fact that some torture is more extreme make other types of torture "not torture".

I haven't changed the definition of anything... nor did the Bush administration...

And your obtuse demand that I did and your choosing to dismiss entire swaths of argument is fair evidence of you being a troll...

Now you've two choices sis... respond to the ARGUMENT or get off the thread... if you direct a post towards me and it's more of this strawdog crapola... you're headin' straight to perm ignore...

 

[Iriemon]

Well Ok... I suppose this requires something of a graphic nature to illustrate what the lessor intellects are incapable of grasping through sound argument.

Below are four videos of actual TORTURE...

Ok punkin, you have a bit of a problem here. It's called "logic". You (along with the the former Administration) unilaterally decided to change American policy by redefining torture and calling it "stress inducing coercive interrogation". That's awfully PC of you punkin...but, no matter what you label it "horizontally challenged" is still "fat", "developmentally challenged" is still "retarded", an environmentally correct human is still "dead" and ""stress inducing coercive interrogation" is still torture.

That's where the logic (or lack there of) comes in.

You don't change the essence of reality by redefining it.

And - just because what we are doing is quite as bad as the worst case examples - doesn't mean it's not torture. We may not be cutting their heads off with dull swiss army pocket knives but that doesn't mean it's ok for us to hang them from the ceiling for several days either and nor does the fact that some torture is more extreme make other types of torture "not torture".

I haven't changed the definition of anything... nor did the Bush administration...

And your obtuse demand that I did and your choosing to dismiss entire swaths of argument is fair evidence of you being a troll...

Now you've two choices sis... respond to the ARGUMENT or get off the thread... if you direct a post towards me and it's more of this strawdog crapola... you're headin' straight to perm ignore...

Publiusisms on torture:

Torture can't defend liberty ... "stress induced coercive interrogation" ... defends liberty

... I'm not aware of ANY Torture Program... used by the US Military. What we use are "stress techniques" ...

... Torture is a concept wherein gruesome crimes are committed against the defenseless...

... stress inducement is NOT torture ...

... Coersive interrogation is not punshment ...

 

[Coyote]

Well Ok... I suppose this requires something of a graphic nature to illustrate what the lessor intellects are incapable of grasping through sound argument.

Below are four videos of actual TORTURE...

Ok punkin, you have a bit of a problem here. It's called "logic". You (along with the the former Administration) unilaterally decided to change American policy by redefining torture and calling it "stress inducing coercive interrogation". That's awfully PC of you punkin...but, no matter what you label it "horizontally challenged" is still "fat", "developmentally challenged" is still "retarded", an environmentally correct human is still "dead" and ""stress inducing coercive interrogation" is still torture.

That's where the logic (or lack there of) comes in.

You don't change the essence of reality by redefining it.

And - just because what we are doing is quite as bad as the worst case examples - doesn't mean it's not torture. We may not be cutting their heads off with dull swiss army pocket knives but that doesn't mean it's ok for us to hang them from the ceiling for several days either and nor does the fact that some torture is more extreme make other types of torture "not torture".

I haven't changed the definition of anything... nor did the Bush administration...

Hmmmmmmmm.....


Lets see, as early as 1931 - waterboarding was considered 3rd degree torture (see, that pesky word again): The technique employed by the police involved either holding the head in water until almost drowning, or laying on the back and forcing water into the mouth or nostrils.[85] Such techniques were classified as "'covert' third degree torture" since they left no signs of physical abuse...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".[71] The sheriff was sentenced to ten years in prison, and the deputies to four years.[71][78][/quote]Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok, so in 1931 and 1984 waterboarding was legally defined as torture and prosecuted.

Now, we've already gone over it's definition (under torture) during WW2 and the Vietnam War.

So...here we are all the way up to 2003 - (you still with me here punkin butt?) and suddenly, the Executive Branch decides - we're going to make it so it's not torture by tweaking definitions (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain). The pathetic rationale given is not that it doesn't cause pain but that it doesn't kill the fella and hey - what the hell, it's not as bad as what "they" are doing to our boys....(as if that was EVER a rationale for where we set our bar....)

Well, honey - that doesn't change the essence of what is going on. Torture is torture no matter what you call it and the presence of a doctor doesn't change a damn thing whether you are drowning him or hanging him by by his arms from the ceiling.

Now sounds to me like waterboarding is classified as torture under the law and, people have been arrested for it. The description of what occurred in 1983 is little different then the modern method in terms of what the person is experiencing. The presence of a doctor, while it sounds all pretty and sanitary, changes nothing except maybe preventing death.

And your obtuse demand that I did and your choosing to dismiss entire swaths of argument is fair evidence of you being a troll...

What swaths? All your doing is showing pictures of the extremes of torture and trying to use that to justify that milder forms of torture aren't torture. You realize that is a logical fallacy do you not?

Let me put it to you bluntly:

I could rape you with a two by four, cover your head in rotten tomato pulp, and jump up and down on your stomach

or

I could rape you, but give you a dozen roses and play Frank Sinatra in the process

Now, think a moment - does that somehow not make it rape?

Now you've two choices sis... respond to the ARGUMENT or get off the thread... if you direct a post towards me and it's more of this strawdog crapola... you're headin' straight to perm ignore...

Hon, you don't HAVE an agument to respond to, and throwing a tantrum with great big letters, because I refuse to accept your faulty premises isn't exactly going to work.

 

[Coyote]

Publiusisms on torture:

Torture can't defend liberty ... "stress induced coercive interrogation" ... defends liberty

... I'm not aware of ANY Torture Program... used by the US Military. What we use are "stress techniques" ...

... Torture is a concept wherein gruesome crimes are committed against the defenseless...

... stress inducement is NOT torture ...

... Coersive interrogation is not punshment ...

Hmmm...too bad some of them died from these "stress techniques"....http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/507284_3

Sounds kinda like torture doesn't it?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Ok punkin, you have a bit of a problem here. It's called "logic". You (along with the the former Administration) unilaterally decided to change American policy by redefining torture and calling it "stress inducing coercive interrogation". That's awfully PC of you punkin...but, no matter what you label it "horizontally challenged" is still "fat", "developmentally challenged" is still "retarded", an environmentally correct human is still "dead" and ""stress inducing coercive interrogation" is still torture.

That's where the logic (or lack there of) comes in.

You don't change the essence of reality by redefining it.

And - just because what we are doing is quite as bad as the worst case examples - doesn't mean it's not torture. We may not be cutting their heads off with dull swiss army pocket knives but that doesn't mean it's ok for us to hang them from the ceiling for several days either and nor does the fact that some torture is more extreme make other types of torture "not torture".

I haven't changed the definition of anything... nor did the Bush administration...

Hmmmmmmmm.....


Lets see, as early as 1931 - waterboarding was considered 3rd degree torture (see, that pesky word again): The technique employed by the police involved either holding the head in water until almost drowning, or laying on the back and forcing water into the mouth or nostrils.[85] Such techniques were classified as "'covert' third degree torture" since they left no signs of physical abuse...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".[71] The sheriff was sentenced to ten years in prison, and the deputies to four years.[71][78]Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok, so in 1931 and 1984 waterboarding was legally defined as torture and prosecuted.

Now, we've already gone over it's definition (under torture) during WW2 and the Vietnam War.

So...here we are all the way up to 2003 - (you still with me here punkin butt?) and suddenly, the Executive Branch decides - we're going to make it so it's not torture by tweaking definitions (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain). The pathetic rationale given is not that it doesn't cause pain but that it doesn't kill the fella and hey - what the hell, it's not as bad as what "they" are doing to our boys....(as if that was EVER a rationale for where we set our bar....)

Well, honey - that doesn't change the essence of what is going on. Torture is torture no matter what you call it and the presence of a doctor doesn't change a damn thing whether you are drowning him or hanging him by by his arms from the ceiling.

Now sounds to me like waterboarding is classified as torture under the law and, people have been arrested for it. The description of what occurred in 1983 is little different then the modern method in terms of what the person is experiencing. The presence of a doctor, while it sounds all pretty and sanitary, changes nothing except maybe preventing death.

So basically, you want to include ANY statute, which discussed the use of water, must be described as 'water-boarding'... and as such this means its exactly what the US is subjecting Gitmo detainees to... And what's more that this singular and equitable function was concluded by various court to be a crime... which you feel necessarily requires that because water is being used with regard to prisoners; and because the courts have declared the use of water, in the sourced instances to be a crime, that such is ILLEGAL and therefore prohibited across the board and without exception.

ROFLMNAO... Whatta dumbass...

But lets' set that intellectual trainwreck aside and move on to the clincher...


As has been stated ad nauseum... the issue is CONTEXT...

Your entire thesis is to determine that 'water-boarding is illegal'... thus prohibited across the board in any and all circumstances...

but here's the problem with that: "legal" is a function of law, law is a function of justice and for a law to be valid it must serve justice...

Water-boarding is a means to an end... where the end is a moral imperative which depends upon the timely delivery of critical information to serve that moral imperative; in this instance, one which water -boarding can serve without violating valid moral principle, water-boarding is a perfectly moral and exceptionally well suited means towards that end.

Now does that mean that the activity is morally justified in ANY situation? Of course not...

But where the moral imperative is to prevent the wholesale slaughter of innocent people, at the expense of inducing stress upon those who were directly or indirectly involved in the plotting and execution of that wholesale slaughter; then in THAT CASE and in THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES water-boarding is an acceptable advanced technique of interrogation; which has an extremely high efficacy rate.

You'll of course cry that this a means/end argument... which it is... But as is the case with WAR ITSELF... it is a legal means to an end which, under most other circumstances the techniques used in war to accomplish the ends typical of war would be wholly inapproriate and unacceptable to most people; and likely illegal on many levels...

The point is that the CONTEXT of the circumstances in which water-boarding is applied determine whether or not it is torture... and the context in which the US is applying is does NOT provide that such is the case.

And this despite your tender feelings to the contrary...

And your obtuse demand that I did and your choosing to dismiss entire swaths of argument is fair evidence of you being a troll...

What swaths? All your doing is showing pictures of the extremes of torture and trying to use that to justify that milder forms of torture aren't torture. You realize that is a logical fallacy do you not?

Is it? To what specific logical fallacy are ya referring... as a general rule, when I recognize a fallacious argument, I identify the specific failure in reasoning... now I can't help but to notice that you've opted not to do so... and my experience tells me that when such is the case, that such is a function of stark ignorance...

First, I didn't post the comparison to rationalize the use of a milder form of torture...

I posted the comparison to induce you to admit that there are varying levels of treatment of prisoners...

Which you and she-whose-name-will-not-be-spoken... have now done in spades...

By declaring that YOU ARE AWARE THAT THERE ARE VARYING DEGREES of the treatment of prisoners... you reduce your argument to meaningless...

As noted above you want to declare water-boarding as torture, conclude that torture is illegal and that because it's illegal, its a crime to water-board... thus water-boarding is prohibited... PERIOD.

Now that is an actual logical fallacy; specifically: ad hoc ergo propter hoc... which translates to 'with this therefore because of this...'

In the scenario wherein I described the Sherriff's deputy passing you at 110mph on a road posting a maximum speed of 55mph, I explained that even where the law provided no exception for law enforcement to exceed the limit, that such a law would not serve justice because it would unreasonably preclude the means of law enforcement to adequately respond to situations where human rights were being usurpedl; where innocent life was being threatened...

That where such a law existed, that law would not serve justice and it would be the duty of those who are pursuing a greater moral imperative to disregard that law.

Such would be the case here; where the US is a war with a vicious and determined enemy of secret origins and unknown composition... whose SOLE tactic is the attack upon innocent People; an association of individuals who is not stopped, threaten the very fabric of society.

Thus, where they are captured, it is a function of the highest moral imperative to cull from them, all that can be learned about every facet of their organization, it's composition, capabilities, means of sustenance, intentions and so on; a moral imperative which far and away overrides the unpleasantness of the task of inducing their cooperation, as humanely as possible and still get the job done...

And THAT is the nature of stress inducing coercive interrogation... and while you need to overstate the nature of such by referring to it as TORTURE; setting aside the well justified application being a function of the critical moral imperative... your means to sustain such a farce rides on the back of the demonstrable effectiveness of those interrogations and the lives which have not been lost, the economic impact which has not been realized due to the absence of a single attack on US soil since 9-11...

Let me put it to you bluntly:

I could rape you with a two by four, cover your head in rotten tomato pulp, and jump up and down on your stomach

or

I could rape you, but give you a dozen roses and play Frank Sinatra in the process

Now, think a moment - does that somehow not make it rape?

Now you've two choices sis... respond to the ARGUMENT or get off the thread... if you direct a post towards me and it's more of this strawdog crapola... you're headin' straight to perm ignore...

Hon, you don't HAVE an agument to respond to, and throwing a tantrum with great big letters, because I refuse to accept your faulty premises isn't exactly going to work.

ROFL… Sis.. Of the few immutable truths of life which can be discerned by our species… one of the most obvious is that in every respect… I OWN YOU.

Your tactics are obvious; your talents indiscernible and your intellectual means rests well below the status of your talents… in short: You’re an imbecile of the lowest order.

 

[Iriemon]

The point is that the CONTEXT of the circumstances in which water-boarding is applied determine whether or not it is torture...

Brush aside pages of blather, PI's "context" or as it is otherwise know, "ends justify the means" excuse for torture is nothing new either in this thread or history. It's the same thing folks have been arguing for days.

It was the same excuse the Japs argued as a defense in WWII. They said they needed to torture Americans because they might have valuable information that could save lives. If "context" was a defense to torture, the US was wrong to sentence all those Japanese for water torture because in "context" they had justification to torture just as Publius argues.

"Context" -- often in the guise of nation security or safety --is the excuse any dictator uses to justify his acts.

ROFL… Sis.. Of the few immutable truths of life which can be discerned by our species… one of the most obvious is that in every respect… I OWN YOU.

A victor in his/her own mind. Well, it's imporatant to his/her self-esteem.

Your tactics are obvious; your talents indiscernible and your intellectual means rests well below the status of your talents… in short: You’re an imbecile of the lowest order.

I noted in another thread that quite often you see folks calling others names that most closely fit themselves. Case in point.

 

[Coyote]

So basically, you want to include ANY statute, which discussed the use of water, must be described as 'water-boarding'... and as such this means its exactly what the US is subjecting Gitmo detainees to... And what's more that this singular and equitable function was concluded by various court to be a crime... which you feel necessarily requires that because water is being used with regard to prisoners; and because the courts have declared the use of water, in the sourced instances to be a crime, that such is ILLEGAL and therefore prohibited across the board and without exception.

ROFLMNAO... Whatta dumbass...

Sigh....indeed you are but even dumbass' deserve some kindness. Still is all the verbal diarrea really necessary in order to impart a few kernals of actual (dis)information?

Undigested nugget #1: ...So basically, you want to include ANY statute, which discussed the use of water...

Negative. I was very specific. Nice try though.

Let me help you out by reminding you of the legal definition of torture: "...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."

No where does it say "pain and suffering equal to or greater than....(insert torture scenario of choice)". Neither does it distinguish between individuals or groups - i.e. it's not torture if it's done to suspected terrorists but it is torture if it's done to innocent civilians.

But lets' set that intellectual trainwreck aside and move on to the clincher...
As has been stated ad nauseum... the issue is CONTEXT...

Your entire thesis is to determine that 'water-boarding is illegal'... thus prohibited across the board in any and all circumstances...

but here's the problem with that: "legal" is a function of law, law is a function of justice and for a law to be valid it must serve justice...

Water-boarding is a means to an end... where the end is a moral imperative which depends upon the timely delivery of critical information to serve that moral imperative; in this instance, one which water -boarding can serve without violating valid moral principle, water-boarding is a perfectly moral and exceptionally well suited means towards that end.

Now does that mean that the activity is morally justified in ANY situation? Of course not...

But where the moral imperative is to prevent the wholesale slaughter of innocent people, at the expense of inducing stress upon those who were directly or indirectly involved in the plotting and execution of that wholesale slaughter; then in THAT CASE and in THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES water-boarding is an acceptable advanced technique of interrogation; which has an extremely high efficacy rate.

That isn't law serving justice - that's a perversion of justice. Law is impartial. Law is the same whether the person is a terrorist, a six year old child, or a 48 year old wino. Justice is served through the law, not through the abuse of the law. You can not serve justice through the creation of further injustice.

You state:...where the end is a moral imperative which depends upon the timely delivery of critical information to serve that moral imperative

And right there, your moral imperative breaks down because it illustrates the difference between policy (the policy of condoning torture) and reality (torture in practice). Except for hypothetical cases which seldom if ever occur in real life - you don't know for sure that the person you are torturing - has the information you want. As a result you could be torturing a hundred people before you find one that has the information. Therefor, you are willing to subject untold numbers of innocent people in the hopes you'll extract some necessary information and the slimmer hopes that it will be correct information. Your "justice" condones the abuse of innocents in order to serve it's "moral imperative".

You state: ...in this instance, one which water -boarding can serve without violating valid moral principle... as if that were a given. It isn't. You have not proven your assertion.

You'll of course cry that this a means/end argument... which it is... But as is the case with WAR ITSELF... it is a legal means to an end which, under most other circumstances the techniques used in war to accomplish the ends typical of war would be wholly inapproriate and unacceptable to most people; and likely illegal on many levels...

There is a difference between the legal sanctioning of torture and battlefield justice where information must be gotten quickly and expediently. Once a culture legally embraces torture for any reason, it opens the door for further abuses. It seldom stays within the narrow confines of "only the worst of the worst where we have thousands of lives in the balance ticking time bomb scenario". It becomes acceptable.

The point is that the CONTEXT of the circumstances in which water-boarding is applied determine whether or not it is torture... and the context in which the US is applying is does NOT provide that such is the case.

Uh...no. Context does not change definition, it only adds understanding. Reality is reality. Is robbery not robbery when the victim is rich and can afford losses? (context) No. Robbery is robbery. Is torture not torture because the victim is of a particular ethnic group/gender/nationality/enemy? No. The act and the moral consequences of the act, are the same regardless of context.

And this despite your tender feelings to the contrary...

Is it? To what specific logical fallacy are ya referring... as a general rule, when I recognize a fallacious argument, I identify the specific failure in reasoning... now I can't help but to notice that you've opted not to do so... and my experience tells me that when such is the case, that such is a function of stark ignorance...

First, I didn't post the comparison to rationalize the use of a milder form of torture...

I posted the comparison to induce you to admit that there are varying levels of treatment of prisoners...

You appear to be rationalizing milder forms of torture by renaming them "stress techniques" and you've done that multiple times in multiple posts. Make up your mind.

Which you and she-whose-name-will-not-be-spoken... have now done in spades...

By declaring that YOU ARE AWARE THAT THERE ARE VARYING DEGREES of the treatment of prisoners... you reduce your argument to meaningless...

Not at all. Simply admitting there are degrees does not invalidate the argument because it does not change the definition of torture. It only allows YOU to redefine it as a "stress technique". Nice try though.

As noted above you want to declare water-boarding as torture, conclude that torture is illegal and that because it's illegal, its a crime to water-board... thus water-boarding is prohibited... PERIOD.

Now that is an actual logical fallacy; specifically: ad hoc ergo propter hoc... which translates to 'with this therefore because of this...'

You are correct. That is a logical fallacy. However, your distortion is not the argument I made.

My argument:

Torture is illegal.
Waterboarding is defined in the U.S. law as torture.
Therefore waterboarding is illegal.

You can also look at it in the following way:

Torture is defined as: "...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..."

Waterboarding: "Depending on the exact setup, the water may or may not actually get into the person's mouth and nose; but the physical experience of being underneath a wave of water seems to be secondary to the psychological experience. The person's mind believes he is drowning, and his gag reflex kicks in as if he were choking on all that water falling on his face."

Drowning (whether real or only percieved) does indeed induce severe suffering and pain. "It seemed as if I was in a vice which was gradually being screwed up tight until it felt as if the sternum and spinal column must break...The "gulping" efforts became less frequent, and the pressure seems unbearable..."

The deliberate infliction of the sensations of drowning on a person would meet the legal definition of torture.

In the scenario wherein I described the Sherriff's deputy passing you at 110mph on a road posting a maximum speed of 55mph, I explained that even where the law provided no exception for law enforcement to exceed the limit, that such a law would not serve justice because it would unreasonably preclude the means of law enforcement to adequately respond to situations where human rights were being usurpedl; where innocent life was being threatened...

That where such a law existed, that law would not serve justice and it would be the duty of those who are pursuing a greater moral imperative to disregard that law.

Such would be the case here; where the US is a war with a vicious and determined enemy of secret origins and unknown composition...

No. Such would not be the case. There are limits to exceptions. While a police officer can exceed the speed limit to apprehend someone, he can not recklessly endanger lives in the process or use disproportionate levels of force in apprehending someone. There are limits.

whose SOLE tactic is the attack upon innocent People; an association of individuals who is not stopped, threaten the very fabric of society.

Thus, where they are captured, it is a function of the highest moral imperative to cull from them, all that can be learned about every facet of their organization, it's composition, capabilities, means of sustenance, intentions and so on; a moral imperative which far and away overrides the unpleasantness of the task of inducing their cooperation, as humanely as possible and still get the job done...

Hyperbole.

The reality is they are a collection of riff raff ranging from people just wanting a job (mercenary work pays when there is no other sources of income) to conscripts to revolutionaries to religious extremists to pathological nutcases. Take your pick.

But, there is no moral imperative.

And THAT is the nature of stress inducing coercive interrogation... and while you need to overstate the nature of such by referring to it as TORTURE; setting aside the well justified application being a function of the critical moral imperative... your means to sustain such a farce rides on the back of the demonstrable effectiveness of those interrogations and the lives which have not been lost, the economic impact which has not been realized due to the absence of a single attack on US soil since 9-11...

You can't make a claim on negatives....

ROFL… Sis.. Of the few immutable truths of life which can be discerned by our species… one of the most obvious is that in every respect… I OWN YOU.

Your tactics are obvious; your talents indiscernible and your intellectual means rests well below the status of your talents… in short: You’re an imbecile of the lowest order.

In your dreams bubba...keep trying though

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Undigested nugget #1: ...So basically, you want to include ANY statute, which discussed the use of water...

Negative. I was very specific. Nice try though.

Well ya did and ya did so where you described the court decision resultant from the dunking of a head in water... this is not waterboarding... the circumstances of that decision are NOT those which can be compared to the US GWOT and are not, in point of fact, even circumstances which weigh the necessities of war.

Let me help you out by reminding you of the legal definition of torture: "...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."

Super...

No where does it say "pain and suffering equal to or greater than....(insert torture scenario of choice)". Neither does it distinguish between individuals or groups - i.e. it's not torture if it's done to suspected terrorists but it is torture if it's done to innocent civilians.

Of course, using that definition, one could readily include that the process of war itself is torture... is war not a decidely hostile and painful means of physical coercion? Using that definition, the processes common to capturing a detainee are torture... the use of handcuffs is torture; the use of blindfolds is torture; that the depravity intrinsic in detainment itself is torture... and so on.

But such is not considered torture... and why is that? Because the level of stress to which an individual is being subjected does not sufficiently rise to be reasonably deemed to represent such... thus, despite you rationalization to the contrary, it seems that there most incontestably IS a threshold where one process which induces stress IS and another which induces stress is NOT torture...

Now before you run to proclaim that the interrogation and the means of such are the the relevant issue... that 'detainment itself is not torture' for this or that reason... let's just clarify that capture and detainment are critical functions of the interrogation process and without such the interrogation would not be possible, thus the torturous processes of capture and detainment are part and parcel of the whole... which is PAINFUL... WHICH IS STRESSFUL... which is COERCION... again... using the letter of the definition you've sourced and the species of reasoning you've brought in considering it.

So... your argument fails, in that it demands that there are no thresholds of stress which can be said to be used for the purposes of coercion, that do not meet your sourced definition of torture... ; and given that torture is illegal, any form of pain or stress used towards coercing cooperation are therefore torture and therefore illegal...

When in point of fact, every step of the process induces stress and or pain at some level; and given that those typical steps are decidely essential to the process, a function of routine at every level of the process and THAT THEY ARE NOT ILLEGAL... it is obvious that you are eggregeously overstating the scope of the definition, ignoring the essential trait of levels of stress and pain which clearly a part of the acceptable process and as such... your argument FAILS.


(and thanks BTW... I am humbled... )

 

[Iriemon]

But such is not considered torture... and why is that? Because the level of stress to which an individual is being subjected does not sufficiently rise to be reasonably deemed to represent such...

Decided by whom?

Both the US and the international community decided long ago that water torture does rise to the level of stress and have prosecuted them for it.

Publius' decision is irrelevant except for his own opinion.

Publius defines torture to mean "gruesome crimes" are committed against the victim. That is not the test that has been adopted by the US or international communities.

 

[Coyote]

Undigested nugget #1: ...So basically, you want to include ANY statute, which discussed the use of water...

Negative. I was very specific. Nice try though.

Well ya did and ya did so where you described the court decision resultant from the dunking of a head in water... this is not waterboarding... the circumstances of that decision are NOT those which can be compared to the US GWOT and are not, in point of fact, even circumstances which weigh the necessities of war.

What part of "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" did you fail to understand?

Let me help you out by reminding you of the legal definition of torture: "...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."

Super...

No where does it say "pain and suffering equal to or greater than....(insert torture scenario of choice)". Neither does it distinguish between individuals or groups - i.e. it's not torture if it's done to suspected terrorists but it is torture if it's done to innocent civilians.

Of course, using that definition, one could readily include that the process of war itself is torture... is war not a decidely hostile and painful means of physical coercion? Using that definition, the processes common to capturing a detainee are torture... the use of handcuffs is torture; the use of blindfolds is torture; that the depravity intrinsic in detainment itself is torture... and so on.

But such is not considered torture... and why is that? Because the level of stress to which an individual is being subjected does not sufficiently rise to be reasonably deemed to represent such... thus, despite you rationalization to the contrary, it seems that there most incontestably IS a threshold where one process which induces stress IS and another which induces stress is NOT torture...

War is it's own entity and torture can be a part of it but not all war is torture and vice versa.

You missed some parts of the definition that are not really part of "war": ... 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 ...

And no, handcuffs and blindfolds are not torture...again....severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental...now I'll admit there is always some abiguity in what constitutes "severe" but there seems to be little ambiguity as to the suffering involved in drowning - far greater than wearing a blindfold I might add. You are talking about matters of degree and attempting to lower the bar by making drowning comparable to wearing handcuffs.

You're stretching.

Now before you run to proclaim that the interrogation and the means of such are the the relevant issue... that 'detainment itself is not torture' for this or that reason... let's just clarify that capture and detainment are critical functions of the interrogation process and without such the interrogation would not be possible, thus the torturous processes of capture and detainment are part and parcel of the whole... which is PAINFUL... WHICH IS STRESSFUL... which is COERCION... again... using the letter of the definition you've sourced and the species of reasoning you've brought in considering it.

Of course the whole detainment process is "stressful" (perhaps just another "stress technique" hmm?) but it doesn't fit the definition of torture in it's entirety. The pain is not extreme unless the prisoner is violent (or being abused), coercion in and of itself is not "torture" and neither is "stress". "Stress" in fact is not part of the definition.

Again, nice try.

So... your argument fails, in that it demands that there are no thresholds of stress which can be said to be used for the purposes of coercion, that do not meet your sourced definition of torture... ; and given that torture is illegal, any form of pain or stress used towards coercing cooperation are therefore torture and therefore illegal...

Not quite. "Severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted" while there is not a clear demarkation (it's impossible to measure) there is a legal and humanitarian consensus we go by in applying the law. Until you convince me that drowning is comparable to wearing handcuffs then I'm afraid your argument has no legs to stand on.

When in point of fact, every step of the process induces stress and or pain at some level; and given that those typical steps are decidely essential to the process, a function of routine at every level of the process and THAT THEY ARE NOT ILLEGAL... it is obvious that you are eggregeously overstating the scope of the definition, ignoring the essential trait of levels of stress and pain which clearly a part of the acceptable process and as such... your argument FAILS.


(and thanks BTW... I am humbled... )

hmmm.....the scope of my definition is pretty clear: severe pain or suffering (no mention of stress).

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Undigested nugget #1: ...So basically, you want to include ANY statute, which discussed the use of water...

Negative. I was very specific. Nice try though.

Well ya did and ya did so where you described the court decision resultant from the dunking of a head in water... this is not waterboarding... the circumstances of that decision are NOT those which can be compared to the US GWOT and are not, in point of fact, even circumstances which weigh the necessities of war.

What part of "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" did you fail to understand?

Absolutely none of it... I fully understand every facet of the decision... what I spoke to the the ""Dunking of heads underwater...".

Again we're in agreement of what waterboarding is... what I was speaking to was your using case law where it was NOT waterboarding... and where ALL of it was implemented for reasons which fall well short of War and national security...

I'm prepared to go back over this as many times as you need to, for you to understand it...

What is unjustifiable, thus is validly 'ILLEGAL' in one circumstance, thus is TORTURE... is NOT UNJUSTIFIED; THUS ILLEGAL IN ANOTHER...

You're ENTIRE THESIS, is that water-boarding is TORTURE, thus illegal... PERIOD and without exception... you want to use the technique which if applied in a civilian intercourse, is absolutely inappropriate, a violation of their human rights and NUMEROUS OTHER LAWS... from unlawful restraint to assault and battery and I suspect if given sufficient consideration, the list of charges could fill a 10pt type-face page... which would of course include the precendent which you've sourced.

Unfortunately for you and that thesis NONE OF IT IS RELEVANT HERE...

Let me help you out by reminding you of the legal definition of torture: "...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."

Super...

No where does it say "pain and suffering equal to or greater than....(insert torture scenario of choice)". Neither does it distinguish between individuals or groups - i.e. it's not torture if it's done to suspected terrorists but it is torture if it's done to innocent civilians.

Of course, using that definition, one could readily include that the process of war itself is torture... is war not a decidely hostile and painful means of physical coercion? Using that definition, the processes common to capturing a detainee are torture... the use of handcuffs is torture; the use of blindfolds is torture; that the depravity intrinsic in detainment itself is torture... and so on.

But such is not considered torture... and why is that? Because the level of stress to which an individual is being subjected does not sufficiently rise to be reasonably deemed to represent such... thus, despite you rationalization to the contrary, it seems that there most incontestably IS a threshold where one process which induces stress IS and another which induces stress is NOT torture...

Now before you run to proclaim that the interrogation and the means of such are the the relevant issue... that 'detainment itself is not torture' for this or that reason... let's just clarify that capture and detainment are critical functions of the interrogation process and without such the interrogation would not be possible, thus the torturous processes of capture and detainment are part and parcel of the whole... which is PAINFUL... WHICH IS STRESSFUL... which is COERCION... again... using the letter of the definition you've sourced and the species of reasoning you've brought in considering it.

So... your argument fails, in that it demands that there are no thresholds of stress which can be said to be used for the purposes of coercion, that do not meet your sourced definition of torture... ; and given that torture is illegal, any form of pain or stress used towards coercing cooperation are therefore torture and therefore illegal...

When in point of fact, every step of the process induces stress and or pain at some level; and given that those typical steps are decidely essential to the process, a function of routine at every level of the process and THAT THEY ARE NOT ILLEGAL... it is obvious that you are eggregeously overstating the scope of the definition, ignoring the essential trait of levels of stress and pain which clearly a part of the acceptable process and as such... your argument FAILS.

War is it's own entity and torture can be a part of it but not all war is torture and vice versa.

You missed some parts of the definition that are not really part of "war": ... 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 ...

And no, handcuffs and blindfolds are not torture...again....severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental...now I'll admit there is always some abiguity in what constitutes "severe" but there seems to be little ambiguity as to the suffering involved in drowning - far greater than wearing a blindfold I might add. You are talking about matters of degree and attempting to lower the bar by making drowning comparable to wearing handcuffs.

You're stretching.



Of course the whole detainment process is "stressful" (perhaps just another "stress technique" hmm?) but it doesn't fit the definition of torture in it's entirety. The pain is not extreme unless the prisoner is violent (or being abused), coercion in and of itself is not "torture" and neither is "stress". "Stress" in fact is not part of the definition.

Again, nice try.

Oh... So you're the arbiter of what level of stress rises to 'suffering?' What qualifies you for this one? Explain to the board, the specific objective elements of severe suffering... Hell, since you're such a fount of knowledge on such matters, go ahead and shoot us the objective elements which comprise severe pain...

LOL... Now seriously Coy... what you've just established is that you're prepared to find a distinction in the pain and suffering resultant from stress induced through detainment, handcuffing, blindfolding and war itself... but you're just POSITIVE THAT THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN US INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES WHICH INDUCE STRESS AND TORTURE...

ROFLMNAO... You've just destroyed your entire argument...

By admitting that there are MANY levels of stress, many of which (war for example) FAR AND AWAY exceeds that imposed by US interrogators... and the respective techniques... which even exceeds that of ACTUAL SEVERELY INJUROUS TORTURE... you strip yourself, infinality, of the means to equate all forms of stress as torture...

You're done coy... your ability to rhetorically writhe and wiggle notwithstanding... YOU have established that there are many levels of stress; that many of these levels are perfectly legal IN CERTAIN NARROW APPLICATIONS... and WHOLLY INAPPROPRIATE in others... ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED, FORBIDDEN on MOST...

The application of US Coercive interrogation techniques, serve a higher moral imperative, where it is necessary, than the irrational notion you're advancing which equates all stress to torture, concludes that ALL TORTURE IS BAD... and therefore opts NOT TO APPLY IT...

In point of fact, NOT APPLYING IT WHERE IT IS NECESSARY, FAILS THAT MORAL IMPERATIVE all together...

Check mate... You've not a single point which remains whole; you've no potential points to bring and that will conclude this debate.

If something new should come to mind... PM me and let me know where ya stroked it. I'll be there for ya.

 

[Coyote]

Again we're in agreement of what waterboarding is... what I was speaking to was your using case law where it was NOT waterboarding... and where ALL of it was implemented for reasons which fall well short of War and national security...

Your logic falls apart here. Rationalizing it doesn’t change what it IS. The same actions were performed in the case I gave and in the waterboarding the CIA did. Regardless of WHY you are doing it – it doesn’t change the fact that waterboarding is waterboarding. In fact, taken to it’s logical end, you seem to say there is no such thing as “War Crimes” – you totally rationalize anything done in the name of war or national security. Within that construct where is there responsibility and accountability? You can justify what the Nazi’s did because they certainly believed they were acting in the interests of their national security. Where do you draw the line and how do you justify it?

We already know of at least several cases where individuals were tortured and subsequently released without charges (in other words innocent). Clearly the moral imperative is NOT being served unless you are willing to sacrifice innocent people.

I'm prepared to go back over this as many times as you need to, for you to understand it...

What is unjustifiable, thus is validly 'ILLEGAL' in one circumstance, thus is TORTURE... is NOT UNJUSTIFIED; THUS ILLEGAL IN ANOTHER...

Again – you are justifying anything – anything – in the name of National Security. What kind of society does that produce? I’ll give you some time to think about it.

You're ENTIRE THESIS, is that water-boarding is TORTURE, thus illegal... PERIOD and without exception... you want to use the technique which if applied in a civilian intercourse, is absolutely inappropriate, a violation of their human rights and NUMEROUS OTHER LAWS... from unlawful restraint to assault and battery and I suspect if given sufficient consideration, the list of charges could fill a 10pt type-face page... which would of course include the precendent which you've sourced.

Unfortunately for you and that thesis NONE OF IT IS RELEVANT HERE...

My “thesis” is that torture is illegal and for good reason. Somewhere – even in war, you have to draw a line and you have to look at the consequences of your choices. If you choose to drop a nuke on Bagdad (perfectly legitimate according to your rationale) the consequences worldwide are probably going to be pretty clear. I have outlined and referenced the reasons why repeatedly, giving real historical examples. There are some techniques that in any situation are inappropriate because justifying them and rationalizing them lead us to the same slippery slope as Hitler – a slope that ultimately dehumanizing human beings. Is “national security” a sufficient enough reason to legitimize any excess’ and can an open and free societyy actually thrive under such a legal system that legitimizes torture? Certainly, we will lose any standing in the world in regards to human rights.

YOUR thesis is simple: nothing is illegal in war. But we are a civilized society and we are fighting for that society - not for a society that endorses torture. Torture does not promote liberty in any guise.

Oh... So you're the arbiter of what level of stress rises to 'suffering?' What qualifies you for this one? Explain to the board, the specific objective elements of severe suffering... Hell, since you're such a fount of knowledge on such matters, go ahead and shoot us the objective elements which comprise severe pain...

Never said I was. I’m not the one who defined torture or defined waterboarding as torture. Others, with more experience then I (such as POW’s) have done that. You might also note that the Seals used to use waterboarding in part of their training and discontinued it (HowStuffWorks "How effective is water boarding?") and that, according to the same source, many CIA officials see water boarding as a poor interrogation method because it scares the prisoner so much you can't trust anything he tells you. John McCain, (who was tortured as a POW and certainly should know what he is talking about ) says water boarding is definitely a form of torture. So, nice try Publius but I’m not the arbiter. Many human rights groups and the international community define mock executions as a form of torture and put waterboarding in that category. The prevailing consensus appears to be that it is torture, including those who have experienced torture.

LOL... Now seriously Coy... what you've just established is that you're prepared to find a distinction in the pain and suffering resultant from stress induced through detainment, handcuffing, blindfolding and war itself... but you're just POSITIVE THAT THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN US INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES WHICH INDUCE STRESS AND TORTURE...

Better polish up your reading skills a bit.

There are differing degrees in pain and suffering that can be experienced – yes.

The only distinction between “enhanced interrogation techniques” and torture is a handful of memos with dubious legal standing.

ROFLMNAO... You've just destroyed your entire argument...

By admitting that there are MANY levels of stress, many of which (war for example) FAR AND AWAY exceeds that imposed by US interrogators... and the respective techniques... which even exceeds that of ACTUAL SEVERELY INJUROUS TORTURE... you strip yourself, infinality, of the means to equate all forms of stress as torture...

You’re straining your credibility. Note – the definition of torture does not include any mention of “stress”. You are the one who is making distinctions between “torture” (ie called “stress techniques” in your pc rationalization) and “actual severely injurious torture”. Let me go back to an earlier statement: just because we aren’t cutting off their heads with dull pocket knives doesn’t mean it’s ok to suspend them from the ceiling and shock them with electricity. It’s still torture.

You're done coy... your ability to rhetorically writhe and wiggle notwithstanding... YOU have established that there are many levels of stress; that many of these levels are perfectly legal IN CERTAIN NARROW APPLICATIONS... and WHOLLY INAPPROPRIATE in others... ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED, FORBIDDEN on MOST...

The application of US Coercive interrogation techniques, serve a higher moral imperative, where it is necessary, than the irrational notion you're advancing which equates all stress to torture, concludes that ALL TORTURE IS BAD... and therefore opts NOT TO APPLY IT...

In point of fact, NOT APPLYING IT WHERE IT IS NECESSARY, FAILS THAT MORAL IMPERATIVE all together...

Check mate... You've not a single point which remains whole; you've no potential points to bring and that will conclude this debate.

If something new should come to mind... PM me and let me know where ya stroked it. I'll be there for ya.

Keep trying and I’ll save you some of my cheetos when you find yourself getting desperate for toxic fluorescent orange dust. I’m a patient ‘yote and I don’t hold it against ya.