Waterboarding

[m42]

Originally Posted by Zap

Looks like your girl has tried to bail you out, John.

Hold on to her. She's a keeper.

What else did you call me? Butthole?

Can't wait until she posts the definition of the word "butthole" for you. Now THAT'S true love.

Yes, lets revert to posting useless and incorrect assumptions and deviate from the topic at hand.

He is able to back his arguments with logic.

Your arguments lack any semblance of logic and you seem unable to grok the sources that you've opted to reference. You appear to be drowning in the "load" of emotion you've spewed in this thread.

I was not attempting to assist him, you ignorant socialist; I was attempting to educate you.

At this point, you are more likely to get the definition of a5shole from me.

[thegamerslink]

The assumption was all yours.
Was it suggestive? Maybe. But I offered no theories as you had asserted.
A little harsh to be calling me a weasel and a child for your mistake.
I had no idea what had happened to Brian. One day he was here. The next day he was gone.
I haven't had the chance to communicate with him since I noticed that.
Thanks for filling in the blanks on that, btw.

It's really really sad Zap, so much time wasted attempting to debate something merely on semantics and context. Firstly socialism is a subject that every person with a standard education (high school) has at least been exposed to. So when talked about especially in a politics forum it is considered as common knowledge. The argument you were trying to make about gaps in education doesn't hold water so it doesn't really matter how much you poor into it. It just won't work, just because someone may not have recall of it doesn't mean they weren't educated on it. Now I'm writing this as I sit here so I may get something wrong or over talk the subject if so, oops, but at any rate, you are trying to make arguments out of nothing and hence you are trying to defend a fort made of wax paper. And the more you defend an incorrect stance the dumber you look.
As for SITA well what can I say, I may have over talked, but bottom line there was it was transparent what your end goal was with your line of questioning and with the a simple yes would do, and then go on as you did, that is doing nothing but trying to make an argument and then you blatantly tried to lead the argument to where you wanted it to be....

At the first of this I said Water Boarding wasn't torture.....after reading the front part Geneva Convention as it pertains to prisoner treatment. It's clear that it would be considered a violation. But one has to admit when you compare it the commonly assumed practices of torture water boarding doesn't show up on the list. At least not in the norm.

And you can't condemn and criminalize an entire operation or procedure simply because there is a possibility that it may be a mistake on one. If you want to follow that theology then a hell of a lot more medical patients will be dieing as medicine is practiced on percentages and guesses. It's an inexact science at best.

Remember Ferre?
Ferre opposed you. He's no longer a mod here.
In fact, he can't post in the political forums anymore, nor can he even see them.
He had some really good posts too.

Brian used to be a mod here too. Hasn't he disagreed with you a few times here?
I wonder what happened to him. Hmmmmm.

As for this statement, if you weren't implying innuendo behind what happened I don't know what you were doing, it was more than suggestive in my view, you leaded with the Ferre statement and then immediately followed with the above what else was it supposed to mean?

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

I'm confused on your stance, I really am. You say you're against it except in extreme circumstance but yet you are talking how everyone should be proven guilty before it is used. If you wait for the process of a court of law, over here is usually a year minimum to get it to court. The extreme circumstance by that time is long gone.....Water Boarding, while technically can be seen as torture, I don't see as real torture compared to historic methods. I think if used in a responsible manner to ascertain information that is going to prevent terrorist attacks then it should absolutely be used.

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

Ok, I'm only going to say this once, as it's really no one else's business. But I am going to explain something briefly....As of my last neurologists appointment it's been confirmed that my brain is slowly shrinking and the white matter is increasing similar to Alzheimers if not Alzheimers going on, I take a lot of meds to help slow the process down, but because of some things I can't usually form a thought away from the computer then come here and convey it into words....some times my posts will be more clear and precise than others and all I can do is apologize for it but it's not within my actual control. I do try to stay away, or actually do stay away when it's at it's worse. I'm not asking for nor will I except sympathy of any type. I do however expect and most instances demand understanding.

However that said, most of my posts while probably more long winded than they should be are based in pretty sound logic most of the time. And I don't see that my issues are severely argued by others that posses the ability of thinking in that manner. If I'm wrong on a subject I will readily admit to it when shown the error of my ways, but at the same time I will forcefully stand my ground when challenged. If that's not the right way to be then tell me what is.

That is two posts and 351 words. I stated my position and asked you what was your's. In reply, of your 351 words these are the only ones which furthered our discussion;

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

I think if used in a responsible manner to ascertain information that is going to prevent terrorist attacks then it should absolutely be used.

You have also misrepresented me:

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

... You say you're against it except in extreme circumstance but yet you are talking how everyone should be proven guilty before it is used. ...

That was taken out of context. I was asking John Scott if that was the implication of a statement he made. I was not expressing my view, but an interpretation of his view and asking him if that interpretation was correct.


You seem to be confused about what torture is. You think that water boarding is technically torture but don't want to admit it is torture. You seem to want it in a separate category, because it will fit more comfortably in your head and I suspect, because you want to make use of it. But of course, if it was seen by you to be torture then your mind would get all squeamish about making use of it.

Perhaps before we go any further you need to define, for yourself as much as anyone, what torture is? Can you call a sword a sword, or is calling it a rubber chicken the only way you can cope?

[John Scott]

Perhaps before we go any further you need to define, for yourself as much as anyone, what torture is? Can you call a sword a sword, or is calling it a rubber chicken the only way you can cope?

Calling a sword a sword is a bit different from calling waterboarding torture.

Most folks, when they think of torture, think of typical stuff - stretching, pulling fingernails, bashing the head into concrete or perhaps a classic knee-capping.

These fit in with the definitions of torture that focus on physical pain.

Waterboarding isn't so much physical pain as much as psychological terror.

This is where the difference arises.

On one side, you have the people who think it isn't torture unless there's blood on the floor.

On the other side, there are the bleeding hearts that believe prison sentences are "cruel and unusual" punishment.

The prospect of prison does inflict terror in the minds of many people, so it could be a form of torture.

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

... Water Boarding, while technically can be seen as torture, I don't see as real torture compared to historic methods. ...

There is an ambiguity in his mind. He thinks its a form of torture but wants to categorize it as something else, something acceptable, at least that is the implication. Let him state it again categorically. I want him to be sure in his mind and his replies what he is saying.

Is water boarding torture?
Is the use of water boarding acceptable?

I'm pretty sure the answer to both is yes, but I'm 'not putting words into his mouth'. Let him be clear of his own meaning.

[John Scott]

Your daughter has been placed in an underground cavern that is slowly filling with water. You know this, and you have the man who placed her there in your custody.

The only way to rescue her from certain death is to find her. But you cannot find her. There are 2.3 million underground caverns in this town.

The kidnapper refuses to disclose the location of your daughter.

Would I waterboard him? Probably not. It would be a lot worse, and most likely involve a hamburger grinder.

Would I be justified in doing so?

Use of deadly force is deemed justifiable when a person poses an immediate danger to others. Why, then, can't I torture the bastard?

The only objections I see being raised are emotional. Anybody have a logically sound objection?

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Your daughter has been placed in an underground cavern that is slowly filling with water. You know this, and you have the man who placed her there in your custody.

The only way to rescue her from certain death is to find her. But you cannot find her. There are 2.3 million underground caverns in this town.

The kidnapper refuses to disclose the location of your daughter.

Would I waterboard him? Probably not. It would be a lot worse, and most likely involve a hamburger grinder.

Would I be justified in doing so?

Use of deadly force is deemed justifiable when a person poses an immediate danger to others. Why, then, can't I torture the bastard?

The only objections I see being raised are emotional. Anybody have a logically sound objection?

Post 70:

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

...
I do not believe in the use of torture except under extraordinary circumstances. ...

That would be one!

You still think I'm a collectivist, socialist, liberal?

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

You still think I'm a collectivist, socialist, liberal?

You don't think of yourself as a collectivist?

[thegamerslink]

You seem to be confused about what torture is. You think that water boarding is technically torture but don't want to admit it is torture. You seem to want it in a separate category, because it will fit more comfortably in your head and I suspect, because you want to make use of it. But of course, if it was seen by you to be torture then your mind would get all squeamish about making use of it.

Go back and read post #27 that defines my view of what torture really is, in order to appease a bleeding heart I have broadened my views of what could be "technically" torture although in my eyes water boarding is a cake walk in comparison to the alternatives.

I don't freakin believe you're counting words, you have way to much time on your hands really :-)

There is an ambiguity in his mind. He thinks its a form of torture but wants to categorize it as something else, something acceptable, at least that is the implication. Let him state it again categorically. I want him to be sure in his mind and his replies what he is saying.

Is water boarding torture?
Is the use of water boarding acceptable?

I'm pretty sure the answer to both is yes, but I'm 'not putting words into his mouth'. Let him be clear of his own meaning.

You have an unending ability to gloss over what anyone in here says and attempt to make more of it than what it is. I said at the beginning I didn't see water boarding a true torture, I explained what comes to my mind when I think about torture, I stated that given the choice of what I would want done that water boarding to me or other citizens would be it, not the alternatives....I stated that I think done responsibly and when needed I accept water boarding. What else do you want?

[thegamerslink]

I'll break my posts up so you don't get over loaded having to read to many words in one place......My main argument was that it was being implied that if an innocent person is tortured then the law has been broken and everyone involved with the entire program should be prosecuted....that's simply not true and is a ridiculous conclusion. Perhaps you should go back and read the true statements I have made and stop trying to conform them into what you would find convenient.

[thegamerslink]

That was taken out of context. I was asking John Scott if that was the implication of a statement he made. I was not expressing my view, but an interpretation of his view and asking him if that interpretation was correct.

And please, you're insulting our intelligence. You clearly had a point to make and were just making a deceptive attempt to conceal it in a "I'm just trying to clarify his statement with questions, not implying anything" Are you seriously expecting us to buy that hook line and sinker??

[ShamelessTraffic]

yes i feel it is justified. think of what those people are doing to other humans. how can you feel bad?

[StrongInTheArm]

That's three posts amounting to 294 words, plus post 27 that's another 411 words, which amounts to 705 words. Its good I have a team of highly trained monkeys with abacuses helping out here.

'... true torture ...', see that's what I don't get. Is it torture or not, the 'true' is superfluous, either it is or it is not. I tell you what, let's try and progress this discussion shall we?

You seem to be proposing something new. Lets call it the GamersLink's Rubber Chicken Torture Proposal (GRCTP) and it seems to be made of these three clauses:

a) The Obfuscation Clause: While water boarding is 'technically' a form of torture, it should be recategorised so our consciences are not overly taxed.
b) The Mamby Pamby Cake Walk Clause: Water boarding is an acceptable form of interrogation because it is not the most severe form of torture.
c) The Just in Case Clause: We only need to have suspicion that an individual may commit a crime before we can resort to using water boarding to confirm our suspicion.

How does GRCTP sit on your shoulders? Have I mis-represented your position?

Bent Sørensen, Senior Medical Consultant to the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims and former member of the United Nations Committee against Torture said:

“It’s a clear-cut case: Waterboarding can without any reservation be labeled as torture. It fulfils all of the four central criteria that according to the United Nations Convention against Torture (UNCAT) defines an act of torture. First, when water is forced into your lungs in this fashion, in addition to the pain you are likely to experience an immediate and extreme fear of death. You may even suffer a heart attack from the stress or damage to the lungs and brain from inhalation of water and oxygen deprivation. In other words there is no doubt that waterboarding causes severe physical and/or mental suffering – one central element in the UNCAT’s definition of torture. In addition the CIA’s waterboarding clearly fulfills the three additional definition criteria stated in the Convention for a deed to be labeled torture, since it is 1) done intentionally, 2) for a specific purpose and 3) by a representative of a state – in this case the US.”

Would the Wikipedia definition of water boarding that this quote came from be a fair reflection of what water boarding entails for you?

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by John Scott

You don't think of yourself as a collectivist?

Can I get back to you on that, I need to find out what a collectivist is. BTW are you one?

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

Can I get back to you on that, I need to find out what a collectivist is. BTW are you one?

You don't know what collectivism is?

And, um, no. I do not believe that I have the right to force my morality on others just because I may or may not happen to share the morality of the majority.