They just want to teach the controversy.
Except for, you know, the guy the entire thread is about.
-Joe
“Very uncomfortable”. I think you are on pretty safe ground there. A root canal procedure performed with a Black and Decker quarter-inch drill and a pair of pliers…“very uncomfortable”.
The three of you?
I watched the video. It looked like it took place in bright office, not unlike a doctor’s clinic, and he had EMT standing by, with plenty of friendly media watching and filming the whole thing. If he thinks he experienced anything like what the detainees experienced, he’s an idiot.
I don’t know anything about waterboarding that the average person on this board doesn’t know, but common sense tells that when you’re being waterboarded in jail, at night, by masked people who think you might have been involved in terrorism against their country, it’s a different experience than some overweight doughboy getting paid to voluntarily submit to a hazing while being surrounded by friends and medical staff, and having the control to stop the experiment at his command.
Conclusion: the douchebag factor is high.
No, Louisb shouldn’t have said, “You and me.”
[Grammatical Hijack]If it is at the start of a sentence “You and I” is correct, if it is at the end of a sentence “you and me” is correct. Just delete the “you and…” part to see which fits-“I went to the store to exchange the regular sized condoms for the Magnums”, and “When I made my request, the young store clerk laughed at me.”[/Grammatical Hijack]
And don’t forget, Cheney has a book coming out soon.
[Further hijack]Its placement in the sentence is not the issue at all. What matters is its role. If it is the subject, “you and I” is correct. If not, “you and me” is. Subjects tend to go at the beginning of the sentence, but this is by no means always the case.[/hijack]
I hate thread titles like this. If it were Howard Stern doing it would the title be “Liberal Radio Host Gets Waterboarded”? Mancow is an attention whoring shock jock. The name is a clue. He is a talentless hack and has nothing to do with any political discussion.
So you don’t think the fact he shot his mouth off about how water boarding wasn’t torture and then after 5 seconds said is clearly was is at least relevant on this one subject? I don’t give a rat’s ass about the shock jocks or grossly bias pundits who can’t tell fact from fiction but I think it’s somewhat relevant and interesting to see hos change of opinion.
Sean Hannity, Next!
I have fantasies of putting Cheney and Bush through the same kind of tortures they (indirectly) inflicted on others, and that Cheney continues to advocate.
That’s a pretty normal human response to despicable behavior and to the abuse of power. However I also understand that it would be bad to actually (try to) do it.
So, I strongly support laws to make it more difficult for people in power to torture in the first place. People (vice presidents and everyone else) cannot always be good without the threat of punishment.
The urge for retribution is damn powerful, and the ability to administer it needs strong regulation.
You say to-ma-to, I say…Look! A kitten!
Once upon a time, there was this quaint notion or may be a fantasy among the common people that no one was above the law, and this was one of the things that supposedly made us differernt from other countries. I guess it was just a bullshit story to keep us all ignorant. We already had the laws. But I guess some people really are above the law.
Memo to self: start no more jokes about grammar.
I saw this thread when it opened and just scanned it. I haven’t read it, but I do have a couple of questions. Some of which are specific to waterboarding, but I’m more interested in the others. So,
- what is torture? Not, “what techniques qualify as torture”, but what defines it. The best dictionary definition fro dictionary.com seems to be:
So, we know that pain need be involved. I think we’d all agree on that. And that drilling into someone’s teeth or ripping their fingernails out would easily qualify. But where is the line between extreme discomfort, or just annoying discomfort applied over time and outright, excruciating pain?
Also, are non-physical acts “torture”, as well? If I play one Abba song over and over and over again in order to annoy someone sufficiently to give up info, is that torture?
- What is the difference between “torture” and “enhanced interrogation techniques”? Let’s say there’s an act that you, personally, falls into the latter category. what is it. What makes it an enhanced interrogation technique and not torture?
Now, let’s assume that there exists an enhanced interrogation technique you are okay with. Let’s also assume that it comes with a commensurate increase in effectiveness, as small as it may be. Isn’t safe to say that this technique will deliver discomfort to the suspect? If so, how much discomfort can one apply until it moves into the torture category?
-
Leaving aside whether waterboarding is torture or not for now, and assuming it falls short of that and is “merely” an enhanced interrogation technique, it would still deliver discomfort, correct? I ask this because of the weight Mancow’s conclusion seems to be given. What criteria is he using? We see him go from absolute panic to being completely lucid and free of pain in the matter of a minute or two. The fact that an enhanced interrogation technique was a greatly unpleasant experience doesn’t surprise me in the least—such a technique would have to be unpleasant.
-
I’ve been on the fence as to whether waterboarding is torture or not, leaning toward “it is”. This stunt actually pushed me to start leaning the other way. It seems to simply create panic in the brain for a few seconds, and then it’s over. Also, if people can go through it dozens of times, with no scars or long-term effects, doesn’t that argue for the “not-torture” conclusion?
Let’s move to Orwell’s Room 101. The protaganist is terrified of rats. In order to get him to straighten out, they place a large cage over his head with hungry rats in it, with him protected by a divider that keeps the rats on their side of the cage. The rats never get to him, but the mere thought of it, and the slightest hint of the divider being removed is enough for him to conform.
So, is this torture? In the extreme case of the ticking nuclear bomb in NYC, would you advocate such a technique?
I seem to being going back and forth on this one. So, how would you—on both sides—address the specific questions I’ve asked?
Thanks.
Except that Mancow’s experience is far milder than what went on in Guantanamo. For one thing, they stopped doing it to him the instant he dropped that cow. That’s not actually how it works. When they’re doing it to suspected terrorists they do it for as long as they want, not for how long the prisoner wants.
There is no ticking bomb scenario. That never happens.
Uh, yeah. I and the rest of the world kinda work under that assumption.
And that prevents you from entertaining a hypothetical? Okay.
Anyone else care to actually contribute.
Hell if I know. It’s hard to define, and that’s obviously part of the problem. But here’s my way of thinking:
Suppose a loved one is incarcerated / detained by the U.S. government / military. Now suppose that while they’re incarcerated, they’re subjected to waterboarding, stress positions, loud music played non-stop, sleep deprivation, or cold temperatures.
Which of those things would you be OK with, and which might you object to on behalf of your relative?
I’ve deliberately omitted whether your loved one was justly incarcerated, or has valuable information. That’s a gray area, as I suspect it often is in reality.
My feeling is that if it’s not something you would condone being done to a loved one, it shouldn’t be done to anyone else. I don’t really care if it’s According to Hoyle “torture”.
You’re the one who brought it into the conversation, Sparky. Presumably, because you thought it a valid and useful consideration. Do we misunderstand the subtlety?