Ronald Reagan would disagree with you. What we’re doing is torture by the definition of the U.N. treaty against torture that Ronald Reagan signed in 1988.
And if the suffering we’re inflicting isn’t extreme, then why do it? Do you really believe a big bad terrorist is going to crack just because we made him mildly uncomfortable? That’s just silly.
I’m not accusing anyone here of changing their opinion. I believe everyone here is sincere in their beliefs. But, I believe those seeking prosecutions were genuinely for EIT until the public outcry.
Or maybe we did…
http://www.cnsnews.com/PUBLIC/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=46949
Surely if people changed their minds for political reasons (and I wouldn’t be surprised) that puts their thoughts on the subject into question at both points, not just the changed version? That is to say, if it’s fair to question their motives behind them saying torture is unacceptable, then it’s equally as fair to question their motives for saying it’s fine.
It is called “emphasis”. Look it up.
Right. They used it during the Spanish Inquisition as the first step in torture before they put their prisoner in the comfy chair (NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!).
Other such nice guys that used it were the Gestapo, Pinochet regime and the Khmer Rouge. Pussies the lot of them who clearly were messed up when it came to torturing people.
We have the testimony right here on this Board from Scylla who waterboarded himself. We have testimony* from doctors who have treated those who have been waterboarded and attest to the clinical effects waterboarding has on people and describe it as torture.
But hey…your opinion is waterboarding is not torture in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Waiting for you to argue for the existence of invisible pink unicorns next. You’ll have about as much evidence for their existence as you do for the notion that waterboarding does not constitute torture.
Obviously the inherent problem with trying to regulate war is that given the choice between following the rules and victory, most will side with victory. That is not, however, a license for unrestrained wholesale distruction and cruelty that serves no military purpose.
You mean heavy beatings, sodomy, sleep deprivation, covering people with insects, constriction, waterboarding and fucking strappadoaren’t torture anymore ? In case you’re not booksmart on that lovely procedure, it could be described as “enhanced crucifixion”. So… yeah.
I guess I didn’t get that memo.
ETA : on second thoughts, here’s an amusing reversal : what does, in your opinion, constitute torture ? And where exactly is the line between “torture” and “not torture” drawn, in your mind’s eye ?
ETA2 : Oh, and your old saw about “the second 9/11 torture saved us from” has been thoroughly debunked already. Check out the other “torture is swell” threads.
Except that attack was averted before we waterboarded him. Nice try, though. All waterboarding did was tell us that they were behind it. That kind of knowledge (if it is, in fact, true) is not worth sacrificing our humanity.
Or maybe it wasn’t averted before we waterboarded him
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDE5YTNmZTg5OWUyOTlkMGUxOTk3OGMxY2I4ZDQ4YWQ=
Doesn’t matter to me either way. The fact that we got that info out of him using waterboarding says a lot.
Maybe it hasn’t been declassified yet.
I have said that some individuals acted outside of the law. I am not defending that. Reasonable people can disagree about whether we went up to the line or crossed it.
Also, I don’t believe anyone was covered with insects. I think one insect was placed in a box with the detainee and told that it did NOT have a sting that would cause severe pain or death.
No. They can’t. We tortured, and that’s unacceptable.
Try finding a reputable cite, like something from the Weekly World News.
Somehow I’m not surprised.
What, precisely, do you think it says?
I have no idea what you just said.
I think this is supposed to be a half-assed “it’s only a few rotten apples” defence, while at the same time saying the apples might not have been rotten after all ?
As an intense creepy-crawly phobic, you’ll understand why to me this still seems like kind of a big deal to inflict on someone.
Oh, and you still have to provide examples of what you’d consider to be actual torture, and where torture starts on the scale of Doing Unpleasant Stuff To A Fellow Human Being.
Because even in war. some things are just wrong?
This is probably just a rhetorical device, but you don’t actually think he understands that, do you?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090501/ap_on_re_us/us_demjanjuk Such contradictory messages we send. Here we are sending John Denjanjuk to trial for WW2 crimes against people. He is getting hit with 29,000 counts of accessory to murder for his being a guard in concentration camps. He is 89 years old.
On one hand we are supposed to say shit happens in war and that is just the way it is. On the other hand we help track a guy down who was involved for over 60 years.
It’s a double standard. It’s only a bad thing when “the other guy” does it.
It would seem so:
I just think it’s sad that someone would post a thread with this title at all. Ten years ago the title of this thread would have been unthinkable in any venue. The Bush Administration has ruined us for a generation.
Eh, it’s like torturing an innocent suspect in a ticking time bomb scenario - patiently explaining basic, simple and self-evident truths is the ONLY tool I can use in the timeframe, and they might just work ! I can’t afford *not *to do it !