Redstate

to Democrat political leaders is wrong for America. Pres Bush is doing the right thing to fight them on both these issues. Should have been fighting them on a lot more issues, a long time ago.

Wrong.
He is drubbing the dhimmies right now.
They have imploded, done nothing, and are ahving to call out the big guns in the lefty media to hide it with softball interviews of Pelossi. Reid, you might note, is in hiding since his letter writing camapign against Rush.
Forcing the dhimmies to stand up and keep their word over a two week period regarding the AG is just sweet - the Senate objections are pure cynical BS.
Bush is playing them as he has pretty well for > 6years. Not bad for a guy the dhimmies feel so superior towards.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

What causes you Democrats to imagine that you'll be running against Bush in '08? He'll be gone, you know. He can stick his fingers in your eyes and go, "Nyuk nyuk" as many times as he wants until January 20, 2009 and there isn't a thing you can do about it. And we can gloat about it, and you can't do anything about that either.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

Congress outlawed torture. Do you really expect them to list all of the possible types of torture?

I don't understand why the AG nominee can't give a simple answer to a simple question. Is waterboarding torture? Yes or no?

Not giving a clear answer only sets up an enviroment where something like Abu Ghraib happens.

The Boston Globe article says it best:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_...

"David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that the signing statement means that Bush believes he can still authorize harsh interrogation tactics when he sees fit.

''The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me,' " he said. ''They don't want to come out and say it directly because it doesn't sound very nice, but it's unmistakable to anyone who has been following what's going on.""

1. You are a politicized, ignorant fool. This BS is an issue only because the Democratic Party doesn't give a damn about the safety and security of this country.
2. Nothing, repeat NOTHING, that happened at Abu Ghraib constituted "torture". "Stupidity", absolutely.
3. If the congress wants to make a big deal over a specific interrogation technique, then let them pass a law making it illegal. Actually, they should have no say whatsoever in it, but what the heck, let them pass a law.
4. You are a stark raving idiot.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

With regard to #2, I just want to be clear on what specifically took place at Abu Graib. You can say that you think it falls outside the realm of 'torture,' but it's not credible at this point to deny that the following events took place:

-Urinating on detainees
-Jumping on detainee's leg (a limb already wounded by gunfire) with such force that it could not thereafter heal properly
-Continuing by pounding detainee's wounded leg with collapsible metal baton
-Pouring phosphoric acid on detainees
-Sodomization of detainees with a baton
-Tying ropes to the detainees' legs or penises and dragging them across the floor.

(NYT, January 12, 2005)

"Sergeant Samuel Provance from Alpha Company 302nd Military Intelligence Battalion, in interviews with several news agencies, reported the sexual abuse of a 16-year-old girl by two interrogators"
(http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/07/14/kidnap/index_np.html)

In the official military report on abuses at Abu Graib, found here:(http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/tagubarpt.html#ThR1.8)the military commission reports that the following events occured:

(S) A male MP guard having sex with a female
detainee;
(U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the
phosphoric liquid on detainees;

and

(U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and
perhaps a broom stick.

You may feel that sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light does not constitute torture, and does not violate the Geneva convention. That's an argument you're welcome to put forward. But there is absolutly nobody - not even the US Military - that denies that this took place.

is specific authorized policy. But you likely knew that.
What was described was abuse.
Torture is when Al Qaeda chops up someone as the point of what they are there for. Or when they saw off some poor guy's head and post the video as an example of what good moslems do to unruly dhimmies.
The little bit that happened at Abu Ghraib was abuse and the abusers were prosecuted and jailed.
That lefties will not distinguish between the two is a great example of why lefties are despised by patriots.

Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

when this first came up. 'Preciate the much better job than I would have done :>).
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

That's why I love reading your stuff on Redstate Mbecker - subtle yet poignant - with just a touch of napalm.

Congress outlawed torture. Do you really expect them to list all of the possible types of torture?

If they mean to outlaw it, they need to get cracking; otherwise, we could have men prosecuted for showing captives Glitter, which, on reflection, probably really is torture.

Conservatives believe in specificity in the law, so that enforcement of the law does not outgrow the intent or agreement of the law.

I don't understand why the AG nominee can't give a simple answer to a simple question. Is waterboarding torture? Yes or no?

Is playing loud music at someone torture? Yes or no?

C'mon now. You know you're not here to actually discuss this issue. You know what you think, and you just want us to give you the opportunity to share.

Not giving a clear answer only sets up an enviroment where something like Abu Ghraib happens.

When guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns.

"David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that the signing statement means that Bush believes he can still authorize harsh interrogation tactics when he sees fit.

You know what? I don't normally do this, but how about your next comment in this thread (use Reply to This) explains what a signing statement is, what it means, and what its legal effect is. From there, also explain what you mean when you repeat the summary of Golove's words above.

Good luck.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

The President and all the other government officials should give this simple and correct answer to any questions about American personnel torturing terrorists.

"We treat every terrorist captive far better than the terrorists treat the unfortunate people that they have captured."

If someone wants a longer answer, discuss the Al Quaida torture comic book for illiterates that our troops found somewhere in Iraq.

helps the enemy

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

5!

If Mukasey goes down, that is

And Rightly So!

Champ Bailey? Didn't he cover Greg Jennings? How is that a second year player managed to beat perhaps one of greatest NFL cornerbacks in what is arguely the biggest game for Broncos soinfar this season? I almost, I mean almost, felt sorry for Bailey for being so embarrassed when he let a young player to slip by and score the winning touchdown. That shouldn't have happened at all. But man, what a great game that was! ;)

------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.

Heh, heh, heh, at least he made the highlight reel, chasing Jennings....

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

Champ (and Bly) have to worry about stopping the run this year (Champ is a great tackler unlike other *cover* corners) so they have to keep an eye on the run at all times. And it hurts their coverage. And yes, there are times where Champ gets beat (2004 snow game against the Raiders where Jerry Porter smoked him comes to mind), but there is NO ONE in the league I'd rather have.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

Champ was inactive last week because of a thigh injury. There's always the possibility that he wasn't 100%.

Kennedy said Mukasey's unwillingness to say that waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning, is torture increases the chances that the Senator himself will use it while driving young female passengers.

--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox

Because using one word to cover, say, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, and wiring up somebody to an electrical socket does nothing useful for the debate. Hell, I suspect that the comparison to the first and second may have actually made the third incrementally more acceptable to the populace; semantics is funny like that.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

YELLING AT DETAINEES!

and, of course, LOUD MUSIC!!!!!!
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

But abusing words like this happens all the time. "Rape" is another great example. In law it has a specific meaning. But in general conversation people use it for a great many other things.

We have all seen the emotional loading of word go down - the F-word is in fairly common use these days - and up - the N-word was in pretty common use 30 years ago.

This degrading of the word 'torture' is just another change, but for the reasons you state, a rather dangerous one.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Because using one word to cover, say, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, and wiring up somebody to an electrical socket does nothing useful for the debate.

We just need to start using words according to their definitions, and taking it case by case.

Sleep deprivation is sleep deprivation. If you're depriving someone of sleep by waterboarding them or wiring them to an electrical socket, you're torturing them.

Incidentally, there's not much (if any) functional difference between waterboarding and applying electrical shocks. Both are painful/unpleasant (waterboarding probably moreso); both can leave no marks; both can be deadly.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

...COMPLETELY different classes of things, so you DO need a new word.

If so, what did they call that class of activity at the time?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

.... Let's put a stop to the idea right now that waterboarding in training (or on TV by TV reporters) is at all comparable to waterboarding as used as an interrogation device. You don't simulate an execution in training because your trainee is "in" on it, so the trainee is (at most) experiencing temporary physical discomfort.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

The fact that we do it to our own people proves it's not torture, because we'd never, oh, use flaming hot pokers in training now would we?

We're not just going to cover over facts that make things harder for the other side, sorry.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

The fact that we do it to our own people proves it's not torture, because we'd never, oh, use flaming hot pokers in training now would we?

We also wouldn't simulate an execution on our own people 00 or, if we did, it would not be a credible threat -- unlike waterboarding as performed as an interrogation method (unlike as in a training scenario).

Put it this way: a training exercise may involve placing a gun to the forehead of a trainee and threatening the trainee with execution. Is this comparable to a situation in which a soldier is interrogated by hostile forces in the same way? It is no different for waterboarding. Indeed, although we may assure ourselves that we only simulate executions via waterboarding, part of waterboarding's effectiveness comes from the realism associated with the simulation.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

By the same people in the same way as would perform it on any detainees. Just as the trainee is "in" on it, so, to, the detainee. For the detainee knows perfectly well that American guards/interrogators at an American facility are not going to actually "pull the trigger," so to speak...

Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

I disagree with your view that a detainee will place the same trust in his waterboarder as a trainee, for the obvious reasons.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Sorry, but "electical socket" and "waterboarding" are two... COMPLETELY different classes of things, so you DO need a new word.

Applying an electrical shock:

1. Unpleasant.
2. If done correctly, is usually nonleathal.
3. If done correctly, seldom leaves a noticeable mark.
4. Usually does not simulate an execution.
5. Possible long term neurological harm, but it's not at all clear that such is the case.

1. Unpleasant.
2. If done correctly, is usually nonleathal.
3. If done correctly, seldom leaves a noticeable mark.
4. Unlike electrical shocks, always simulate an execution (that's the point - to induce fear of death by drowning).
5. Probably no long term physical harm.

I see some differences, but no material ones.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

So are they "unpleasant", or are they torture?

Just so I can be certain.

"So are they "unpleasant", or are they torture?"

Another logical fallacy. "Unpleasant" and "torture" are not mutually-exclusive terms. Applying electrical shocks to someone's genitals and simulating death by drowning are both unpleasant. They are also both torture.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

And I am sure you do not understand the meaning of the word "torture".

Jeff said it very well below. I doubt anyone who has had their eyes gouged out, or their arms ripped from their sockets, or their teeth drilled out would term the experience as "unpleasant". I would say they would, however, use the word "torture".

I will stand aside now and read what Jeff writes.

And on this site we are not forced to pretend that the expansion of the word "torture" by the Left to include "everything that the speaker disapproves of" is not a major problem in this debate. If a bright line is not drawn, a dull one will be; and it will be drawn, largely incoherently, by people who think that they are being pragmatic about things.

And if that doesn't chill you, it should.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

And on this site we are not forced to pretend that the expansion of the word "torture" by the Left to include "everything that the speaker disapproves of" is not a major problem in this debate.

Moe, you know from long experience that I highly respect you. But I'm not yielding on this one. That there are ten million (or more) idiots on the left who don't understand the meaning of the word torture does not require me to defend the "loud music is torture crowd" in order to make my point: That waterboarding is torture.

I don't have to, nor will I, defend those on the left who try to confuse the issue. On the other hand, it does no good to try to avoid my argument -- which is clear and narrow -- by responding to arguments that I do not make.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Because stretching our current word to fit everything from sleep deprivation to wiring people up to electrical sockets makes it semantically meaningless.

Yes, I've just restated what I had said to begin with.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Because stretching our current word to fit everything from sleep deprivation to wiring people up to electrical sockets makes it semantically meaningless.

Wiring someone up to an electric socket probably is no more unpleasant that waterboarding,* and it also doesn't leave a mark.

*Completely anecdotal, but: reports suggest that waterboarding gets even hardened folks talking within seconds or minutes, while electrical shock "therapy" can continue for a much longer period before producing "results." That's inferential support that waterboarding is at least as unpleasant as electrical shocks.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Good. Use 'em both.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Marvin'08!

The problem with such an expansive definition of the word is that it deprives the word of meaning. I could force someone to listen to Mariah Carey's complete artistic output every second of every day for months; I could rape a man's wife in front of him, again and again; I could do any number of things to cause pain and distress with the hope that my target will speak. Torture, however, has to be somewhere special, or we will treat everyday things as torture, and torture as an everyday thing. I don't think anyone wants that.

That said, torture is effective -- as effective as any other intelligence gathering act. I think the powerful moral case against torture is diminished by the blatant dishonesty of so many in asserting that "torture doesn't work." We have done it as a species for tens of thousands of years for a reason, and we long ago figured out how to solve the false positive problem that so many pretend is dispositive.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

The problem with such an expansive definition of the word is that it deprives the word of meaning. I could force someone to listen to Mariah Carey's complete artistic output every second of every day for months; I could rape a man's wife in front of him, again and again; I could do any number of things to cause pain and distress with the hope that my target will speak. Torture, however, has to be somewhere special, or we will treat everyday things as torture, and torture as an everyday thing. I don't think anyone wants that.

I don't know why you (and Moe) raise the issue of loud music or sleep deprivation; I didn't. I'm talking about waterboarding.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Jeff, I really do enjoy reading your dispatches from Iraq, but I'm curious why you've volleyed with this instaresponse. Did you actually read my original post? Where do I contend that loud music or sleep deprivation is torture? If the answer is "nowhere", then why is Thomas' response at all apt?

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Waterboarding is torture. There's really no room for debate on this point, but here goes: You're simulating an execution (by drowning) in an way that causes pain and distress. Is it effective in getting someone to talk? Sure, like other simulated executions -- e.g., putting a gun to someone's head and saying, "talk" -- you'll likely end up with a talker. Whether the talk is useful is another matter.

Now, the first sentence, standing alone, would be tautological; I therefore presume that the sentences that follow are meant to prove the first sentence.

Taken as they are, you seem to be saying that either (1) putting someone in fear of death, (2) causing pain and distress, or (3) putting someone in fear of death by causing pain and distress constitutes torture. If you mean (1), I fear you are so far out in silly land that there is nothing to discuss on this point. If you mean (2), I fear your lack of specificity is exactly that to which I was referring. If you mean (3), you basically mean (1), because there is no way to get someone to be in fear for his or her life without causing that person some kind of pain and distress.

Putting to the side that waterboarding is torture like NASCAR is a sport -- at a certain level of remove, we can stretch any word to encompass what we want it to mean -- my essential point is that you've expanded the definition of "torture" past its usual and customary meaning to mean "causing someone pain and distress [to produce a result we want]." If this is true, I have no idea why sleep deprivation or Mariah Carey music, or indeed, anything else you want to classify as torture, isn't.

You're usually better with analogies.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

NASCAR is waaaaaaaaaaay more of a sport than, say, golf (and maybe even the NBA). People die in NASCAR, and it is physically grueling - you are even in discomfort for 4-5 hours at a time.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

Really.

Now, I'm not wandering too far into the golf/sport-NASCAR/sport series of debates -- Paul Cella and Leon Wolf are both friends -- but let's just say I could be convinced without much effort that neither is a sport.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

they must not be talented if they die competing in their "sport"

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

Thread ends now.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I knew I should have just let it go.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Real men race motorcycles.

http://www.motogp.com/en/motogp/index.htm

:)

Before we begin, I laughed a little at the opening title:

"Thomas's response is quite apt. by Thomas"

Well played. (I have a low threshold for humor today, apparently.)

On to the substance:

Taken as they are, you seem to be saying that either (1) putting someone in fear of death, (2) causing pain and distress, or (3) putting someone in fear of death by causing pain and distress constitutes torture.

Well, all three can constitute torture under U.S. law in appropriate circumstances, but my contention is that waterboarding fits into category (3).

If you mean (1), I fear you are so far out in silly land that there is nothing to discuss on this point.

18 USC 2340, then, exists in silly land. (Now, I don't have a philosophical objection to calling laws silly -- many are -- but let's be clear what you're abruptly dismissing.)

If you mean (2), I fear your lack of specificity is exactly that to which I was referring.

I don't need to make the case for (2) in order to be correct, so I won't.

If you mean (3), you basically mean (1), because there is no way to get someone to be in fear for his or her life without causing that person some kind of pain and distress.

First, there are many ways to put someone "in fear for his or her life without causing that person some kind of pain and distress" (I emphasize the conjunctive because I intend it's intentional on your part). Putting a gun to someone's head and threatening to shoot them involves no physical pain.

Second, waterboarding does involve the infliction of substantial pain and suffering while putting someone in fear for their life.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

You didn't make clear at the start of this that you're relying on statutory language for your definitions. If that's the case, then -- while we're indeed in silly land -- we've been speaking past each other.

Well, all three can constitute torture under U.S. law in appropriate circumstances, but my contention is that waterboarding fits into category (3).

This is, to say the least, a somewhat dubious proposition -- but I'll not argue, as you've at least sorta kinda narrowed the definition a bit.

18 USC 2340, then, exists in silly land. (Now, I don't have a philosophical objection to calling laws silly -- many are -- but let's be clear what you're abruptly dismissing.)

See my initial comment in this, er, comment. And it is a silly law, passed for no other purpose but to make the legislators involved feel good about themselves.

First, there are many ways to put someone "in fear for his or her life without causing that person some kind of pain and distress" (I emphasize the conjunctive because I intend it's intentional on your part). Putting a gun to someone's head and threatening to shoot them involves no physical pain.

von, have you ever been in real, prolonged fear for your life? You know, like, say, having a knife pointed at your heart, and being unable to move for a bunch of reasons?

I have. It hurts. Badly. No, not in a drawing-blood or even physical contact way; but your chest becomes so tight it feels like a lance has gone through your back and is firing out your front. You can't breathe well. Your head pounds to the point of the worst migraine you've ever had. Your hands cramp from the fists you've made.

You can't put someone in real fear of death without causing them pain. It's true. However, nowhere in the course of human history, until someone decided to codify such things, has anyone ever thought inflicting fear of death on someone is torture.

The conjunction, in other words, is redundant.

Second, waterboarding does involve the infliction of substantial pain and suffering while putting someone in fear for their life.

Even assuming arguendo the bit about putting someone in fear for his or her own life, I've known my share of the waterboarded. They never used the word "torture" to describe the pain. However, they never took the statutory or common form of the adjective used to describe the pain as torture -- "severe" -- and lowered it to "substantial," either, so maybe they just weren't as willing as you to lower the standard.

Which brings us back to the essential point: I understand that you believe you're drawing (some kind of) a bright line here, and saying that there are inflictions of pain and suffering that are torture, and there are inflictions of pain and suffering that are not; but you're taking even the overly broad statutory language and stretching it further, to where anything might be torture.

In so doing, you are forgetting why we leave the words in some statutes undefined: We want the freedom to hew to the common meaning of words, and want to be able to say, I know it when I see it. Once you've started defining it, you either limit it -- rarely -- or you encourage people to stretch the meanings of the words of the limits to meet their desired ends, thereby making the law malleable to whatever whim passes by.

I'm totally open to moral arguments against inflicting pain -- not the lack of adjective -- to produce information, and frankly find them persuasive. But pretending that, say, waterboarding is torture, is destroying the best bases for that kind of argument by cheapening the terms on which we focus as touchstones. Of that, I want no part.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

However, they never took the statutory or common form of the adjective used to describe the pain as torture -- "severe" -- and lowered it to "substantial," either, so maybe they just weren't as willing as you to lower the standard.

The choice of the word "substantial" was intentional: I do not need, and will not seek to establish, that waterboarding causes severe pain.

Which brings us back to the essential point: I understand that you believe you're drawing (some kind of) a bright line here, and saying that there are inflictions of pain and suffering that are torture, and there are inflictions of pain and suffering that are not; but you're taking even the overly broad statutory language and stretching it further, to where anything might be torture.

No, there's no bright line. Waterboarding is torture not merely because it's unpleasant, but because it's a simulated execution. Whether or not an act simulates an execution can be put to an objective test -- obviating your Potter "I know it when I see it" Stewart concern.*

Incidentally, my reference to the law is not because I want to make this a legal argument, but because a statute seeks to provide a precise definition and is a common reference point.

*For this reason, the comparison to training sessions is irrelevant: training, no matter how realistic, does not simulate an execution.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

If I take a prisoner, walk him before a firing squad, blindfold him, announce ready, have the men chamber their rounds, announce aim, have the men lower rifles to hand (a slapping noise you instantly recognize ensues), and then announce fire -- with triggers pulled, and wax bullets detonated in-barrel -- I have tortured a man?

I take this from -- and correct me if at the very least this isn't what you seem to be saying -- this:

The choice of the word "substantial" was intentional: I do not need, and will not seek to establish, that waterboarding causes severe pain. ...

Waterboarding is torture not merely because it's unpleasant, but because it's a simulated execution.

Now, I confess that I excised what I believed to be excess verbiage, so I may be mistaken, or misrepresenting you, and if I did so, my apologies; but as I now understand you to be speaking, the mere infliction of fear of death on a man is sufficient to say we have tortured him?

If that's what you're asserting, we have indeed tortured something, but it's not another human being. If this isn't breaking a word far beyond its commonly accepted meaning, nothing is.

Now, I'm aware that the statute is so worded that a battlefield combatant, rushing up on a wounded prisoner who may have critical information on where his lost comrade is being held, who takes out his service sidearm, cocks back the hammer, and yells at the prisoner to talk or die, has committed torture, as long as the suffering is "prolonged" (one presumes that you believe that waterboarding produces "prolonged" suffering -- does the fake execution above?); indeed, as worded, a great number of battlefield conditions have suddenly become torture. That's fine; you'd expect legislators trying to preen to do something stupid, and you then expect juries to come to their own conclusions. But insofar as you're relying on the statute for a common definition, you've committed two fallacies: First, presuming that the statute either deliberately or inadvertently does produce a common definition; and, second, that it's possible to tease such a definition from something that's not designed to be definitional.

But I wander slightly.

The essential point here is this, and we go back to the beginning: The idea that waterboarding, or any other thing which does not inflict severe physical and, preferably, mental suffering, may still be torture if it produces an unpleasant enough emotional reaction, is simply a way of destroying a word we reserved for truly dark and evil acts, not things that make one morally pause. The firing squad, the soapy frogs and the wet suit, waterboarding -- if all of these are torture, then we need to have the armed services simply shoot to kill all non-conforming combatants (which they're entitled to do anyway), for fear that someone might inflict just the right amount of emotional suffering later to be haled before a jury.

I fear the beginning of the damage to our society, however, has been done anyway.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Now, I'm aware that the statute is so worded that a battlefield combatant, rushing up on a wounded prisoner who may have critical information on where his lost comrade is being held, who takes out his service sidearm, cocks back the hammer, and yells at the prisoner to talk or die, has committed torture, as long as the suffering is "prolonged" (one presumes that you believe that waterboarding produces "prolonged" suffering -- does the fake execution above?); indeed, as worded, a great number of battlefield conditions have suddenly become torture.

Sure. And I have no problem defending such actors at every stage. And you can contact me via private email, which, as a director, you can access, if you need bona fides on that.

That said, a simulated execution on a captured prisoner is torture. Without the extenuating circumstances of the battlefiled, it is properly illegal and immoral. As well as profoundly unwise and shortsighted.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

When we fight a war, we actively seek to try to kill the other side's soldiers. Are we torturing those soldiers?

When we dropped bombs on Saddam Hussein's safe houses, were we torturing him?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

of law. When law breaks down.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

When we fight a war, we actively seek to try to kill the other side's soldiers. Are we torturing those soldiers?

There's a difference between a soldier who is attempting and able to kill you, and a prisoner in captivity. It's a material one.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

If the inflicting of a fear of death is in itself a torturous activity, then what's the difference between our ability to inflict that fear through shock and awe, or through waterboarding?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

If the inflicting of a fear of death is in itself a torturous activity, then what's the difference between our ability to inflict that fear through shock and awe, or through waterboarding?

I think I understand, now, where you were coming from below. You want me to take the position that the legal and moral rules that apply to the treatment of a detainee must also apply to a nondetainee -- whether that nondetainee is a soldier or a trainee or a civilian.

For clarity, I have not (and do not) take the position that you seem to assume that I have to take. Rather, like the USMC, the US Government, the Catholic Church, and (literally) hundreds of millions of others, I take the position that different moral and legal rules govern the treatment of different classes of people during wartime.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

I have had it done to me and I've witnessed it being properly done several times. I can discuss my credentials off-line, but waterboarding is NOT torture. Sure it's intense, but the threat of using it is almost as effective as actually doing it. It needs to be available, but closely regulated.

What would you like us to use - the comfy chair??.
This is the real world, wake up.

Now electric shock - that's torture- trust me.
So is watching this foolish debate in the Clown Congress.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

von, you ever been waterboarded?

No.

I have had it done to me and I've witnessed it being properly done several times. I can discuss my credentials off-line, but waterboarding is NOT torture.

Have you had it done to you outside of a training session, by someone whom you perceive as (1) an enemy (2) who credibly advises or insinuates to you that your life is forfeit and (3) whose credentials you do not know (or trust)? Because there is a world of difference between training and reality (as we all know).

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

The fact is, we're not talking about whether the enemy should be waterboarding anyone, nor the conditions under which the enemy waterboards people.

We're talking about whether American troops should be waterboarding, and the conditions under which they do so.

So what's your point?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

We're talking about whether American troops should be waterboarding, and the conditions under which they do so.

Two points:

1. The rules that we make for ourselves will be used and applied by others. If we can waterboard to serve our natinal interest, on what pragmatic basis can we convince others not to waterboard in their national interest? On what real-world basis will you grant us the right to waterboard, but convince everyone else to ban it.

2. To be most effective, a skillful interrogator must create the impression of risk: the subject may be quite ('though not absolutely) safe, but the impression should be that death could occur.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

1. Who exactly follows our policies with respect to the treatment of others? Al Qaeda? Red China? Or rather, who did in the past? North Vietnam?

I think you're dreaming if Americans going easier on POWs and other detainees will buy one single iota of reciprocal humanity for Americans who are captured, because I don't know of a single example of this happening, ever.

Even the Nazis gunned down our men wholesale.

2. Do you have a cite for that? Everything I know about waterboarding says that the psychological effect of it doesn't need any such enhancement.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

"1. Who exactly follows our policies with respect to the treatment of others? Al Qaeda? Red China? Or rather, who did in the past? North Vietnam?"

Should we begin beheading people because Al Qaeda does it and it is effective? The problem with letting the barbaric practices of enemy nations/entities set OUR own standards is inherently obvious, it begins a slippery slope. Just because we can not expect our enemies to follow our example does not mean we should abandon our moral position.

An argument was made about external ramifications. Neil responded. If you wish to assert that there are internal ramifications, you may do so, but let's not pretend that was the subject under discussion when you offered yourself into this subthread.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

You are engaging in a logical fallacy that even basic knowledge of the rules of logic should prevent you from making.

You are suggesting that the barbaric actions of our enemies are the basis for our actions merely because we recognize that our actions Have No Effect On Their Actions.

We have set our own moral standards for the treatment of prisoners. Whether they be legitimate POWs or Illegal combatants (and thus, by definition, not protected by any American or international law).
The actions of our enemies have no effect on ours, nor do ours have any effect on theirs, as they have set their own moral standards independently of us.

The sooner people figure this out, the sooner we can stop with this worthless debate.

Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

1. Hantworth, I appreciate your assitance (really I do), but Thomas is right: You're moving the goalposts.

2. Neil, what we announce as policy ("policy" itself may be vague) has an enormous impact on our ability to criticize others and/or create the kinds of alliances required to isolate and/or contain rogue -- or potential rogue -- states. The question is not whether we can influence China directly (although we can), whether we can influence the Europeans, so that they can take a half measure that in turn tweaks the Chineses. This is a game a chess, not checkers; the battle is for position and the goal is seven moves away. The focus on the immediate is not helpful or wise.

3. Having someone pour water into your larynx is the enhancement.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

You can't seem to hold a consistent position, a consistent point from post to post.

A little while up you were claiming that waterboarding as training was different from waterboarding as interrogation, because the interrogator woudl be pretending he was going to kill you, and that added enhancement was what turned waterboarding from just hard into torture.

Now you admit that the stress comes from the actual pouring of water (Not that I'm conceding anything about where the water is poured; I don't know precisely if you are correct there).

You just admitted with your 3. that it's not the behavior of the interrogator that makes waterboarding hard, it's thea ctual waterboarding itself.

So again, tell us, if waterboarding is torture, why is it all our own guys who get it, seem to get it and not be scarred for life?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

You seem to think I've changed positions. I really don't know/see why (indeed, my first response was "Neil, you're nuts).

In any event, I'm done here too. You're either not reading or not understanding what I'm saying.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

they won't be killed and would have to endure the procedure again!

Plus, you do understand that we will do this if necessary no matter what courts and congress do?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

The rules that we make for ourselves will be used and applied by others.

No.

Our enemy already decapitates captives on videotape. Waterboarding isn't even in the same league, hardly even the same game.

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

With respect, this is insanely naive. You think al Quada is our only enemy? Long term, I'm far more concerned about China and Russia than the ME (which is not to diminish the danger in the ME).

(I'm waiting to be called an unreconstructed cold warrior.)

(Which I'll be happy to accept.)

(The chance of an errant, intentional, or terrorist-acquired Russian nuclear launch are at least 10 times more likely than Iran (a) getting a deliverable weapon and (b) actually delivering it.)

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

In both the short term and the long term, the US faces a much bigger threat from the elected members of the Democratic Party than they do aQ, the Chinese or the Russians. Or anybody else for that matter.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

North Vietnam didn't play by our rules. Nazi Germany didn't play by our rules. East, West, North, South, it doesn't matter: We are better than the enemy, and we always will be.

And we don't have to deprive ourselves of reasonable interrogation techniques to prove it to anyone. Everyone who is informed already KNOWS it. And don't believe for a second that our enemy leadership buys the propaganda, heh.

We're not doing things to digits and limbs and genitals involving pliers and hanging and electricity. THAT is torture. We're not using pins and needles and drawing blood. We're not re-enacting the Pit and the Pendulum.

We're not torturers. We're not in any danger of doing things the enemy does, nor is there any danger that any of our enemies is going to treat us worse because of what we do.

And I *Dare* you to prove otherwise.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

you ought to listen to the people who have experienced waterboarding. I myself haven't. I have however heard the reports from a Fox News reporter who volunteered to be waterboarded so he could experience it. His report is that even though part of him knew he was in safe hands, once the waterboarding started, he began to fear he was going to die. Then they let him up from his first dunk. When they started the second one, the fear came even more quickly, and there was nothing he could do to tame the fear. He broke in just a few minutes. He doesn't even really imply substantial pain during the interview, only the fear. And the fear comes through regardless of whether the environment is controlled and safe or at the hands of someone who would just as soon behead you.

So this entire line of counterargument is pointless. The effectiveness of the technique has nothing to do with safe or unsafe. The only question is whether or not it is torture. I submit as the basis of my belief that it is not, that we would not use being tortured as a standard training technique for ANY branch of the military, and that no reporter would ever volunteer to be tortured for a story. Therefore waterboarding is not torture.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Looked at from the other side -- not defining waterboarding as torture contracts the definition. If we start doing that, the word torture will become so specialized that only things other countries do will be considered torture.

In almost every definition I've seen, the word "severe" is used. So torture, as opposed to "being mean", is a matter of degree.

Playing Mariah Carey is mean. Playing Mariah Carey so loud that the prisoner's eardrums burst is torture.

Using the legal definition seems sensible to me, if we keep in mind that we always want our country to occupy the moral high ground.

One other point - a lot of the definitions of human activities have expanded as cruelty has become less palatable to us. This isn't necessarily bad.

Marvin'08!

I don't think any of the "us vs. them" arguments are relevant. I believe (but can't prove) that we have entirely different reasons for waterboarding than terrorists have for drilling holes in people. It's the "perfect weapon" argument -- if we could get the information as efficiently and reliably without waterboarding, would we do it?

The idea that waterboarding "gives them ammo" isn't relevant. If we decided it was not allowed, it wouldn't be for PR reasons. It would be because we thought it was wrong, in itself, without respect to anything anyone else was doing.

Marvin'08!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Waterboarding is torture. There's really no room for debate on this point, ..

Seems like you've stolen your debating style from the global warming crowd.

Let me just quote an old Abraham Lincoln joke. If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Finrod:

1. I then went on to debate the point anyway, knowing that there would be disagreements.

2. I assume that you agree that there are some things for which there is no genuine room for debate. But we debate them anyways.

3. Are you debating the argument? Do you believe that waterboarding is not torture?

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

And it's pretty freakin' obvious.

"And it's pretty freakin' obvious [that waterboarding is not torture]."

OK, Jeff. Why?

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

...rather than starting debate from the point of view that your position is undebateable -- because it isn't -- you need to go back to square one and explain exactly what it is to you that makes waterboarding "torture."

Now, enough with the shouting.

...rather than starting debate from the point of view that your position is undebateable -- because it isn't -- you need to go back to square one and explain exactly what it is to you that makes waterboarding "torture."

Please go back and read my original post. I wrote:

"Waterboarding is torture. There's really no room for debate on this point, but here goes: You're simulating an execution (by drowning) in an way that causes pain and distress. Is it effective in getting someone to talk? Sure, like other simulated executions -- e.g., putting a gun to someone's head and saying, "talk" -- you'll likely end up with a talker. Whether the talk is useful is another matter."

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

I think you'll find most interrogators find if they ask detainees really nicely they'll tell us whatever we need to know to protect Americans.

Heaven offend if we have to threaten people who want to kill us to give us information to prevent their homies from doing the deed.

I am going to add to loud music, waterboarding, Mariah Carey to the list of torture... three things; 1. both United States Senators from New York; 2. MediaMatters; and 3. Possibly your declarative statement to the effect that you can't argue with me because I AM RIGHT! (I am of course kidding, there are a lot more than three and you could easily come off the list)

We'll send you to Baghdad and see how effective you'll be at getting information to save freedom loving people all over the world.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Your first and second sentences are incorrect, and invalidate the rest of your argument -- especially the second sentence. Let me ask you this: is there an "interrogation technique" which you would not refer to as torture?

Also, you've spoken only in generalities to this point. Why specifically is waterboarding "torture"? Do you even really know what it is? AND, is there any difference in whether or not it, to you, constitutes "torture" if it is being carried out by a trained professional?

The defining down of language through generality and excessive hyperbole has done a great disservice to us all, and you are participating in (and exacerbating that) here. I've seen bodies of people who were tortured by al Qaeda -- from removed eyeballs, to arms ripped out of sockets through hanging, to the strategic use of power drills on live subjects, it's far closer to something out of the movie "Hostel" than to anything you or I could ever in our wildest dreams imagine doing to another human being. That is "torture." To classify a nonlethal technique which doesn't even cause any damage -- lasting or temporary -- other than to cause physical discomfort and mental fear as "torture" and, through the use of that word, as equal to the tactics used by terrorists who do such things as those that I mentioned above, is to do a disservice to all involved, while reflecting poorly on how realistic your view of the world around you really is.

And I await von's reply.

We can all probably agree on hanging, drawing, and quartering, the rack, the iron maiden, electric drills, chipper/shredders, bamboo splints, broken bones, and the like, but then it starts to get dicey.

As a long time 'crat, I've been to lots of meetings that involved severe physical and mental discomfort, psychological abuse, verbal abuse, humiliation, and intimidation, all compounded with extreme sleep deprivation. I'm only sorta' being facetious. I think we can all agree that if it involves profound physical injury, it is torture; beyond that, a definition gets real tough.

In Vino Veritas

We can all probably agree on hanging, drawing, and quartering, the rack, the iron maiden, electric drills, chipper/shredders, bamboo splints, broken bones, and the like, but then it starts to get dicey.

"[H]anging, drawing, and quartering, [and] the iron maiden" are methods of execution. Unpleasant methods, to be sure, but (absent extraordiary and unintended circumstances), they each result in death. So they don't really belong in a discussion of torture, because torture (by definition) does not require that death occur.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

The second two approaches were used for information extraction, then death. They fit.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

The second two approaches were used for information extraction, then death. They fit.

Look, I'm not going to argue Midieval History with a guy's who's tagline comes from BG2; I know when I'm beat. But my point is that HDQ and the Iron Maiden are not useful examples of torture for AChance because they involve an element that torture does not require. As I understood AChance's question, it was what's the least-bad thing that can be credibly called torture.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Your first and second sentences are incorrect, and invalidate the rest of your argument -- especially the second sentence. Let me ask you this: is there an "interrogation technique" which you would not refer to as torture?

I'll admit to being lost regarding what you're counting as my "first" and "second" sentences -- maybe you're counting the independent clause separated by a colon a sentence? Rather than try puzzle that out, I'll respond to your questions and argument.

Let me ask you this: is there an "interrogation technique" which you would not refer to as torture?

Dozens. Hundreds. Millions, maybe. I don't see a reason to list them all, however, because the only issue that I've raised is that waterboarding is torture.

Also, you've spoken only in generalities to this point. Why specifically is waterboarding "torture"?

We'll begin with the definition of "torture":

As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

Do you even really know what [waterboarding] is?

Yes. We'll leave aside whether waterboarding inflicts "severe physical ... pain or suffering"; I submit that there is a sound argument that it does, but we don't need to explore it for my purporses. We'll go to the definition of “severe mental pain or suffering," which specifically includes (inter alia) "(C) the threat of imminent death[.]"* Waterboarding simulates a drowning. That's why it's effective in a way that electrical shocks, for instance, is not.

AND, is there any difference in whether or not it, to you, constitutes "torture" if it is being carried out by a trained professional?

No. The fact that you are very good at creating an impression of imminent death while ensuring that the subject does not actually die may make you a better person in some general sense, but it does not factor into whether you are torturing that person.

I've seen bodies of people who were tortured by al Qaeda -- from removed eyeballs, to arms ripped out of sockets through hanging, to the strategic use of power drills on live subjects, ... That is "torture." [not, by comparison, waterboarding]

This is a misdirection, not an answer. We're not engaged in a game of "my torture is worse that your torture." Nor am I comparing us to al Qaeda in any sense (quite the contrary, in fact). The simple question presented is, aside from all the other things that constitute torture, is waterboarding torture? My argument, presented again above, is that it is. Nothing you've said responds to it.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

" Let me ask you this: is there an "interrogation technique" which you would not refer to as torture?

Dozens. Hundreds. Millions, maybe. I don't see a reason to list them all, however, because the only issue that I've raised is that waterboarding is torture. "

Try listing just a few. Again, for my benefit.

And to be absolutely certain, your primary threshold for defining an interrogation technique as torture is "simulation of an execution"? Is that correct or am I in error?

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

NOT the Comfy Chair!

Try listing just a few. Again, for my benefit.

The following is off the top of my head, without really thinking the whole matter through, but ....

1. You can assume that any interrogation technique that can be legitimately used in a police station passes muster with me. Given the number of cases that are solved by confession, we shouldn't dismiss those techniques as ineffective -- even against terrorists. (Indeed, many cops will tell you that hard-edged stuff is counterproductive.)

2. But a war isn't a police action, and I wouldn't stop there. Off the top of my head, I think that there are good arguments that sleep deprivation, temperature extremes (within reason), systematic control and misdirection (i.e., changing routines, barking orders, good-cop-bad-cop, threatened beatings, suggested torture of others, threats of rendition to torture friendly regimes, etc), loud music (again, within reason), and the like, are not torture.

3. I suspect, however, that confusion and misdirection are more effective. For instance, assum ("Bob been captured. He just started talking. You wouldn't believe what he's telling us ...." to provoke a correction or helpful reaction, e.g., "You lie. Bob would never do that" or "I'll kill Bob" or "Bob who?" can reveal some important details about Bob's importance)

4. And, of course, there's the option of mixing 1-3.

There are others, of course.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

I appreciate the list. I would venture to guess, however, that all would be pretty ineffective on a guy that would gladly bathe himself in the interrogator's blood and internal organs.

I would also like to address your definition of torture in a previous post. It seems to be so broad that it could include just about anything, particularly in the hands of a skilled lawyer, which the left would gladly place the whole GWOT.

Final point - if one is being interrogated by someone representing the United States of America, there can be no threat of imminent death, and thereby that definition of torture is not applicable. Because, you see, it has never happened, and will never happen, and therefore cannot reasonably be expected to happen.

So - if I am being waterboarded by an American, no threat of death, and no torture. If I am simply in a room alone with a member of Al Qaeda, and am restrained, then that alone would constitute torture under the "threat of imminent death" argument.

Maybe you could try again...

Final point - if one is being interrogated by someone representing the United States of America, there can be no threat of imminent death, and thereby that definition of torture is not applicable. Because, you see, it has never happened, and will never happen, and therefore cannot reasonably be expected to happen.

Really? It's not even conceivable among our enemies that we would kill someone?

(I would hope, quite frankly, that you're wrong. There were far better reasons to torture someone, even to death, during the Cold War.)

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

"Really? It's not even conceivable among our enemies that we would kill someone?"

Yes, really. If a list of more than a handful of people who have died during interrogation by an American could be provided, then one could reasonably expect that death would be a possibility. But our enemies know full well that this will never happen. Never. The fact that we are even having this discussion, and the fact that an AG may not be confirmed because of his position on friggin' waterboarding is all our enemies need to know.

The left has succeeded in taking any sort of bodily harm to our enemies during interrogation off the table.

Including during the Clinton and Carter administrations. Why the attention now?
It was never kept really secret, since in order to be effective, the enemy needs to at least hear rumors of the tactic.

Looks like cheap politics.

====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

waterboarding has been used for the past 20+ years

Actually, waterboarding has been used for a lot longer than that. The reason why it deserves discussion now is that some are attempting to make a case that it's legal, appropriate, and not torture. That's wrong. We are going to have to do bad things in a war. We owe it to ourselves to be honest about them, rather than obfuscate what we're doing with legalisms and misdirection and vaguaries.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

ask Janet Reno, Jimmy Carter or either one the Clinton co-Presidents why they thought waterboarding was legal and endorsed it's use during their regimes..
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

the "within reason" description. That alone discredits your arguements as it leaves it wide open to interpretation.

von I think you have lost this debate in every way. Everything is based on your emotional veiw of the world.

the "within reason" description. That alone discredits your arguements as it leaves it wide open to interpretation.

I'm very happy to rely on "within reason" as a limitation.

von I think you have lost this debate in every way. Everything is based on your emotional veiw of the world.

My views can -- and have -- been criticized a thousand different ways. But claiming that "[e]verything is based on [my] emotional veiw of the world" makes you look silly. If anything, the opposite is true. Find a better talking point.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

pointing to your bending things to fit your emotional views.

I'm sure you're happy to put "within reason" as YOUR personal limit. That's the point you lose the debate. All emotion and no substance.

Threats to the captive or others by the interrogator Are considered torture (by the Army) and are strictly prohibited by regulations.

...My wife's an Army Interrogator. The interrogation techniques and what they are allowed or not allowed to do are not classified information.

Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

Von, I appreciate your willingness to continue to debate with a tough crowd, but I reread your first post, and at the end you imply that torture is ineffective because the information supplied by it is inaccurate.

I concur that logically someone under pain and distress probably is not necessarily going to provide sound information. But imagine waterboarding is a kind of truth serum: we know it will get the truth 100 percent of the time. Picture some nightmare scenario where the only way to prevent a suitcase bomb from detonating in Washington D.C. would be to waterboard the suspect. Would it be acceptable in this situation?

You and I seem to agree with Senator McCain on the issue of accountablity and "torture". What's your take?

But imagine waterboarding is a kind of truth serum: we know it will get the truth 100 percent of the time. Picture some nightmare scenario where the only way to prevent a suitcase bomb from detonating in Washington D.C. would be to waterboard the suspect. Would it be acceptable in this situation?

You and I seem to agree with Senator McCain on the issue of accountablity and "torture". What's your take?

This has gotten lost in the debate, but I do appreciate the opportunity to make myself clear.

I am willing to allow torture -- waterboarding and worse -- in the extreme, perhaps never-will-happen circumstance. I ask that we call it torture, that we not make laws to excuse or obfuscate what we do, and that we take responsibility for what we have done. I am not a particularly religious man and I am willing, in extreme circumstances, to use people as a means rather than an end. But I do require honesty on the point; that evil be done with knowledge. The road to hell is paved with euphemisms (as well as good intentions).

So, yes, I agree with McCain on this issue -- every aspect. As Pericles was paraphased, the brave not only have the power of thinking before they act, but of acting as well, while others are courages from ignorance or hesitate if they reflct. We should aspire to that.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

"Where is Steve Harrigan?"

Whenever there is major fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, or a hurricane in the Caribbean or a earthquake in Zambia, Fox News Channel send Steve Harrigan into it to report. If there is a disaster, and Steve is not there, we figure it cannot be much of a disaster.

In order to be able to report on it, Steve Harrigan got himself "Waterboarded!" I said it was most uncomfortable. When asked why he always draws these less than desirable assignments he said, "Because I'm ugly!" He explained that if he was good looking like the anchors on TV he wouldn't get sent into war zones, or have to get himself waterboarded!

Question: Would Fox News Channel "torture" one of its own reporters?

not torture

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Where's the outrage?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

This soldier is afraiud of the dark!

Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

I disagree strongly with nearly every assumption you assert.
I would in fact say that you are the one making the weasel argument.
Waterboarding is not torture by any reasonable measure.
Additionally, the US is not torturing. I find arguments by people like you highly offensive, since they serve to enable the enemy to ganer undeserved sympathy, as well as to put our troops in disrepute.

I note only that you don't know a thing about me.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

He has very long cred here -- some of the longest -- and though frequently wrong (as the fact that he argues with me will show), he's here in good faith.

He's more or less completely wrong on this, but he used to hang with a bad crowd. His heart and most of his head are in the right place. Chill.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

If Tacitus is a "bad crowd": he is but a warrior for the working day, after all. But, otherwise, no quibbles with the defense. Except that you're completely wrong about everything -- but for Blackstone and Reagan (from the top-5 conservative threat).

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

He better not say it to me in person. Because he's spent the entire thread accusing my wife of being on par with Al Qaeda.

Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

He better not say it to me in person. Because he's spent the entire thread accusing my wife of being on par with Al Qaeda.

Noted. And, although this thread is long dead, I'll use your really strange comment* to note that Godwin's law may have to be slightly amended to include "al Qaeda" in addition to the Nazi's.

*If your wife is a military interrogator, as you claim, this discussion has nothing to do with her. She's already operating under much stricter rules than discussed here.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Thank you for making it clear that you recognize this fact. It's bad enough as regards my job. But that's talking about me. People talking about my wife gets my ire up.

and, yeah, you're prolly right about Godwin's Law and Al Qaeda...

Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

The British Army has a unit called the Brigade of Gurkhas, recruited from Nepal. Sounds odd, I know, but it is one of those hangovers from empire.

There is no doubt that the Gurkhas are tough. They scare people. They fight according to their own rules and code of honour. Every Gurkha has a scar on his thumb. It is a rule that if he draws his sword it cannot be resheathed until it has drawn blood. This means that if he takes it out to clean it he must cut his own thumb before he can put it away - so the cut is reopened pretty regularly.

Nobody wants to fight the Gurkhas. People do not believe that most British soldiers would cruelly execute prisoners of war. But they do believe that of the Gurkhas. Having people believe that - whatever the actual truth - is part of the point of having the Brigade.

In 1982 I was living in Plymouth. A story - almost certainly an urban myth - did the rounds about the Falklands conflict. British forces overran the islands fairly rapidly and were surounding the main town, Port Stanley. But what could they do? They did not want to storm the town because of the risk to the civilian population. So they started a whispering campaign: "the Gurkhas are coming; the Gurkhas are coming".

Most of the Argentinian troops were teenage conscripts. They definitely did not want to fight the Gurkhas. The story goes that they sent a scout up to the top of one of the hills to see if it was true. Were the Gurkhas really coming? He was never seen again. But his head rolled back down the hill. Within 30 minutes the Argentinians surrendered.

Now, as I say, the story - at least the bit about rolling the scout's head down the hill - probably isn't true. But it is the sort of story that people tell about the Gurkhas. It is a very good reason why people sometimes surrender to the British Army without even shooting back. The fact that a bunch of frightened teenaged conscripts believed that was the sort of thing the Gurkhas might do saved the lives of troops on both sides and most of the civilian population of Stanley.

Was that torture? Was it a bad thing?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

For the ceremonial killing of a bull, they use a scaled up version of the knife but the knife that they carry is about eighteen inches long and has a reverse curve and a large head.

This style of knife (and in some cases swords) were very popular in both Europe and Asia but died out in the middle ages. Generically, they are known as saxes and the Saxons were named after the sax-style swords they carried.

BTW, I met a Gurka when I was stationed in Korea in the late 1950's. He was a truck driver and gave me a lift from Kimpo to my unit. He showed me his knife and, before resheathing it, cut himself. However, he cut himself on the forearm not on his thumb.

I have a Gurka knife. I carried it in the field while in service. Besides being a fighting knife, the heavy head and reverse curve shape make the knife an efficient tool for a number of camp tasks.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

but as Crocodile Dundee once said "you call that a knife? THIS is a knife"! The Kukri knife, carried by Ghurkas, is most comprable to a machete. Whatever one wants to call it, here is a pic and info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kukri

Quentin, when the enemy thinks of the British military, I would hope they think more of the Ghurkas than Faye Turney, no offense to anyone intended.

Molon Labe!

Molon Labe!

I say shortsword...

Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

told us they turned the ROK army into a real fighting force by sending them out on night patrols to engage NoKo and Chinese units. 30 minutes after they left, they would send out a platoon of Gurkhas with orders to kill anybody they found. The ROKs were more afraid of the Gurkhas than the NoKos or the Chinese and became absolute terrors of the night.

Don't know if it was a true story, but it did fit with about a dozen other similar stories about Gurkhas.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Are a fantastic psychological weapon. I don't think anyone really knows how many of them are true, but the stories are great.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

"I believe that Judge Mukasey is the best we will get and voting him down would only perpetuate acting and recess appointments, allowing the administration to avoid the transparency that confirmation hearings provide and diminish effective oversight by Congress."

At least someone knows when they've lost the game.

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

there seems to be some sort of curse on the Republican party that makes them want to kiss the arse of Ted Kennedy and all the liberal media as soon as they get to D.C.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

one's that kiss lib butt are the one's that don't go home as much.

more later

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

"Gutless" readily comes to mind.

"Bi-Partisan" ranks pretty high as well, because it suggests a lack of "Core Principles" from which one will not deviate.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

Too bad he did not call their cowardly bluffs and phony poses years ago.

forced marriage to an american feminist

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

endless Yoko Ono.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

It falls under excruciating pain and permanent injury. Brain injury...

Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

Waterboarding Saved American Lives...

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed lasted "two and one-half minutes" before he began to talk, according to CIA sources.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

There is an article in the WaPoo today about the subject:

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR200711...

because an opinion is all the article conveys.

There's no cite or reference to "any" statute, past or present, that designates "waterboarding" as a crime.

Most of the article requires a stretch in logic to reach the author's conclusion.

1. One of many techniques used by some of the defendants was waterboarding (author's description).
2. Some of the defendants were found guilty of war crimes.
3. Therefore, waterboarding is a crime.

That's not a solid argument, and certainly does not support the author's claim of "principal proof."

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

...and then state your synopsis of his logic. Which is it?

"There's no cite or reference to "any" statute, past or present, that designates "waterboarding" as a crime."

If waterboarding is considered to be torture (something the writer was attempting to establish), it doesn't need to be named specifically.

You'd have to look at the actual cases to see if his "principal proof" statement is correct. Yes? Maybe that would cure your hesitancy in one direction or the other.

If he is correct in his "principal proof" statement, the argument becomes:

1. One of the many techniques used by some of the defendants was waterboarding.
2. Some of the defendants were found guilty of war crimes, principally because they used waterboarding, and because waterboarding was considered to be torture, and because torture was considered to be a crime.
3. Therefore, waterboarding is torture, and thus a crime.

Marvin'08!

without polling the jury or tribunal in each case?

The author defined multiple techniques as waterboarding.

Mountains of evidence was presented in the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. What piece, or pieces, of evidence was the tipping point and provided the "principal proof" upon which the convictions were based?

Seems to be subjective, rather than definitive, and requires that one already considers waterboarding to be torture in order to reach the author's conclusion.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

...and see if you agreed that they were principally based on the use of waterboarding. That's the only part that's subjective.

I'm not following how the author is begging the question in his reasoning. Do you have a syllogism for that one?

Marvin'08!

The author lumps every water technique under the waterboarding umbrella, when in reality, waterboarding is but one water technique, and not every water technique can be classified as torture.

One has to assume that every water technique can, and should, be classified as torture, plus, disregard that there is a distinction between interrogation and torture in order to reach his conclusion.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

The author doesn't lump every water technique together. He mentions individual cases.

There's nothing in his reasoning that presupposes that the reader thinks waterboarding is torture.

If you're dissatisfied with that argument, you'll understand why I'm dissatisfied with yours.

Marvin'08!

than the one you describe, and seem to support my position.

"That term is used to describe several interrogation techniques."

"The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding."

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

...you mean including conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

Okay...

Still nothing on the mechanics of how he's begging the question.

I do take your point, though, at least partially. The real issue is to determine whether what was recently practiced in actual cases meets the legal definition of torture. But I also understand the value of looking for precedent.

Marvin'08!

The author states: "Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime."

Then justifies that statement by classifying multiple water techniques under the "waterboarding" umbrella without distinguishing which techniques are legitimate interrogation techniques, which techniques should be classified as torture and what is the threshold for assigning a specific classification.

Apparently, the author believes all water techniques cross that threshold.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

...that the author considers all water techniques to be torture. He's talking about things that we would now call waterboarding. It's not an umbrella definition. He's saying that what people were convicted for previously is within the definition of what we would today consider waterboarding.

Still nothing on begging the question.

We're going nowhere except toward the right of the screen, so I'll leave it there. Thanks for the discussion.

Marvin'08!

IMO, there are a lot of Americans who don't want America winning the war on terror. Just as there were a lot of Americans that didn't want us winning in Vietnam. Doing anything that upsets the terrorists upsets these Americans.