quote:

---

Bent over the coffee table, Karnaj squealed:
Alright, I'll bite. How are they going to do that? Without a modern economy, they have no recourse except to use oil revenue to accomplish their goals. They lack the technical expertise, heavy manufacturing base, and the raw materials to create the requisite, army, navy, and air force with which to launch an invasion against the West. The only possible way for them to do it is to buy the required items with their oil money. And frankly, if(and big if) it comes to that, I have every confidence in the superior military of the West.

Or, the oil runs out, the money runs out shortly thereafter, and...they can have their 13th-century Caliphate, again, complete with no cars, industry, or clean water. Congratulations?

---

Last I checked, they're not building modern armed forces now. I think you seriously overestimate the effect on society of dwindling oil, as well as its effect on the terrorists. One could argue whether their income will dry up; it's a stretch to argue the tactics will change.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about dark elf butts:
No, waterboarding isn't torture.

---

Something you're going to have to understand is, alot of people feel that waterboarding IS torture, and they're not going to change their minds just because you say so. You can keep repeating it until you're blue in the face, but it's not going to make you any progress in the debate.

quote:

---

Bent over the coffee table, Zephyer Kyuukaze squealed:
Something you're going to have to understand is, alot of people feel that waterboarding IS torture, and they're not going to change their minds just because you say so. You can keep repeating it until you're blue in the face, but it's not going to make you any progress in the debate.

---

The point being it really doesn't matter what a lot of people "feel." Since when should every decision at the highest levels of government be made according to a referendum of how certain segments of the population "feel?"

That'd be dumb.

Although, to give you credit, you've identified the problem with the argument, albeit backwards: too many people are arguing their feelings without bothering to be informed on the subject.

If you think waterboarding is torture, then feel free to explain why you're correct and DoJ got it all wrong when they wrote the legal opinion otherwise. I've already pointed out that it's no worse than what a lot of people go through in the course of routine training, so it's up to you geniuses to explain why we torture people in training and the practice should be stopped. So far we've had such brilliant arguments as: it affects people, someone died when it happened to them, and the ever-lovable, but they didn't volunteer for it. I hope we can at least all agree to the impracticality of outlawing anything that affects people or anything that anyone ever died doing or anything that happens without one specifically being given the option to opt in.

So...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7u-Wk1aU-E

quote:

---

Quoth Steven Steve:
I dunno about you, but my training didn't consist of being waterboarded.

---

So?

quote:

---

Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Zair absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Hey, here is that youtube of journalist Christopher Hitchens getting waterboarded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7u-Wk1aU-E

---

Yet another purely emotional appeal.

If it were honestly, incontrovertibly torture, would a reporter volunteer to go through it? Not in a million years.

You seem to be stuck in bad latte territory, dude.

I think the torturer got mixed up.

quote:

---

Mortious startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
My torture consisted of watersports.

I think the torturer got mixed up.

---

And with the fur suit, it definitely violates the Geneva Conventions.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/04/05/open-letter-attorney-general-alberto-gonzales
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/10/endgame-on-torture-time-to-call-bluff.php
http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/wallach_drop_by_drop_draft_20061016.pdf
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/5/french_journalist_henri_alleg_describes_his
http://crooksandliars.com/2007/11/03/retired-jags-send-letter-to-leahy-waterboarding-is-inhumane-it-is-torture-and-it-is-illegal/

Torture (specifically waterboarding) is illegal (in other words, the government - even under Bush - and the United Nations disagree with you Bloodsage)

http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboarding-is-illegal/
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/01/61401940/1
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61700.htm
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/02/waterboarding-not-authorized-under.php

A majority of people in America think waterboarding is torture

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/06/waterboard.poll/
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/01/libertarian-party-daily-poll-is-waterboarding-torture/comment-page-1/

However, most of these people think it's acceptable to break international laws in interrogation by the government!

Therefore, most Americans (including yourself, Bloodsage) don't understand the law, advocate a double standard for secret government interrogations, or plainly don't care if laws are being broken as long as they have the slightest chance of gaining anything from it. Should the government be allowed to waterboard possible criminals when its approval ratings are less than 50%? Should it!? The answer is no, and besides this, waterboarding is probably soon to be (officially) illegal.

Should a legitimate government use waterboarding to interrogate prisoners? Yes! Is the United States government legitimate? Uh, I dunno. If it is though, then by all means it ought to waterboard.

THIS THREAD

quote:

---

Neither of you has the foggiest what torture is. Most of what the popular consciousness wants to call torture these days is no worse than a lot of us go through in training.

What? My latte is made with whole milk? No chocolate sprinkles?

---

oh god this comparison is retarded

And I'm pretty sure they can look up a definition of the word "torture" 'sage. And the fact that you had to go through it as part of SERE training is probably a good indication that it's torture.

quote:

---

That's stupid. I know more than a couple of people killed in training...does that mean running is torture just because some people die doing it?

---

Lot's of people die driving cars. Driving a car is not torture.

What the person died of (in Zair's post, hypothermia) is a lot more indictive of torture than what they were doing at the time.

Though I'd say that being left to rot and die of hypothermia in a prison cell is less torture and more being inhumane.

quote:

---

Whether someone does something voluntarily or involuntarily is irrelevant to the discussion.

---

Actually, it's very relevant. Torture is like rape. Fuck someone who wants to be fucked, and it's just fucking. Fuck someone who doesn't want to be fucked, and it's rape.

quote:

---

You cry when they make your latte wrong, don't you?

---

still retarded

Minor inconvenience != torture.

quote:

---

See, this--sorry, dude--is exactly what I was talking about earlier with the latte comment. Your idea seems to be that anything with the effect of making someone uncomfortable or scared is torture. That's bullshit, pure and simple. Hell, you've gone so far as to say that anything that "has an effect" on someone is right out. Shit, I guess we're no longer allowed to shoot the people setting up bombs, or imprison people captured on the battlefield, lest we "have an effect" on them.

---

The latte comment was stupid. So is this.

Torture is the act of causing severe physical or mental anguish intentionally in an attempt to pry information out of a person.

How long it lasts doesn't matter.

Shooting people in a battlefield doesn't fit that definition, nor does capturing enemy soldiers.

quote:

---

The point being it really doesn't matter what a lot of people "feel." Since when should every decision at the highest levels of government be made according to a referendum of how certain segments of the population "feel?"

---

The question of "is waterboarding torture/a bad thing" is a moral one, not a logical one. Therefore, it's grounded in feelings. Also, not every decision made in government should be based on morals, I agree, that's stupid. However, there are laws made that are grounded in morality, not logic.

quote:

---

If you think waterboarding is torture, then feel free to explain why you're correct and DoJ got it all wrong when they wrote the legal opinion otherwise. I've already pointed out that it's no worse than what a lot of people go through in the course of routine training, so it's up to you geniuses to explain why we torture people in training and the practice should be stopped.

---

The people in the Department of Justice will do what they can do to keep their jobs. For a significant period of time during the Bush administration, waterboarding was looked upon as a needed tool in information gathering for the "war on terror". Now? Not so much, meaning the US definition will probably change.

Oh, and I'm not against soldiers being submitted to it, as it's a preparatory tool for what could happen to a soldier if they are caught by enemy forces.

Actually, in that case waterboarding would probably be the least of your worries in that situation.

Willias fucked around with this message on 01-25-2009 at 06:13 PM.

quote:

---

Bloodsage was naked while typing this:
Yet another purely emotional appeal.

If it were honestly, incontrovertibly torture, would a reporter volunteer to go through it? Not in a million years.

You seem to be stuck in bad latte territory, dude.

---

You usually make more sense than this....

quote:

---

Verily, the chocolate bunny rabbits doth run and play while Kermitov 2 gently hums:
You usually make more sense than this....

---

Feel free to elaborate, Einstein.

quote:

---

Verily, the chocolate bunny rabbits doth run and play while Steven Steve gently hums:
Waterboarding is torture

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/04/05/open-letter-attorney-general-alberto-gonzales
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/10/endgame-on-torture-time-to-call-bluff.php
http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/wallach_drop_by_drop_draft_20061016.pdf
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/5/french_journalist_henri_alleg_describes_his
http://crooksandliars.com/2007/11/03/retired- jags-send-letter-to-leahy-waterboarding-is-inhumane-it-is-torture-and-it-is-illegal/

Torture (specifically waterboarding) is illegal (in other words, the government - even under Bush - and the United Nations disagree with you Bloodsage)

http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboarding-is-illegal/
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/01/61401940/1
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61700.htm
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/02/waterboarding-not-authorized-under.php

A majority of people in America think waterboarding is torture

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/06/waterboard.poll/
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/01/liber tarian-party-daily-poll-is-waterboarding-torture/comment-page-1/

However, most of these people think it's acceptable to break international laws in interrogation by the government!

Therefore, most Americans (including yourself, Bloodsage) don't understand the law, advocate a double standard for secret government interrogations, or plainly don't care if laws are being broken as long as they have the slightest chance of gaining anything from it. Should the government be allowed to waterboard possible criminals when its approval ratings are less than 50%? Should it!? The answer is no, and besides this, waterboarding is probably soon to be (officially) illegal.

Should a legitimate government use waterboarding to interrogate prisoners? Yes! Is the United States government legitimate? Uh, I dunno. If it is though, then by all means it ought to waterboard.

---

You should try a little harder, dude.

First, the technique was specifically authorized based on a DoJ legal interpretation; the fact that the government has yielded to public pressure in the meantime doesn't really change that.

Second, public opinion doesn't have the least to do with anything, as I've repeatedly stated, so if you want to bring it up you've got to make a case for why it's relevant, and why the government should base all decisions on public opinion polls rather than legal or operational analysis.

Third, the President's approval rating is doubly irrelevant. You'll want to note that the Congress who disapproved of the techniques so vocally had and has an approval rating worse than that of the President. Does that mean that the Congress wanting to back off Presidential policy is wrong, then?

Finally, whether we decide at this point to make the technique illegal doesn't make it torture. Torture is simply a word that sells papers and gets people to watch the news, and which people determined to demonize the administration latched onto to make political capital. It's worked, obviously, but doesn't really change any of the facts. The facts being that, before the technique was authorized, DoJ did a legal review and determined that it was not torture. And, yes, before you cry in your latte, that's all that's required.

So what makes this particular act torture, when a) we do similar things in training, and b) a legal review at the time determined otherwise? No one has yet offered anything beyond public opinion polls, which are useless, or vague feelings of discomfort with the idea, which are less than useless, or the "legal" opinions of people with political axes to grind (or who, to be fair, rely on differing precedent). Contrary to popular belief, law is rarely black-and-white.

quote:

---

Bloodsage enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
Feel free to elaborate, Einstein.

---

Come on, you can't think of a SINGLE reason why a reporter would sign up to be tortured? Even if it's a stupid reason?

quote:

---

Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Kermitov 2 absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Come on, you can't think of a SINGLE reason why a reporter would sign up to be tortured? Even if it's a stupid reason?

---

All sorts of people do stupid things for dumb reasons; that's not what this is about. Who was the last reporter who called up Al Qaeda and asked for a demonstration of their interrogation tactics? No one..

The point is, this buffoon knew he was perfectly safe going in. He didn't prove the technique is torture; he proved exactly the opposite.

quote:

---

Bloodsage wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
All sorts of people do stupid things for dumb reasons; that's not what this is about. Who was the last reporter who called up Al Qaeda and asked for a demonstration of their interrogation tactics? No one..

---

Yeah, because voluntarily going through a waterboarding demonstration is going to result in the same thing as going up to Al Qaeda and asking them if you can participate in what they do.

Hint: One'll kidnap you, the other won't.

You're desperately grabbing for straws here now.

quote:

---

Skaw startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
Yeah, because voluntarily going through a waterboarding demonstration is going to result in the same thing as going up to Al Qaeda and asking them if you can participate in what they do.

Hint: One'll kidnap you, the other won't.

You're desperately grabbing for straws here now.

---

Actually, you just proved my point, if you'd clear out the emotional fog and turn on your brain. The point being, for about the third time, the reporter wouldn't have done that if he didn't know he'd be perfectly safe. Which can't be said about the people who practice real torture.

quote:

---

And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Bloodsage was all like:
Actually, you just proved my point, if you'd clear out the emotional fog and turn on your brain. The point being, for about the third time, the reporter wouldn't have done that if he didn't know he'd be perfectly safe. Which can't be said about the people who practice real torture.

---

And theres the fact that he went in just to experience the sensation, which you'll still get if you're safe or not. The only difference is that his well being was a very high priority. Just because you opt to get shot in the foot with EMTs around doesn't mean you aren't going to come out knowing what getting shot in the foot is like.

Skaw fucked around with this message on 01-26-2009 at 01:09 PM.

quote:

---

ACES! Another post by Skaw:
And theres the fact that he went in just to experience the sensation, which you'll still get if you're safe or not. The only difference is that his well being was a very high priority. Just because you opt to get shot in the foot with EMTs around doesn't mean you aren't going to come out knowing what getting shot in the foot is like.

---

Actually, you won't. You'll know what it's like to be shot in the foot with EMTs around, though.

The point here being that while this reporter experienced waterboarding in a controlled environment, he didn't experience what people who are being purposefully interrogated through waterboarding feel. A big effect of waterboarding is the mental domination that accompanies it, and this reporter simply could not have experienced it in the same way that those who are truly being tortured for information would.

quote:

---

Quoth Inferno-Spirit:
Actually, you won't. You'll know what it's like to be shot in the foot with EMTs around, though.

The point here being that while this reporter experienced waterboarding in a controlled environment, he didn't experience what people who are being purposefully interrogated through waterboarding feel. A big effect of waterboarding is the mental domination that accompanies it, and this reporter simply could not have experienced it in the same way that those who are truly being tortured for information would.

---

Bullshit.

You've just made about three separate mental leaps that have nothing to do with reality. By your logic, any interrogation is going to be torture, simply because the person being interrogated isn't there voluntarily consenting to the questioning techniques. That's just silly.

"Mental domination," as you so colorfully describe it, has nothing to do with the waterboarding. If that's what constitutes torture, then we have to cease basic training for all of our military recruits, because that plays a fundamental role.

quote:

---

Skaw startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
And theres the fact that he went in just to experience the sensation, which you'll still get if you're safe or not. The only difference is that his well being was a very high priority. Just because you opt to get shot in the foot with EMTs around doesn't mean you aren't going to come out knowing what getting shot in the foot is like.

---

And the last reporter who opted to get shot on the air "just to see what it's like" was who?

That's a silly comparison even for you. The point remains that he'd not have done it if it were truly torture. Even if assured he'd be returned to his family afterward (not kidnapped, as you so naively think is the worst Al Qaeda will be up to), he'd never have said, "Mr. Al Qaeda interrogator, the allegation is that you practice torture. I want you to demonstrate your technques on me, on the air, so the public can decide once and for all."

With waterboarding, he new he'd be perfectly safe after a terrifying sensation (rollercoasters, anyone?); with Al Qaeda, he'd be afraid of being tortured.

quote:

---

Verily, the chocolate bunny rabbits doth run and play while Mortious gently hums:
The United Nations have issued a statement today that having Bloodsage's dog sit on you is considered torture.

---

Which is true.

If he farts, it's considered a crime against humanity.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Optimus Prime:
Bullshit.

You've just made about three separate mental leaps that have nothing to do with reality. By your logic, any interrogation is going to be torture, simply because the person being interrogated isn't there voluntarily consenting to the questioning techniques. That's just silly.

"Mental domination," as you so colorfully describe it, has nothing to do with the waterboarding. If that's what constitutes torture, then we have to cease basic training for all of our military recruits, because that plays a fundamental role.

---

I stated that waterboarding in an environment where the person knows he can leave at any time is not the same as waterboarding in an environment where the person does not have this option, even if the physical process is otherwise identical. I don't see how you could interpret this to be false.

I said that waterboarding has something to do with a person's mental state. Putting a person into a blind panic, such as what most people feel during the experience of falling or drowning, is what I meant by the term "mental domination". This is at least commonly what people who are being waterboarded experience. I don't expect that you would interpret this to be false.

I suppose you interpreted the one use of the word torture to imply that I consider waterboarding to be torture. I simply meant that what he experienced was not and could not be torture, given his ability to stop it at any time and his knowledge of that fact.

At no point in my post did I intend to clarify whether I considered waterboarding to be torture, because it was irrelevant to the point I was making. I don't know what you think my three seperate mental leaps were, but I would like to know.

[edit]Mental domination was a poor choice of words that did not convey my meaning, I admit.

Inferno-Spirit fucked around with this message on 01-26-2009 at 03:34 PM.

quote:

---

Quoth Taeldian:
Is anyone claiming Al Qaeda doesn't torture people?

---

You've missed the point entirely.

quote:

---

Quoth Inferno-Spirit:
I stated that waterboarding in an environment where the person knows he can leave at any time is not the same as waterboarding in an environment where the person does not have this option, even if the physical process is otherwise identical. I don't see how you could interpret this to be false.

I said that waterboarding has something to do with a person's mental state. Putting a person into a blind panic, such as what most people feel during the experience of falling or drowning, is what I meant by the term "mental domination". This is at least commonly what people who are being waterboarded experience. I don't expect that you would interpret this to be false.

I suppose you interpreted the one use of the word torture to imply that I consider waterboarding to be torture. I simply meant that what he experienced was not and could not be torture, given his ability to stop it at any time and his knowledge of that fact.

At no point in my post did I intend to clarify whether I considered waterboarding to be torture, because it was irrelevant to the point I was making. I don't know what you think my three seperate mental leaps were, but I would like to know.

[edit]Mental domination was a poor choice of words that did not convey my meaning, I admit.

---

The point is that there's no meaningful distinction between the experience the reporter went through and what people are claiming is torture. So what if one guy did it for a lark and another had it forced on him? That changes the perception of the experience, but not the experience. Unless you'd like to put a stake in the sand that anything anyone perceives to be torture must therefore be torture.

quote:

---

Inferno-Spirit obviously shouldn't have said:
Actually, you won't. You'll know what it's like to be shot in the foot with EMTs around, though.

---

I guess I should've said "feels like." I forgot how many nitpickers are on this forum. Getting shot in the foot is getting shot in the foot. Feeling like you're drowning is feeling like you're drowning. Safe environment or not.

quote:

---

Bloodsage's account was hax0red to write:
That's a silly comparison even for you. The point remains that he'd not have done it if it were truly torture. Even if assured he'd be returned to his family afterward (not kidnapped, as you so naively think is the worst Al Qaeda will be up to), he'd never have said, "Mr. Al Qaeda interrogator, the allegation is that you practice torture. I want you to demonstrate your technques on me, on the air, so the public can decide once and for all."

---

Wow, I didn't say kidnapping was the worst they'd do. It's the first thing they would do if he would walk up to them though. Where as if he were to walk up to an interrogator here voluntarily, he'd be free to walk the way he came. It must be nice to have such an unwarranted smugness, that you put your words in other peoples mouths just to feel right.

Skaw fucked around with this message on 01-26-2009 at 04:24 PM.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Tron:
The point is that there's no meaningful distinction between the experience the reporter went through and what people are claiming is torture. So what if one guy did it for a lark and another had it forced on him? That changes the perception of the experience, but not the experience. Unless you'd like to put a stake in the sand that anything anyone perceives to be torture must therefore be torture.

---

I'd like to know where you consider the line to be. What constitutes torture?

You think that a person's perception of or willingness towards an event is meaningless? The only difference between legal sex(see: bondage) and rape is the exact distinction you are trivializing. The same distinction could be carefully made non-sexual physical violence as well.

quote:

---

Blindy. painfully thought these words up:
No his argument is that anything that would be considered torture would never be willingly undertaken.

---

Something that one person would consider torture and would never willingly undertake could be different to another person. Is it then torture in one case, both, or neither?

quote:

---

Blindy. stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
Why the hell are we still arguing if making someone feel like they're drowning is torture or not?

---

barack obama is now president

quote:

---

While you read this, I'm gonna go make out with Inferno-Spirit's mom:
Something that one person would consider torture and would never willingly undertake could be different to another person. Is it then torture in one case, both, or neither?

---

If you're Bloodsage, torture would be something that inflicts actual physical damage, such as ripping off someone's fingers one at a time with a winch. I think we'd be in the 99th percentiles on people calling that torture.

quote:

---

Blindy. got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
If you're Bloodsage, torture would be something that inflicts actual physical damage, such as ripping off someone's fingers one at a time with a winch. I think we'd be in the 99th percentiles on people calling that torture.

---

The blurry line still exists. Do cigarette burns count as torture? What about a few hits to the kidneys? Electrocution? Just cutting skin with a knife?

Given this, my last question still stands.

quote:

---

Bloodsage probably says this to all the girls:
You've missed the point entirely.

---

I'm pretty sure I didn't. No one questions whether Al Qaeda tortures, and there are inherent dangers with asking Al Qaeda to demonstrate their techniques on you. Not only is there the risk of not being let go, but there's also the risk of permanent damage.

Asking our techniques to be demonstrated on you by our government is pretty safe because you know you can stop it at any time.

Claiming our techniques aren't torture because no one wants to have Al Qaeda's techniques demonstrated on them is silly.

Honestly, waterboarding is probably pretty mild compared to most techniques, and whether it constitutes torture or not likely just depends on the person. It would certainly fall under cruel and unusual punishment, but obviously the people we're doing it to aren't protected by the constitution.

quote:

---

Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Inferno-Spirit absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
The blurry line still exists. Do cigarette burns count as torture? What about a few hits to the kidneys? Electrocution? Just cutting skin with a knife?

Given this, my last question still stands.

---

This is the question you should be answering. How is something with little risk and no lasting effect torture? Torture is a pretty big word, and I'm not sure it's a good idea to dilute it, lest we no longer have a meaningful word for what the bad guys do.

Bloodsage fucked around with this message on 01-27-2009 at 03:26 PM.