Look, does the feeling of gagging, choking, and the outright sensation of drowning not trigger some kind of response in the body that is associated with pain? Is there an objective argument why it isn’t pain? Is there some medically defined criteria that I’m missing? Honest questions. I will read anything posted showing that the feeling of drowning doesn’t trigger the sensory to our brain, or in the brain, that we associate with pain. Again, where does it fall short?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
So you’re looking at “pain” with a political definition? OK
I did not.
I use the term the same way in a political context as I would when discussing what the body feels at any time.
It is those that have so much sympathy for the poor, poor terrorists, so much angst for their plight, and so much opposition to anything that is effective against them that engage in redefining for political reasons.
And yes, they do consider sleep deprivation or loud noises or things like that “torture” as well. When it’s terrorists that are at the receiving end of that.
When it’s dictators in many places around the world doing far worse than that to people who never tried to kill anybody or blow them up or any bad thing to anyone, these same folk don’t express any remotely similar degree of concern, if indeed any at all (usually not.)
[/quote]
What other people think is all fine and dandy, but I was asking about you. When you said this:
[quote]Ending use of a non-injury, non-pain-producing method on a few dozen (or if more, not much more) terrorists at war against the United States is surely worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize!
[/quote]
I assumed you meant waterbaording is painless. So I assumed we just had a different definition of pain. Then you say this:
So now either I’m just completely confused, or you’re not being clear on what you think pain is. If you use the term in the same way “when discussing what the body feels at any time” then I would think that means that, not only is pain not always related to actual physical harm or damage, it is also subjective. It seems to me that waterboarding fits the bill as far as pain. And, like I said before, it better if it’s going to be used effectively.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
So you’re looking at “pain” with a political definition? OK
I did not.
I use the term the same way in a political context as I would when discussing what the body feels at any time.
It is those that have so much sympathy for the poor, poor terrorists, so much angst for their plight, and so much opposition to anything that is effective against them that engage in redefining for political reasons.
And yes, they do consider sleep deprivation or loud noises or things like that “torture” as well. When it’s terrorists that are at the receiving end of that.
When it’s dictators in many places around the world doing far worse than that to people who never tried to kill anybody or blow them up or any bad thing to anyone, these same folk don’t express any remotely similar degree of concern, if indeed any at all (usually not.)
What other people think is all fine and dandy, but I was asking about you. When you said this:
Ending use of a non-injury, non-pain-producing method on a few dozen (or if more, not much more) terrorists at war against the United States is surely worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize!
I assumed you meant waterbaording is painless. So I assumed we just had a different definition of pain. Then you say this:
I use the term the same way in a political context as I would when discussing what the body feels at any time.
So now either I’m just completely confused, or you’re not being clear on what you think pain is. If you use the term in the same way “when discussing what the body feels at any time” then you’re admitting that, not only is pain not always related to actual physical harm or damage, it is also subjective. It seems to me that waterboarding fits the bill as far as pain. And, like I said before, it better if it’s going to be used effectively.[/quote]
No, I meant it in the literal and ordinary sense.
I have read several testimonies of both military officers and journalists that there was no physical pain.
While I have not been waterboarded, I have been quite nearly drowned twice – once from a person holding me about 10 or 12 feet under, and once in the surf – taking in water both times. Quite a bit the first, not much the second (I suspect that a lot of salt water quite likely could be physically painful.) I did not find it what I would call painful.
Very bad experiences, but not painful.
Ever drink your water and get some down the wrong way? Multiply by I suppose 20 and extend the duration and that should give a reasonable idea of what I felt. Not painful.
But is that feeling so extremely uncomfortable, upsetting, and undesirable that I can readily see that it would be effective? Sure.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Dustin wrote:
So, you have been waterboarded?
Wow!
I am awed.
You have totally disproven my point. (Never mind that many who have been, which includes many US military officers and journalists, say it is not torture.)
Now where is your information proving there is pain or injury?
So, you have been waterboarded?
And you do it again. How does the man do it? A rapier wit and nuclear-force logic, all wrapped up in one.
Your intellect is so stunning, that I am sure my eyes will burn out from the brilliance of your posts… I had better protect myself with the Ignore list, as I don’t think my awe-meter could withstand another such riposte.
(Either that or it would totally waste my time, and there are better things to do.) [/quote]
Didn’t John McCain say being waterboarded was a rather “unsweet” experience and that it was torture?
Does the constant feeling of drowning without any physical ability to stop it appeal to you?
When Chicago lost the bid for the Olympics, it was the world rejecting Obama. When Obama wins the Nobel Peace prize, it’s the world worshipping his rock star status. The only consistent message from the GOP is that they hate Obama and want him to fail.
Maybe bill and you pro water boarding guys are more trusting of the federal government than I am, but I’ll throw in my 2 cents.
If waterboarding was being done to citizens there is no question it would be torture. Bill, if it was being done to one of your loved ones, you’d still think they hadn’t been tortured?
I mean, by your definition, there is no such thing as psychological torture. You’ve just eliminated an entire torture school of thought.
Hell, we could take a guy put him in a 3x3x3 cell, allow him no contact, leave him there for a couple of years until he was mentally insane, and we’d never have tortured him.
Even if you are, for some magical reason, limiting your “torture” to physical pain, you of all people should know physical and psychological pain aren’t unrelated. Sleep deprivation, and intense and prolonged psychological stress don’t hurt, really? Hell I get headaches, if I don’t sleep well one night.
The bottom line to me is that I don’t think the federal government (even more specifically when the power is fully vested in the executive branch) should have the power. Period.
Who gets to decide who a terrorist is, and who’s been “bad” enough? The DHS? Because as a conservative they already label me as someone to watch. Do you guys really think it’s that big a leap to “non-torturing” “domestic terrorists?”
I don’t see how someone can be conservative and think the executive branch of the fed should have powers like that. You can argue with Geneva convention and blah blah blah, allows for it. But need I remind you conservatives out there, unalienable rights are endowed by our creator, and are not a result of any citizenship.
Great, they tortured the right guys this time, knowing the federal government it won’t always be the right guys.
Even you guys that are claiming to be okay with the torture, don’t you think maybe there should be a check or balance on that power somewhere?
I see the committee members put about as much thought into voting for him, as did the Obama voters from last November.
Why are you asking me about US citizens being waterboarded when that isn’t the issue?
However, if you’ve got to ask what if it were one of my relatives: If one of my relatives were some scum that was at war against the United States of America and was trying to blow people up or had already done so, and had or seemed likely to have information regarding not-yet-captured terrorists who were trying to blow people up, I would APPLAUD their being waterboarded.
I’m REALLY not concerned about “checks and balances” regarding enemy combatants and there is no sign that the Founding Fathers were either.
It’s a modern development that individuals such as this aren’t just shot on the spot or if not, then kept in chains in a total dungeon for life in conditions far worse than Gitmo. Either of which treatment they also would deserve.
You seem to think that despite engaging in terrorism, a person maintains the same natural rights to not have others impose suffering on them that non-criminals have. Wrongo. When one commits heinous crimes or engages in conspiracy to commit such crimes, suffering of various kinds SHOULD be the result.
Let’s not limit discussion to terrorists but let’s include ordinary murderers as well.
Is it your position that murderers and terrorists should not suffer in any way on being caught? How does your inalienable-rights argument work here?
[quote]Seneca wrote:
I am all for torture. I think we should use every tool we have at our disposal to defeat the enemy. They do worse things to us. go to the smoking gun .com and check out the al qaeda torture manuals which were found in an iraqi terrorist site. while your at it, google daniel pearl video and then convince yourself that we should that we should have our hands tied. we are fighting animals, sub humans. oh but yes they follow the mecca convention so we should of course not torture blahh[/quote]
this ^^^^^
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Why are you asking me about US citizens being waterboarded when that isn’t the issue?
[/quote]
It is the issue when I’m making the assertion that human rights are unrelated to citizenship.
[quote]
However, if you’ve got to ask what if it were one of my relatives: If one of my relatives were some scum that was at war against the United States of America and was trying to blow people up or had already done so, and had or seemed likely to have information regarding not-yet-captured terrorists who were trying to blow people up, I would APPLAUD their being waterboarded.
I’m REALLY not concerned about “checks and balances” regarding enemy combatants and there is no sign that the Founding Fathers were either.
It’s a modern development that individuals such as this aren’t just shot on the spot or if not, then kept in chains in a total dungeon for life in conditions far worse than Gitmo. Either of which treatment they also would deserve.[/quote]
You do realize, that you are arguing giving this power to Obama right? Are you comfortable with his definition of how he defines “scum” terrorists?
You have to realize I’m not against the act of waterboarding the guys that they have. They deserved it and worse (shot on the spot). I’m against the policy. I’m against executive politicians sitting around in an office deciding who they are going to torture.
I am glad you dropped the “not torture” argument though.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Why are you asking me about US citizens being waterboarded when that isn’t the issue?
It is the issue when I’m making the assertion that human rights are unrelated to citizenship.[/quote]
Sorry, it’s not a “human right” to have a suffering-free existence after blowing people up in terrorist acts or engaging in efforts to do so.
You are dealing with non-issues.
When you have a case of a person being “tortured” who is not engaged in war against the United States and is not involved in terrorist organizations (organizations that blow people up or otherwise engage in killing civilians for accomplishing political goals via inducing terror among the public) then there would be points as to misuse.
But we are in fact talking about terrorists, and your objection and that of others is of the terrorists being waterboarded.
You have misread what I wrote or come to some wrong assumption. I did no such thing. It is not torture. There is no pain or physical damage inflicted. Waterboarding cannot reasonably be categorized as the same as what has historically been called torture, or torture as practiced by various governments around the world to this day. Distinguishing features of such torture as compared to other acts? Physical pain, usually but not necessarily combined with physical damage.
Let some Muslim nation torture you. Or various others. Then tell me that waterboarding is the same thing.
I wouldn’t be surprised – as many journalists have done it – if you’d even volunteer to be waterboarded to find out what it is like. I don’t think you’d volunteer to find out how an Arab nation, or some other dictator’s regime, tortures people.
Why the difference?
Because they’re not the same thing.
Okay, I guess our main disagreement is that you donâ??t think it will or could be eventually miss used on innocents. I disagree. I think itâ??s way more of a slippery slope than you do.
I just donâ??t see the possible abuse of an executive power as a â??non-issue.â??
By the way, when I was discussing some kind of check on the power I was really thinking we could convict them of something first. Set up a down and dirty military court, convict them of something.
So, maybe you didnâ??t drop the not torture thing, but you didnâ??t refute all my points about it either.
I think the difference is that I don’t veer off into completely different things, and try to apply concerns about completely different things to the quite different question at hand.
Orion, Sloth, et al are cheering about terrorists not being waterboarded, calling that practice “torture,” and finding the stopping of this practice plausible reason for the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize.
That is what I am addressing.
If you were to ask me whether police should be able to waterboard American citizens that would be an entirely differing question.
The answer to that question would have precisely zero bearing on the question of waterboarding of terrorists as has been practiced in recent years.
Then, why use it? That is, if it’s not torture? Why not be all like “yeah, now you’ll talk. And until you do, you’ll have to watch your favorite movies, eat your favorite foods, sleep when you want, and have rec time when you want. The pleasentries will continue until you talk.” If it isn’t for the excruciating (can there be any doubt that it is) mental and physical “anguish” (I’ll avoid pain, for this), why exactly do you want it employed. What is the mechanism that triggers the response you want? It bores them? They’d prefer to have had syrup used?
I don’t know how we got back on torture here again, but this conversation always cracks me up. I’ll say it again, just let the stateside attacks start up again and we’ll see how upright and humanitarian people are then.
Just let somebody close to some of these pseudo moral high ground folks feel the sting of Allah’s whip, especially if it becomes known that a soldering iron and some channel locks could have stopped it. Let’s see how the eyebrows fall and the nostrils contract then.
These animals laugh at us and our holier than thou platitudes. They are playing for keeps.
I may be mistaken but isn’t/wasn’t water boarding a college hazing technique?
Or for that matter how is water boarding any different the getting paddled? That’s a common college hazing technique and everyone jokes about it. If we did it to them would we call it torture?
Holding your head underwater for 30 seconds is more dangerous then water boarding. I have seen kids hold other kids heads under water at pools all the time. Quick everyone prosecute them for torture.
When people hold the kids that pick on other kids at the pool by holding there head underwater for a little bit accountable for torture, then we can talk about holding our military responsible.
So who is going to be first in line to start throwing kids in jail for torture? Anyone?
okay, let me re-address this post because I think you edited some.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Why are you asking me about US citizens being waterboarded when that isn’t the issue?
It is the issue when I’m making the assertion that human rights are unrelated to citizenship.
Sorry, it’s not a “human right” to have a suffering-free existence after blowing people up in terrorist acts or engaging in efforts to do so.
You do realize, that you are arguing giving this power to Obama right? Are you comfortable with his definition of how he defines “scum” terrorists?
You are dealing with non-issues.
When you have a case of a person being “tortured” who is not engaged in war against the United States and is not involved in terrorist organizations (organizations that blow people up or otherwise engage in killing civilians for accomplishing political goals via inducing terror among the public) then there would be points as to misuse.
[/quote]
It has to happen before it’s an issue. Does that go for preventing terror attacks too?
I’ve already said that this isn’t my issue. There is a distinction between defending the rights of terrorists and questioning the authority of federal power. It’s subtle, but it makes all the difference.
[quote]
I am glad you dropped the “not torture” argument though.
You have misread what I wrote or come to some wrong assumption. I did no such thing. It is not torture. There is no pain or physical damage inflicted. Waterboarding cannot reasonably be categorized as the same as what has historically been called torture, or torture as practiced by various governments around the world to this day. Distinguishing features of such torture as compared to other acts? Physical pain, usually but not necessarily combined with physical damage.
Let some Muslim nation torture you. Or various others. Then tell me that waterboarding is the same thing.
I wouldn’t be surprised – as many journalists have done it – if you’d even volunteer to be waterboarded to find out what it is like. I don’t think you’d volunteer to find out how an Arab nation, or some other dictator’s regime, tortures people.
Why the difference?
Because they’re not the same thing.[/quote]
This is a terrible strawman and logical fallacy. No one claimed they were the “same thing”. They are both torture though. If I can point out tortures that are far worse than a than what middle east countries do, would you stop calling what they do torture because it isn’t the “same thing?”
Justification by comparison like this is what someone does when they run out of absolute ground.
But mommy, timmy gets to stay up till 11, I should get to stay up till 10 at least.
Riding on a 747 and a hang glider are both flying, even though they aren’t the “same thing”. Or do you make up a new word for hang gliding because it’s not “the same” as flight on a 747?
Obviously you failed to note that I provided the categorical difference: no physical pain and no physical injury.
Or was it not politically convenient for you to see that part, so you conveniently ignored it?
Anyway, end of the “torture” subject.
If any wish to believe that Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for ending waterboarding, that is their prerogative.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Obviously you failed to note that I provided the categorical difference: no physical pain and no physical injury.
[/quote]
I addressed this in my very first post on the subject if you’ll take a gander at it.
[quote]
Or was it not politically convenient for you to see that part, so you conveniently ignored it?
Anyway, end of the “torture” subject.
If any wish to believe that Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for ending waterboarding, that is their prerogative.[/quote]