1. Torture: "...It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
So basically, if it is within the law, it's not torture; if it's against the law, then it is. Circular logic cancels that whole first part out.
2. "prolonged mental harm" Not buying it.
3. "Article 32 of the Fourth Geneva Convention any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering" That covers waterboarding, only these Al-Qaeda people are not covered by the Geneva Convention. It is quite specific in that regard.
4. "...the Fourth Geneva Convention..." Again, not applicable. (Your website is political btw)
5. " the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court..." Not applicable; these are not criminals.
6. "...The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures..." So again, torture is illegal if it is illegal. Another wonderful feel good international convention (not a treaty) that legally means absolutely nothing. Strictly political in nature.
7. "the color of law" Also again with the "incidental to lawful sanctions" clause. Which simply asks the question, is it legal or not?
Another thing: "the threat of imminent death", which the waterboarded scumbag knows will not happen, does actually apply to actual US citizens on death row. I guess we should let those heinous murders go, or just give them college degrees a 3 squares a day forever? We owe them at least that much; is that the narrative? I guess I drift off topic here, sorry for that.
The star of that website is fine after the fact btw. You probably want to tell me he's mentally fucked up now, are you sure he wasn't before? Sean Hannity couldn't take it. That is sort of the point; nobody can take it.
I remain unconvinced, but I do appreciate your cogent answer.
You're getting out the weeds a little on people's answers; maybe you've seen too much TV. I would tell the truth and confess everything right off, no need to even reach for the water handle. I bet you would too. I don't think I'd be in that position in the first place, because I would have cooperated at the front desk.
Yes, I'm sure the people we are talking about will lie. I bet the CIA or Army people know that too. Personally, I'd follow up on initial things they told me, personality profiles, etc. But I'm not qualified in that field, and I bet you're not either. We're both qualified, however, to read the political opinions you linked to.
Bullets for rapists, sure. (But not the 19 yr old Camaro owner with the 16 yr old girlfriend kind of rapist) And the CIA family man who directly saved somebody's daughter by uncovering a plot? He's exactly the same, is he?
I'll remind you of this: Malcolm 'tortured' Jayne, who really thought he was going to die, in an attempt to get his head right. Cap'n Reynolds would get your bullet too I guess.
You're advocating torture as a means of punishment rather than as a means of coercion.
I'm not. I was talking about freshly captured people with current intelligence. Let's just get that part straight. I'm not defending Gitmo if that's what you think; I asked about waterboarding Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
As a means of coercion torture has shown itself over thousands of years in written history for which it has been done as being ineffective. You only get noise coming from the person. If you want to find those babies that have been kidnapped then you figure out what the person wants
It was already quite clear what they wanted.
and make a deal to give it to them or you take it away
Take what away? Immunity? A lesser sentence? You're kidding, right? They wanted to die on the battlefield, and in this scenario, you've already thwarted that plan.
after they get what they want. The FBI has a long history of actual interrogation tactics that are not torture and are very effective.
Against criminals. People that still have something to lose, something to gain, family to worry about, etc. Not these people, whose only hope is to die while killing you and getting their 72 virgins.
The reality is that waterboarding is not nearly as pleasant as you make it sound and many people are permanently injured.
Now that would be news to me. Any links? I didn't hear that from any of the Marines who voluntarily had it done to them in training.
Now imagine you torture the shit out the guy and then someone comes in and lets you know that he's just some guys Barista that screwed up a Starbucks order.
Wait, what? If you did that to a barista then you've really fucked up, and are probably going to prison. Now we've got to pay the guy out of public funds. How did we get from Al-Qaeda to Starbucks employees?
That's the reason we in the country follow the mantra of innocent until proven guilty.
For criminals. Not the same thing as these people. We didn't give trials to German and Japanese POWs either. And if they didn't cooperate we shot them right in the face. I guess that was wrong too?
This ignorant idea that you can torture people with any justification just flies in the face of what it means to be a free country with liberty and justice for all.
Now we're back to the real question of "Is it torture if you can walk away symptom free?" I don't think you can really get hurt from it, and have yet to see anything to the contrary.
Your next paragraph bringing Republicans into it I think gets to the crux of it. Every single thing, either has to be against Bush, or for him. The whole world is vied through that lens. I understand that CBS has already decided this one for us, and the issue was tied off long ago. The problem is, I had a waterhose shot up my nose plenty of times as a kid, and it's bad, no doubt. Hard to believe I'm the only one.
McCain was a good guy. He was fighting for freedom and democracy, and it was wrong to torture him. 'Torture', meaning leaving him with permanent physical disabilities.
Al-Qaeda are bad guys. They hate freedom and democracy, and their sole purpose is to kill you; there can be no peace. But they'd rather start with your mom and sister, and they won't kill them right off. Do you really mean to conflate the McCain and Al-Qaeda? I bet you don't, so I'm going to stop right there.
Waterboarding feels like torture, but after your sinuses calm down there is no physical damage.
As far as the subject lying under pressure? I'm sure that happens about 100% of the time. So? You don't even have to be CIA to know how to deal with that part of it. Weak, man.
Um, you brought up the invasion of Iraq as some sort of counterpoint to Bill shooting wads on vulnerable young female interns. I bring up the non sequitur, and then you accuse me of mental gymnastics. Classic. You are the one that "compared the actions of two succeeding Presidents".
And then you bring up the budget deal with Gingrich. So you're one of those, that no matter what your guy did, it's justified because our guy did something worse.
I'll guess I'll be a little more clear this time: No, he didn't say let's invade Iraq without a plan; he simply said we should invade Iraq. He backed Bush. Neither one of them mentioned rape, torture, or maiming.
For the record, I was watching Dan Rather with my jaw on the floor saying "No..., don't do it, no... Holy fuck, what are you thinking Bush? How in the hell do expect to 'win' that? You may kill Saddam, but there's no winning."
I felt like I was the only one though; everybody, including all your guys, were all in on it. Nowadays, in your collective historical fantasy revision, 'Bush Lied', and you guys were against it all along.
I don't really get it. Waterboarding is shooting a garden hose up somebody's nose, along with an attendant that tilts the subject to insure the lungs don't fill with water and drown them. It feels like drowning, only you can't die from it. Think of it as truth serum that never fails.
Now think of that American girl captured by that ISIS #2 guy, held prisoner in his house, raped and raped and raped, over and over and over again. Every day for months, or was it years? If she doesn't do it for you, then think of the thousands of others, raped, killed; lives destroyed. Children, babies, innocents...
Now you capture that guy, and he won't talk. He's the real deal, a tough ass bastard. Are you really going to walk away in your enlightenment? "Oh well, we did everything we could..."
I was only half kidding; that's a decent insight that I hadn't much considered before. America's distrust of government (partly) stems from the fact that our country was born out of the distrust of government.
2. If you're already a billionaire, what possible profit can there be in being President? Why would you want to do that, unless it was something beyond money?
3. The pockets of the rich, really? There's one way out of the pockets of the rich; you make your own rich pocket. As opposed to you and I and everyone you know, who will always be stuck in the pockets of the rich. And always have been; don't forget that.
The one exception to that is a few minutes on election day, when your secret ballot is truly yours to cast as you will.
Trust? Tough one. I trust him about as much as I trust the average New Yorker. Not Amish level of trust, but not overly untrustworthy either.
I'll give New Yorkers this; they show up for work on time, and generally do what they said they would. They're often not very nice about it though, which at times annoys a Southerner.
After all the shit I've seen these 2 months, the left and right putting aside supposedly life and death differences, to pound the narrative that we cannot have Trump, no matter what else happens.
Tells me that to defeat you and the Washington establishment, that I MUST vote for Trump, no matter what else happens. No matter what ignorant thing he says, or what he does, or anything else, I'll just try to remember the issues:
1. Secure the border 2. Keep the military up. 3. Defeat ISIS. 4. Raise taxes on (some of) the rich. 5. Engage and come to terms with other nations of the world. 5. Manage this totally out of control bureaucracy.
Nothing to be ashamed of there; all good stuff. The fact that it takes a guy like Trump to have a chance of getting it done is a reflection on us, and how far we've let things go.
Conservatism is conservation. Conservation of public funds, public action, new legislation, etc. Conservation of public land and the environment fits exactly with conservatism.
You were right on the money. Bing is one of the people that us true conservatives (classical liberals) will have to beat in the upcoming primaries. Let's hope that if that happens, he doesn't then stay home on election day out of spite.
Bernie earned a lot of cred with this conservative by going there. And you understate things; not just a conservative school, a deeply religious one also. That took courage that is rare in political candidates these days.
The awakening on the right is Trump. Not the guy you would have come up with, nor I. But he is the one that is there on the ground today. It's him, or we wait another 20 or 30 years.
The Republican establishment may already be too entrenched to beat now, even with all our support. Without our support, even an egomaniac billionaire like Trump doesn't stand a chance.
So you're saying it was Bill Clinton that went after Saddam? That was Bush, and by bringing him up to defend liberal heroes, you prove Bing's point that you are bought and paid for, no matter what the Clintons do.
It is interesting to note though, that Bill did say we should go in after Saddam, and invade Iraq.
No wait, the FBI did. The FBI holds a press conference, and right-wingers Reuters runs with it. No, wait again. Fox had an internet poll, the bastards. Um..
True. I defended VW a few threads ago, and right after they came out and admitted everything. Made me feel stupid. I don't need anyone's help to feel stupid...
You just threw your whole argument out the window there. Trump's biggest enemy, by far, are the Bushes.
You want to hate on Trump, fine. But you better start sucking up to the Bush family, otherwise, your rhetoric is exposed for the BS that it was in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh I laughed out loud - waterboarding.org. Holy crap, I did not know that was a website. Just the facts, no agenda at all there.
http://waterboarding.org/tortu...
1. Torture: "...It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
So basically, if it is within the law, it's not torture; if it's against the law, then it is. Circular logic cancels that whole first part out.
2. "prolonged mental harm"
Not buying it.
3. "Article 32 of the Fourth Geneva Convention any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering"
That covers waterboarding, only these Al-Qaeda people are not covered by the Geneva Convention. It is quite specific in that regard.
4. "...the Fourth Geneva Convention..."
Again, not applicable. (Your website is political btw)
5. " the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court..."
Not applicable; these are not criminals.
6. "...The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures..."
So again, torture is illegal if it is illegal. Another wonderful feel good international convention (not a treaty) that legally means absolutely nothing. Strictly political in nature.
7. "the color of law"
Also again with the "incidental to lawful sanctions" clause. Which simply asks the question, is it legal or not?
Another thing: "the threat of imminent death", which the waterboarded scumbag knows will not happen, does actually apply to actual US citizens on death row. I guess we should let those heinous murders go, or just give them college degrees a 3 squares a day forever? We owe them at least that much; is that the narrative? I guess I drift off topic here, sorry for that.
The star of that website is fine after the fact btw. You probably want to tell me he's mentally fucked up now, are you sure he wasn't before? Sean Hannity couldn't take it. That is sort of the point; nobody can take it.
I remain unconvinced, but I do appreciate your cogent answer.
You're getting out the weeds a little on people's answers; maybe you've seen too much TV. I would tell the truth and confess everything right off, no need to even reach for the water handle. I bet you would too. I don't think I'd be in that position in the first place, because I would have cooperated at the front desk.
Yes, I'm sure the people we are talking about will lie. I bet the CIA or Army people know that too. Personally, I'd follow up on initial things they told me, personality profiles, etc. But I'm not qualified in that field, and I bet you're not either. We're both qualified, however, to read the political opinions you linked to.
Bullets for rapists, sure. (But not the 19 yr old Camaro owner with the 16 yr old girlfriend kind of rapist) And the CIA family man who directly saved somebody's daughter by uncovering a plot? He's exactly the same, is he?
I'll remind you of this: Malcolm 'tortured' Jayne, who really thought he was going to die, in an attempt to get his head right. Cap'n Reynolds would get your bullet too I guess.
You're advocating torture as a means of punishment rather than as a means of coercion.
I'm not. I was talking about freshly captured people with current intelligence. Let's just get that part straight. I'm not defending Gitmo if that's what you think; I asked about waterboarding Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
As a means of coercion torture has shown itself over thousands of years in written history for which it has been done as being ineffective. You only get noise coming from the person. If you want to find those babies that have been kidnapped then you figure out what the person wants
It was already quite clear what they wanted.
and make a deal to give it to them or you take it away
Take what away? Immunity? A lesser sentence? You're kidding, right? They wanted to die on the battlefield, and in this scenario, you've already thwarted that plan.
after they get what they want. The FBI has a long history of actual interrogation tactics that are not torture and are very effective.
Against criminals. People that still have something to lose, something to gain, family to worry about, etc. Not these people, whose only hope is to die while killing you and getting their 72 virgins.
The reality is that waterboarding is not nearly as pleasant as you make it sound and many people are permanently injured.
Now that would be news to me. Any links? I didn't hear that from any of the Marines who voluntarily had it done to them in training.
Now imagine you torture the shit out the guy and then someone comes in and lets you know that he's just some guys Barista that screwed up a Starbucks order.
Wait, what? If you did that to a barista then you've really fucked up, and are probably going to prison. Now we've got to pay the guy out of public funds. How did we get from Al-Qaeda to Starbucks employees?
That's the reason we in the country follow the mantra of innocent until proven guilty.
For criminals. Not the same thing as these people. We didn't give trials to German and Japanese POWs either. And if they didn't cooperate we shot them right in the face. I guess that was wrong too?
This ignorant idea that you can torture people with any justification just flies in the face of what it means to be a free country with liberty and justice for all.
Now we're back to the real question of "Is it torture if you can walk away symptom free?" I don't think you can really get hurt from it, and have yet to see anything to the contrary.
Your next paragraph bringing Republicans into it I think gets to the crux of it. Every single thing, either has to be against Bush, or for him. The whole world is vied through that lens. I understand that CBS has already decided this one for us, and the issue was tied off long ago. The problem is, I had a waterhose shot up my nose plenty of times as a kid, and it's bad, no doubt. Hard to believe I'm the only one.
I just have trouble buying the torture part.
Here's the difference:
McCain was a good guy. He was fighting for freedom and democracy, and it was wrong to torture him. 'Torture', meaning leaving him with permanent physical disabilities.
Al-Qaeda are bad guys. They hate freedom and democracy, and their sole purpose is to kill you; there can be no peace. But they'd rather start with your mom and sister, and they won't kill them right off. Do you really mean to conflate the McCain and Al-Qaeda? I bet you don't, so I'm going to stop right there.
Waterboarding feels like torture, but after your sinuses calm down there is no physical damage.
As far as the subject lying under pressure? I'm sure that happens about 100% of the time. So? You don't even have to be CIA to know how to deal with that part of it. Weak, man.
I'll give you that. I simply meant the time frame.
Apparently you and I are on different sides, but we share the same hope.
I will point this out to you: You can't have a strong Democratic party without a viable opposition. You haven't had that for quite some time.
Um, you brought up the invasion of Iraq as some sort of counterpoint to Bill shooting wads on vulnerable young female interns. I bring up the non sequitur, and then you accuse me of mental gymnastics. Classic. You are the one that "compared the actions of two succeeding Presidents".
And then you bring up the budget deal with Gingrich. So you're one of those, that no matter what your guy did, it's justified because our guy did something worse.
I'll guess I'll be a little more clear this time: No, he didn't say let's invade Iraq without a plan; he simply said we should invade Iraq. He backed Bush. Neither one of them mentioned rape, torture, or maiming.
For the record, I was watching Dan Rather with my jaw on the floor saying "No..., don't do it, no... Holy fuck, what are you thinking Bush? How in the hell do expect to 'win' that? You may kill Saddam, but there's no winning."
I felt like I was the only one though; everybody, including all your guys, were all in on it. Nowadays, in your collective historical fantasy revision, 'Bush Lied', and you guys were against it all along.
I don't really get it. Waterboarding is shooting a garden hose up somebody's nose, along with an attendant that tilts the subject to insure the lungs don't fill with water and drown them. It feels like drowning, only you can't die from it. Think of it as truth serum that never fails.
Now think of that American girl captured by that ISIS #2 guy, held prisoner in his house, raped and raped and raped, over and over and over again. Every day for months, or was it years? If she doesn't do it for you, then think of the thousands of others, raped, killed; lives destroyed. Children, babies, innocents...
Now you capture that guy, and he won't talk. He's the real deal, a tough ass bastard. Are you really going to walk away in your enlightenment? "Oh well, we did everything we could..."
I'm really asking. Explain it to me.
Such hate...
FYI, I know a former Lisa owner. She still raves about it.
A couple of Newton owners, and they still rave about it.
You stumped me with iBall. I'm sure it was a very shitty product though.
Way too soon.
When people talk about WWII in the same context that we talk about the Roman Empire, then it might be funny.
Ah, I took you for a Brit.
I was only half kidding; that's a decent insight that I hadn't much considered before. America's distrust of government (partly) stems from the fact that our country was born out of the distrust of government.
Didn't you just describe Trump?
2. If you're already a billionaire, what possible profit can there be in being President? Why would you want to do that, unless it was something beyond money?
3. The pockets of the rich, really? There's one way out of the pockets of the rich; you make your own rich pocket. As opposed to you and I and everyone you know, who will always be stuck in the pockets of the rich. And always have been; don't forget that.
The one exception to that is a few minutes on election day, when your secret ballot is truly yours to cast as you will.
Trust? Tough one. I trust him about as much as I trust the average New Yorker. Not Amish level of trust, but not overly untrustworthy either.
I'll give New Yorkers this; they show up for work on time, and generally do what they said they would. They're often not very nice about it though, which at times annoys a Southerner.
Good thing TFA is Reuters.
That changes everything, eh?
After all the shit I've seen these 2 months, the left and right putting aside supposedly life and death differences, to pound the narrative that we cannot have Trump, no matter what else happens.
Tells me that to defeat you and the Washington establishment, that I MUST vote for Trump, no matter what else happens. No matter what ignorant thing he says, or what he does, or anything else, I'll just try to remember the issues:
1. Secure the border
2. Keep the military up.
3. Defeat ISIS.
4. Raise taxes on (some of) the rich.
5. Engage and come to terms with other nations of the world.
5. Manage this totally out of control bureaucracy.
Nothing to be ashamed of there; all good stuff. The fact that it takes a guy like Trump to have a chance of getting it done is a reflection on us, and how far we've let things go.
Don't let him trick you like that.
Conservatism is conservation. Conservation of public funds, public action, new legislation, etc. Conservation of public land and the environment fits exactly with conservatism.
You were right on the money. Bing is one of the people that us true conservatives (classical liberals) will have to beat in the upcoming primaries. Let's hope that if that happens, he doesn't then stay home on election day out of spite.
Bernie earned a lot of cred with this conservative by going there. And you understate things; not just a conservative school, a deeply religious one also. That took courage that is rare in political candidates these days.
The awakening on the right is Trump. Not the guy you would have come up with, nor I. But he is the one that is there on the ground today. It's him, or we wait another 20 or 30 years.
The Republican establishment may already be too entrenched to beat now, even with all our support. Without our support, even an egomaniac billionaire like Trump doesn't stand a chance.
So you're saying it was Bill Clinton that went after Saddam? That was Bush, and by bringing him up to defend liberal heroes, you prove Bing's point that you are bought and paid for, no matter what the Clintons do.
It is interesting to note though, that Bill did say we should go in after Saddam, and invade Iraq.
Yes, Reuters found them.
No wait, the FBI did. The FBI holds a press conference, and right-wingers Reuters runs with it. No, wait again. Fox had an internet poll, the bastards. Um..
I'm getting confused. What's the narrative again?
True. I defended VW a few threads ago, and right after they came out and admitted everything. Made me feel stupid. I don't need anyone's help to feel stupid...
Limbaugh had a good out for Bill.
Bill was talking directly to Monica, and 'that woman' was Hillary. It does make a lot more sense, and gets Bill out of lying.
"Bush or Trump"
You just threw your whole argument out the window there. Trump's biggest enemy, by far, are the Bushes.
You want to hate on Trump, fine. But you better start sucking up to the Bush family, otherwise, your rhetoric is exposed for the BS that it was in the first place.
Now that's not fair. Holding Hillary's frigidity against her is true misogyny.
No it doesn't.
It was only when the body count around them approached a dozen that many of us began to wonder.
Wait, Ted Cruz is responsible the OPM hack? Standing on principle to defend the Constitution helps the Chinese.
It is a weird world we live in, I'll give you that.
60,000% profit they made in those futures deals.
Am I remembering that right?