He doesn't know if it is torture...

[GreNME]

And the reality is that what you (and the Bush administration) are doing is redefining torture to mean something other than torture, just so they can get away with doing it.

That's not technically true. What they are redefining is what is legal and illegal for the government to do while couching it in vague language (for security purposes, the safety of our people, 9/11!). They are viewing it as a necessity, not unlike Jack Bauer on 24, to save millions of lives and go down in history as heroes who could make the 'tough choices' even while the whiny, p-whipped Democrats whined about not being nice enough to the evil brown people with their evil religion.

 

[headscratcher4]

http://current.com/pods/controversy/PD04399

No, I'm wrong. There's nothing dehumanizing, degrading or perverse with the technique. Clearly, people would only confess to what they've done or planned to do after undergoing this...it surely only provided reliable information while leaving the person undamaged. What a fool me. Yes, as the AG nominee stated, it seems only reprehsible...not on par with losing a limb. Thank good America doesn't torture, only employes techniques that are reprehensible. So we're not sliding down the slippery slope to evil, just reprehensible.

 

[Lurker]

Maybe making them stand naked and posing them in sexually explicit positions? Not torture or abuse, of course, no limbs were lost...may not even blood.

To quote a respected talk radio host, "that's what you expect as a fraternity prank, nothing more than some guys blowing off some steam."

 

[Beerina]

I think it's weasley for a congressperson to ask the AG nominee if he believes waterboarding is torture or unconstitutional or against the law. IF it is torture then why doesn't Mr. or Mrs. congressperson MAKE IT ILLEGAL????????? They are the ones that make the laws the AG must follow. If it's wrong, PASS A LAW!!!

In fact, Congress had a chance to specifically outlaw waterboarding and didn't.

Torture's already illegal. The AG's job is in prosecution of crimes as outlines in the law. Therefore, asking him if waterboarding constitutes a crime puts him in the position of either having to defend it if he says "no," or having to explain where he would prosecute anyone for it if he says, "yes."

He should have answered, "If Congress sees waterboarding should be illegal, they should pass a law explicitely defining it as so."

"Next question?"

 

[Upchurch]

To quote a respected talk radio host, "that's what you expect as a fraternity prank, nothing more than some guys blowing off some steam."

Do you think they pranksters and the prankstees have a beer later and laugh about it?

 

[Lurker]

Do you think they pranksters and the prankstees have a beer later and laugh about it?

I was never a member of a fraternity so don't know what goes on in their secret wrestling sessions but I figured they would smoke a cigarette afterwards at least. When I was in college I played bass guitar and our band rocked all the best parties, dude!

 

[Schneibster]

This is very simple and straightforward. We are signatory to the Geneva conventions, and our signature on them is ratified. They are therefore the law, just as the US Code is. The issue is not and never was the US Constitution; it is the US Code, under which a violation of the Geneva Convention is a felony.

Under the Geneva Convention, abuse and maltreatment of prisoners of war (and there is no exception for "illegal enemy combatants," contrary to the belief of some very slippery lawyers- if you doubt it, I'd like to ask what you think the International Criminal Court would say, and whether you'd like to see these individuals prosecuted there) is prohibited and liable to prosecution. Insofar as the President has authorized such activity, he is in explicit violation of US law, and liable to impeachment, removal from office, indictment, and prosecution for that violation. It is a felony. These are, furthermore, war crimes, and liable to prosecution in the International Criminal Court at The Hague; in my opinion, for the credibility of the US, and to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again, these individuals should be rendered to that court and prosecuted in it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't...I was just outlining some of the points of the President's argument. His position, arguably, is very radical...and I oppose it. It seems to me that the President is very close to arguing that the Administration has complete fiat to act towards non-citizens as it likes. I think that is a very bad road to go down and Congress should fight such an interpretation with everything they have...but their weenies.

Well he is pushing presidential power to levels that would make Nixon tip his hat in amazement that he pulled it off.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That has never been the position of the president. The position is that it doesn't apply to enemies captured in a war, and I agree with that.

And as we get to define those in any way we want, it means exactly that. As say non citizens captured in the war on drugs have no constitutionaly protected rights, think of the detterant that this could be if we just say castrated a few of them?

And note that those where not conditions on the statement I was replying to, it was a general statement about the constitution only protecting citizens. Way to move the goalposts

 

[billydkid]

Please defend your view that deliberately making someone believe they are drowning doesn't constitute torture.

and it's more than just making someone believe they are drowning - it is making someone go through the experience of drowning which is agonizing even if you know you are not going to drown.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's part of their training to withstand interrogation techniques that might be used on them. It's not as if we can train them to withstand what will actually be used on them - snipping off fingers, breaking bones, pulling out teeth, plucking out eyes, mutilating genitalia... but that's all the same as waterboarding of course.

Nonsense haven't you read what is really torture by the white house?

Not all of that really qualifies "organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" is the white house definition of torture after all.

 

[ponderingturtle]

He should have answered, "If Congress sees waterboarding should be illegal, they should pass a law explicitely defining it as so."

"Next question?"

Cool, "If congress wanted it to be illegal to kill someone by beating them to death with a 15" black rubber dildo, they should pass a law explicitely defining it as so"

 

[steverino]

And the reality is that what you (and the Bush administration) are doing is redefining torture to mean something other than torture, just so they can get away with doing it.

The reality is that sometimes torture works and helps win wars and our administration has to repackage and soft-peddle it to ineffectual Americans. It will be interesting to see how Pres. Hillary repackages it in her own unique way while continuing the practices of torture-lite.

On a side note, aren't these Democrat war profiteers "torturing" civilians by making money off of misery?

http://www.metroactive.com/feinstein/


As chairperson and ranking member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (MILCON) from 2001 through the end of 2005, Feinstein supervised the appropriation of billions of dollars a year for specific military construction projects. Two defense contractors whose interests were largely controlled by her husband, financier Richard C. Blum, benefited from decisions made by Feinstein as leader of this powerful subcommittee.

 

[Cleon]

The reality is that sometimes torture works and helps win wars...

Which doesn't change the fact that it is a gross violation of human rights.

Growing up I was taught that one of the reasons we were the Good Guys was because we didn't engage in that sort of behavior.

What you are trying to defend is indefensible.

 

[steverino]

Growing up I was taught that one of the reasons we were the Good Guys was because we didn't engage in that sort of behavior.

Me too. Then we grew up.

Humor me. Defend Democrat war profiteers.

 

[Cleon]

Me too. Then we grew up.

Engaging in human rights abuses isn't "growing up."

Humor me. Defend Democrat war profiteers.

Why would I do such a thing?

A) I have no interest whatsoever in defending Democrats.
B) It's a blatant derail.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Me too. Then we grew up.

So there is no such things as morals, just the best way to use others to your benefit? There just seems then to be so little that you can truely say differentiates us on the level of what we are willing to do from the terrorists.

Humor me. Defend Democrat war profiteers.

Look if the republicans had a problem with war profiteering then they would have been at least somewhat interested in the sorts of investigations that Truman was doing during WWII.

So as all of congress seems to think war profiteering is a good thing, and no one is accountable for say loosing hundreds of tons of cash. What is your point?

 

[GreNME]

Which doesn't change the fact that it is a gross violation of human rights.

Growing up I was taught that one of the reasons we were the Good Guys was because we didn't engage in that sort of behavior.

What you are trying to defend is indefensible.

Some paraphrased quotes from people I've known in different branches who have parts of their service forever blocked out of record and they can't talk specifically about it (though I doubt they were integral in any largely questionable activities, but classified is classified):

This country doesn't engage in torture... except when we do.

This country doesn't engage in assassination... except when we do.

This country doesn't engage in illegal spying... except when we do.


I don't think that really makes it any more defensible. However, despite whatever the people I've known who have said these things to me may have done in the service, they have all been generally decent people since I've known them. Definitely not Bad Guys or the types of dangerous agents of conspiracy theory fantasies. To me, it signifies the general cognitive dissonance in every human mind that compartmentalizes "what should be" and "what has to be" when they don't line up, and in some form or another that cognitive dissonance is always going to be present. The problem today is that the cognitive dissonance has reached a disruptive level, and generally I am of the opinion it's doing more harm than good as a whole. It's being institutionalized to a level that is appalling, as if institutionalizing it gives some kind of control over it somehow. (it does not)

 

[steverino]

B) It's a blatant derail.

Oh? I thought it was a subtle derail.

 

[headscratcher4]

and it's more than just making someone believe they are drowning - it is making someone go through the experience of drowning which is agonizing even if you know you are not going to drown.

And, the point is, you don't know that you're not going to drown. Indeed, if they do it wrong, you do drown.