House passes bill to ban waterboarding

[bheld]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I think this is a much higher quality debate than what the definition of 'sex' or 'is' is.

It's exactly the same thing. This is parsing, pure and simple. The debate isn't higher quality, only the stakes are greater.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by bheld

What is your definition of torture?

Something that causes severe pain or suffering, particularly for extended periods of time, and often causes permanent physical damage. Does McCain walk with a limp because he was emotionally tortured?

I refuse to include 'mental or emotional' damage because it's far too easy to enter into the political corrrectness of what mental or emtional damage or suffering may be. To me, sitting in a jail cell would cause mental or emotional suffering. Fear is a tactic that is used to keep laws and rules. If there were no fear, we'd live in a lawless society. So how can fear be considered torture?

[motivez]

His comparison is a little ridiculous, since in one case you have ONLY mental anguish as you are expected to be shot, and in the other case, you're actually tortured by having water fill your throat and lungs, causing excruciating physical pain in addition to the mental anguish from believing you're about to die.

That doesn't make him wrong about it being torture, though.

Malcom Nance, an advisor on terrorism to the US departments of Homeland Security, Special Operations and Intelligence, came out against the practice as well.. stating that he'd seen it done to hundreds of people in training for special ops, and that there was no question in his mind that it was torture.. He's the one who wrote the article I linked, and he has another article in the NY Daily News here: I know waterboarding is torture - because I did it myself

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

His comparison is a little ridiculous, since in one case you have ONLY mental anguish as you are expected to be shot, and in the other case, you're actually tortured by having water fill your throat and lungs, causing excruciating physical pain in addition to the mental anguish from believing you're about to die.

How is his comparison ridiculous? It's his word that you take to prove that it's torture...

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Something that causes severe pain or suffering, particularly for extended periods of time, and often causes permanent physical damage. Does McCain walk with a limp because he was emotionally tortured?

I refuse to include 'mental or emotional' damage because it's far too easy to enter into the political corrrectness of what mental or emtional damage or suffering may be. To me, sitting in a jail cell would cause mental or emotional suffering. Fear is a tactic that is used to keep laws and rules. If there were no fear, we'd live in a lawless society. So how can fear be considered torture?

Water boarding causes severe pain and suffering while the water is in your lungs, it's excruciating by every account. It's physical pain, not simply mental or emotional. It's more than JUST fear, like a blank gun being pointed at your head is.

'I felt I was drowning and I was in terrible agony'

Henri Alleg, a journalist, was tortured in 1957 by French forces in Algeria. He described the ordeal of water torture in his book The Question. Soldiers strapped him over a plank, wrapped his head in cloth and positioned it beneath a running tap. He recalled: "The rag was soaked rapidly. Water flowed everywhere: in my mouth, in my nose, all over my face. But for a while I could still breathe in some small gulps of air. I tried, by contracting my throat, to take in as little water as possible and to resist suffocation by keeping air in my lungs for as long as I could. But I couldn't hold on for more than a few moments. I had the impression of drowning, and a terrible agony, that of death itself, took possession of me. In spite of myself, all the muscles of my body struggled uselessly to save me from suffocation

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

How is his comparison ridiculous? It's his word that you take to prove that it's torture...

His comparison is a little ridiculous, his conclusion is not. They aren't simply threatening to do something.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Something that causes severe pain or suffering, particularly for extended periods of time, and often causes permanent physical damage. Does McCain walk with a limp because he was emotionally tortured?

I refuse to include 'mental or emotional' damage because it's far too easy to enter into the political corrrectness of what mental or emtional damage or suffering may be. To me, sitting in a jail cell would cause mental or emotional suffering. Fear is a tactic that is used to keep laws and rules. If there were no fear, we'd live in a lawless society. So how can fear be considered torture?

So everything is kosher as long as there is no permanent physical damage? No (permanent) harm, no foul?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by bheld

So everything is kosher as long as there is no permanent physical damage? No (permanent) harm, no foul?

Not what I said.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

John McCain is a politician trying to win votes.

do you know his background?

waterboarding is torture.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

John McCain is a politician trying to win votes.

Would you agree that it is politically beneficial to publically say that water boarding is torture and to be against it? Reason I ask is that I don't think he is winning over any republican votes by coming out with that position. I think most republicans are either indifferent on the issue, or actually support the use of water boarding.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Would you agree that it is politically beneficial to publically say that water boarding is torture and to be against it? Reason I ask is that I don't think he is winning over any republican votes by coming out with that position. I think most republicans are either indifferent on the issue, or actually support the use of water boarding.

Great article about McCain that came out yesterday.

Standing His Ground
By Dana Milbank
Thursday, December 13, 2007; A14

Sometimes it seems as though John McCain has a death wish.

At a meeting with supporters in Raymond, N.H., McCain, reading from an index card, thanks several of his local organizers in the room -- and then notices that one of them has a long white beard. "Is that because Christmas is coming?" he needles his (soon-to-be-former?) supporter.

Say what you will about the Republican senator from Arizona (and pretty much everybody does): He is the bravest candidate in the presidential race. While his rivals pander to primary constituencies, the former prisoner of war gives audiences a piece of his mind.

"Can I begin tonight talking about climate change?" he inquires. It is a bizarre choice for a Republican crowd on a subfreezing night in New England, and the audience is silent as he proclaims: "We need to reduce greenhouse gases!"

Next, he hops onto another political third rail: the nearby Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, which continues to roil the locals. "Nuclear power is safe," he declares.

In case he still has any supporters in the room, he dispatches them by lamenting that his fellow Republicans "presided over the greatest increase in the size of government since the Great Society!"

And he hasn't even gotten to his support for immigration and the Iraq war -- the two stands that have turned him from a front-runner to a long shot.

Just before McCain's gathering at Raymond High School, it appears for a moment as though the magic of his 2000 New Hampshire primary victory is back: The parking lot is jammed. But it turns out that most of the people have come to see a basketball game in the gym. Even those who came for McCain must wait for him for 40 minutes while an aging veteran leads them in singing "Sweet Caroline."

McCain warms up the crowd with a few Catskills-quality jokes -- some left over from the 2000 campaign: the two inmates in the prison chow line ("The food in here was a lot better when you were governor"); the Navy pilot denied promotion because he taught a monkey to fly his plane ("The monkey retired as an admiral last week"); and federal spending to study the DNA of bears in Montana ("I don't know if that's a paternity issue or a criminal issue").

But when Q&A time comes, the questioners aren't laughing. They want to know about immigration -- not the guest-worker program McCain hatched with Ted Kennedy, but what the candidate will do to seal the borders. "I got the message," he tells the first questioner. "They want the border secured first." The man continues to vent. "You represent the emotion that a lot of people have on this issue," McCain soothes.

He fields a few questions about Iraq before a man with a rough New England accent challenges him about "amnesty toward the illegal aliens." McCain attempts a gentle rebuttal ("These are God's children, they are human beings"), but this only makes the questioner turn ugly. He complains about those who "tax your Social Security and give it to the Mexicans" and about illegal immigrants who get free emergency-room care.

"It's that option or let them die," McCain explains.

The man is livid. "My wife and I were for you before you hooked up with Ted Kennedy on this thing," he says.

"I come from a state where illegal immigration has had an enormous impact," McCain replies. "We have people who die in the desert."

"Well," the man growls, "they take their chances."

"I guess that's one way of looking at it," McCain says in an even tone that hides his anger. "And I understand why you wouldn't support me."

McCain may never become president, but he'll end this race with something many rivals have left on the campaign trail: dignity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...202517_pf.html

[bheld]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Great article about McCain that came out yesterday.


Standing His Ground

Wow. It tells you how far a shred human decency will get you with the Republican base.

This whole "not my problem" attitude is so anti-American it makes me sick. What the fuck did we revolt for if we're not going to create a truly equal society? Lower taxes?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

do you know his background?

waterboarding is torture.

Of course I know his background. I also know his present situation.

Is this one of those cases where everyone suddenly trusts a politician? McCain, like Paul and all other candidates, has chosen their path and things to 'stand' for, all hoping to win the election. McCain does not stand to hurt in the electorate if he supports illegal immigration and is against waterboarding. He's trying what every politician is doing right now...trying to make himself stand out in some different way, hoping the American people warm up to that system.

I don't see McCain as any different than any other politician, and I also happen to disagree with some of the positions he's taken.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Something that causes severe pain or suffering, particularly for extended periods of time, and often causes permanent physical damage. Does McCain walk with a limp because he was emotionally tortured?

A volunteer for the Fox News Staff was subjected to waterboarding. The same thing that the United States Government only applies to the most extreme Al Qaeda terrorists. He said he did indeed have the fear of drowning. But I don't know that he was traumatized for life or became a bed wetter? Boo Hoo!

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

But see this is where you're wrong. Waterboarding is invoking fear of drowning, and invoking fear just isn't torture in most people's books. The water torture of old ages (as you bring up Pol Pot) is far worse.

Did you know that while they pour this water, the persons head is wrapped in a cellophane type wrap and their feet are tilted up further?

Isn't torture's purpose to break someone mentally?

Does torture have to almost kill someone to be illegal, and otherwise, what is it called? A joke? A facade? A trick?

How naive to think America is better than that?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

Did you know that while they pour this water, the persons head is wrapped in a cellophane type wrap and their feet are tilted up further?

Isn't torture's purpose to break someone mentally?

Yes, but that is not cause permanent damage or psychosis. You have a fear reaction of the moment. Only later does your rational mind tell you the intent was not to kill. Don't tell me you never took action on raw emotion and leter thought how stupid? That is the trick of it.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

Did you know that while they pour this water, the persons head is wrapped in a cellophane type wrap and their feet are tilted up further?

Isn't torture's purpose to break someone mentally?

Does torture have to almost kill someone to be illegal, and otherwise, what is it called? A joke? A facade? A trick?

How naive to think America is better than that?

If I'm not mistaken, it's not a plastic material their head is wrapped in (they would surely suffocate, would they not?) but instead is just a cloth material to keep them from seeing what's around them (in order for them to be unprepared for the next dousing). The inability to see (knocking out one of the senses) hightens the fear of the unknown.

The purpose of torture is yes, to break them somehow.

The purpose of waterboarding is to annoy them to the point they give in and tell all

[JaJae]

I personally believe waterboarding is torture. I would not want it done to me, nor would I want it done to our troops. But, the legal definition of it is unclear. And it certainly isn't torture by the standards of our enemies. People say we're stooping to their level. Waterboarding is not stooping to their level. When we start sawing the heads off live people we'll be on the same level. Scaring them into thinking they're drowning is just bad of us.

Coerced interrogation is nothing new and in the case of waterboarding it has been attributed to preventing at least one terrorist attack.

The CIA has said there has only been a few people who we have waterboarded. One person who was usually stubborn to give up information gave up intelligence in just 35 seconds.
'Waterboarding broke al Qaeda captive in 35 seconds,' says former CIA agent defending torture | the Daily Mail

The people they waterboarded:
Details on terror suspects' interrogations - Nightly News with Brian Williams - MSNBC.com

Among those subjected to the enhanced techniques are operatives responsible for the attacks on the East Africa embassies in 1998, the USS Cole in 2000, and the September 11 attacks. The interrogations took place at secret U.S. prisons in eastern Europe and north Africa.

The three subjected to water boarding were viewed as al-Qaida operatives with “real-time information” on terrorist planning:

* Abu Zubaydah, al Qaeda’s so-called “dean of students” at Afghan training camps who provided travel arrangements and accommodations to recent camp “graduates”;
* Khalid Sheik Mohammed, mastermind of 9-11; and the man who killed Daniel Pearl; and
* Hambali, the Indonesian terrorist responsible for the Bali bombings in December 2002 that killed more than 200, including five Americans.

Two of the three—KSM and Hambali—were chosen for water boarding because they were resistant to other interrogation methods…one, Zubaydah, because he initially told the CIA of an impending attack, then refused to discuss it, according to two officials.

If someone had the option of waterboarding three people under direct supervision of psychologists and doctors or take their chances of seeing another 9/11 which would they choose? Some would be ok with another 9/11 to occurring on good principles, others would want to secretly try to prevent it. I think Pelosi and the other members of Congress who were briefed on it chose the latter. I don't fault them for it. It's not like they're chopping off heads.

Throughout the past few years we've heard all sorts of ridiculous stories regarding torture. Things like mishandling the Koran, playing rap music, making their cells uncomfortably cold, etc. All of these were attacked by the people attacking waterboarding and they were dismissed usually with a chuckle by the debating foe. However, this is entirely different and it is something we should be debating. The problem now is that so many senators such as Pelosi et al have tainted themselves from previous debates or from flat out being dishonest on where they stood all along.

Do I think we should continue waterboarding? Not necessarily. I think if we stop waterboarding we need to substitute another form of coerced interrogation. Somehow and someway we need to get information from people who threaten impeding terrorist attacks on the US, and unfortunately Eminem and cold cell floors aren't always enough to save lives. Once again, waterboarding is bad. It's evil, but is it a necessary evil? Many of us support abortion, the death of a human being simply because of someone's choice. Many people who attack waterboarding also support third trimester abortions. What's more inhumane? Certainly not this.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think if we stop waterboarding we need to substitute another form of coerced interrogation. Somehow and someway we need to get information from people who threaten impeding terrorist attacks on the US, and unfortunately Eminem and cold cell floors aren't always enough to save lives.

If that happens, expect the liberals to be up in arms about the new method of 'torture'.

If you bow down to them on waterboarding, they will continue to complain about all methods of coerced interrogation, until we have massages and peticures in all jail cells for the fear of treating our prisoners or enemies poorly.

[motivez]

Torturing goes far beyond treating them poorly. We should have interrogation techniques that work, but that don't constitute torture, that don't violate our bans on torture, that don't put our troops at increased risk for being tortured, and that show the world we are still a beacon of human rights.

J, you seem to be forgetting this has implications beyond how Al Qaeda treats its captives. We should be able to tell governments like that in Myanmar from a position of strength, that torture is wrong and exert political pressure to get them to have a better record on human rights. Unfortunately when we engage in the same methods they use to torture monks, we can't really say that, can we?

And you've also brought up the ticking time bomb fallacy, it has never happened and isn't likely to. Life isn't 24, and torture isn't an effective method of interrogation, people will say anything to get the torture to stop, just ask John McCain or a number of high ranking military officials who've stated it.

This whole idea of sacrificing 1 person to save x number of others can be brought up in many ways. How many little girls would you be willing to torture if it meant preventing another 9/11? Would you kill 3 people to prevent a train from derailing? And so forth.

That's not life, it's a fallacious hypothetical designed to make people who answer seem like they're bad.

No one called mishandling the Koran torture, though concerns were brought up about some of the treatment at Gitmo violating the common articles of the Geneva Conventions, which the Supreme Court ruled do apply to detainees.

The idea that water torture is used to annoy (like it somehow tickles after the first time) is pretty disgusting, torture isn't funny, it's not annoying, it's called torture for a reason.

Being okay with us using it means being okay with others doing it to our soldiers. What's good for the goose and all that.