Cheney, Ashcroft, Powell, CIA, Tenet, Rice Personally Approved Waterboarding And Other Torture.

[OrByte]

*cough* see sig *cough*

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Druidx
shira
I used the number 3 because that is the number that has been reported every single time anyone has bothered to report how many people have been waterboarded.
Which was my point, most discussion an news stories act as though it's a wide spread ongoing issue to increase the shock factor.
If you can point to any evidence of more than 3, please do so an I will correct my post.

I suspect that in the next few years, something will leak out that the number is higher than 3 (during the past 3 years). I have no "evidence" one way or the other about this (how could I? - all this stuff is highly classified, so the only source of information is the Administration itself). But given this Administration's track record, I'm guessing the actual number is a little higher. Hundreds? Almost certainly not. But 10, give or take - I wouldn't be surprised.

And remember, your question limited the time frame to the last three years. I don't see why the Administration is being given a free pass for ALL torture committed on its watch.

I hope I'm alive to see the day when the specific "useful information" revealed because of the torture is declassified. Frankly, because such information is highly time-sensitive, I can't imagine why after five or ten years, it can't all be revealed to the public.

For example, suppose because of torture we found out about a terrorist ring that had obtained fissionable material and was planning an attack on the U.S., and we neutralized that threat and captured the material. Can anyone explain why five years down the line the specific torture information without which we would have failed would still be classified?

Or suppose that torture produced accurate, crucial operational information about the way Al Qaeda does business. 10 years down the line, I can't imagine that revealing that info to the public would compromise any then-current counter-terrorism operations.

What I think is going to be revealed is that real-world benefit of all of the information obtained via torture has been a big nothing - that at best the info merely corroborated what we already knew or strongly suspected.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: shira

I hope I'm alive to see the day when the specific "useful information" revealed because of the torture is declassified. Frankly, because such information is highly time-sensitive, I can't imagine why after five or ten years, it can't all be revealed to the public.

I hope I'm alive to see the day when every Bushwhacko traitor involved in approving, ordering, implementing and committing torture receives an extra large helping of their own medicine. I'd give them the advantage they so easliy deny their victims... a fair trial.

When they're convicted, they should all be given generous lifetime vacations at the beautiful downtown Guantanamo Hilton with free daily passes on the exciting waterboard ride.

It isn't torture. They said so, themselves, and we can believe them... right? :roll:

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I don't regret saying that those kind of perverts get what they deserve in prison one bit. But you can feel free to continue to make apologies for them.

And of course it's a non-sequitor. It was a demonstration of the logic employed by people like you in here. The term "Bush apologist" sure wasn't coined by the folks on the right. But it's the type of non-sequitor frequently employed in this place. In for a penny, in for a pound. Right?

This pretense of moral highground is hilarious too. It's complete crap. As I've said before, the vast majority of you in here are complete hypocrites when it comes to moral highground. Sure doesn't stop you from trying to claim it when it suits your ideological needs though.

btw, what kind of interrogation methods DO you condone? I'm asking because if you condone any methods, clearly you do condone a type of torture and that makes you...uhmmm...in favor of torture. I doubt you'll actually answer that question though because when it comes to providing any answers you run off or do your typical wiggle dance of avoidance.

Looks like you didn't read my post. My whole point was that your logic didn't work. Usually when someone tries to show someone the fallacy of an argument, they take that same argument but use it to a ridiculous extreme to showcase it's absurdity. You failed in this endeavor however. You tried to refute an argument by simply stating something false (and mind bendingly illogical).

Basically you were complaining about being characterized as supporting rape in all circumstances when you only supported it in a few (or one). A better counter argument for you would have been something like if you support killing in self defense then you must be pro-murder. (note: this would still have been a stupid argument because it wouldn't address an act in my statement, but light years better then what you did) Instead you said something to the effect of 'if you don't support rape, then you must be pro-rape'. That's just really really dumb. I'm not even mad so much as disappointed.

Now in your last paragraph you are trying to make the ludicrous claim that all forms of interrogation are torture. That's obviously false, and you know that it's false. You're just mad and are trying to salvage something. Stop behaving like this. I have explained to you repeatedly in previous threads the forms of interrogation that are acceptable, so feel free to read my previous postings about the subject. Long story short: violence against our prisoners is not okay, and has proven not to be necessary by decades and decades of experience.

My advice to you man is to apologize for the rape comment and leave it at that.

You still don't get it. Well, no surprise there.

And you've danced around answering my question, as I suspected you would. Note that waterboarding is not violence. It's a form of discomfort, just like sleep deprivation, loud music, etc.

btw, my advice to you is to never try and give me advice again. When I want your idiotic advice, I'll ask for it. Thanks.

"A form of discomfort?"

Wiki on the "discomfort" of waterboarding

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward (the Trendelenburg position), and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.[1] Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent.[2] In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex.[3] Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.[4] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.

As I've pointed out many times, waterboarding is actual drowning, not "the sensation of drowning.". There's nothing make-believe about it. The victim can't breathe. And even if the victim "knows" that the intent of the torturers isn't to kill him, he's also aware that there's a small margin of error, and if the torturers mess up and misjudge a little, the victim easily could end up brain-damaged or dead.

And as the wiki article point out, the psychological damage can be severe. I'm sure YOU think that psychological pain is just make believe. That leaves you to explain why, for example, sexually-abused children, though completely physically healed from their ordeal, carry psychological scars that they often NEVER recover from - often making it impossible for them to experience stable relationships and causing many of them to become abusers themselves.

No, psychological pain is as real as it gets. And if waterboarding did nothing but cause its victims to fear imminent death, it would be torture enough.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

You still don't get it. Well, no surprise there.

And you've danced around answering my question, as I suspected you would. Note that waterboarding is not violence. It's a form of discomfort, just like sleep deprivation, loud music, etc.

btw, my advice to you is to never try and give me advice again. When I want your idiotic advice, I'll ask for it. Thanks.

*sigh* so we're back to definitions again are we? This is your one and only chance to have an adult conversation on the topic. If you insist on disputing the dictionary definition of violence I'm out of here.

Simply put, you are wrong. Waterboarding is not violence only if you're using a crazy definition of violence. Lets see what the definition of violence is:
1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing.
2. The definition of abuse is "physical maltreatment".

No reasonable person could make the argument that waterboarding is not abuse, not to mention a violation and potentially damaging. You can argue about whether we should employ it or not, but don't try to say it isn't violence. That's a total lie.

As we've gone over numerous times in the past and yet you seem to have conveniently forgotten, waterboarding can cause PTSD in those subjected to it. Oh, and thanks for mentioning sleep deprivation...excessive sleep deprivation can cause insanity. That would be torture in that case as well.

I like when I completely demolish your incoherent argument against me you just say "you don't get it" and move on. Classy. I answered that very question you asked me several times in the past, and I answered it again in my last post. So sorry you don't like it. It is very telling by the way that you think the advice of "don't tell people you approve of rape" is idiotic. This explains a lot.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

You still don't get it. Well, no surprise there.

And you've danced around answering my question, as I suspected you would. Note that waterboarding is not violence. It's a form of discomfort, just like sleep deprivation, loud music, etc.

btw, my advice to you is to never try and give me advice again. When I want your idiotic advice, I'll ask for it. Thanks.

*sigh* so we're back to definitions again are we? This is your one and only chance to have an adult conversation on the topic. If you insist on disputing the dictionary definition of violence I'm out of here.

Simply put, you are wrong. Waterboarding is not violence only if you're using a crazy definition of violence. Lets see what the definition of violence is:
1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing.
2. The definition of abuse is "physical maltreatment".

No reasonable person could make the argument that waterboarding is not abuse, not to mention a violation and potentially damaging. You can argue about whether we should employ it or not, but don't try to say it isn't violence. That's a total lie.

As we've gone over numerous times in the past and yet you seem to have conveniently forgotten, waterboarding can cause PTSD in those subjected to it. Oh, and thanks for mentioning sleep deprivation...excessive sleep deprivation can cause insanity. That would be torture in that case as well.

I like when I completely demolish your incoherent argument against me you just say "you don't get it" and move on. Classy. I answered that very question you asked me several times in the past, and I answered it again in my last post. So sorry you don't like it. It is very telling by the way that you think the advice of "don't tell people you approve of rape" is idiotic. This explains a lot.

Let's look at your definitions (And for someone who claims not to like to argue definitions, I find you posting one highly ironic. Surely though it will only mean what you say it means because, well, you don't want to actually argue definitions.)

So let's look at what your definition of "violence is:

1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing.

The "purpose" of waterboarding is not to violate, damage, or abuse. If that were the purpose we could return to good old fashioned whips, ripping off fingernails, smashing testicles, or another form of real violence. Waterboarding is intended to impart fear without doing physical damage. The CIA doesn't waterboard with the intent of drowning anyone or killing them. Is it possible waterboarding can cause problems? Sure, if it's done by someone who doesn't know what they're doing or by some zealot who actually does want to cause physical harm. But many of our OWN soldiers go through it as part of their training. If it's SO fucking dangerous then why do we put our own soldiers through it?

It might cause PTSD? Well that sucks. Maybe those who were subjected to waterboarding should have considered that possibility before they decided they were going to purposefully murder thousands of US citizens?

You and others in here claim that "torture" (Convenient of you to determine what is and what isn't torture.) makes us just as bad as them. Sorry, it doesn't, and that's a pathetic rationale. The difference is that we use torture on those who are inhumane and very selectively among those. Otoh, our enemies don't give a crap or stop to consider if those they want to maim or murder are humane or inhumane in the first place. Everyone is game to them. Whatever they have to do is alright in their book.

If you can't recognize the glaring difference between us and them I pity you and the rest with the ridiculous attempts at moral equivalence. If you want to imagine we're all the same, and if we're not then it's all Bush's fault, then please stand aside and STFU while those rough men protect you from your own insipid, idealism and do the sirty work you find so abhorant.

btw, I'm still waiting for you to actually state what interrogations you find acceptable. Making some blanket statement about violence doesn't really cut it because then you just weasel your way out by arguing those very definitions you claim to despise. I want specifics. Commit to something and make a stand in here, for once, so you can't weasel your way out.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: OrByte
*cough* see sig *cough*

Congrats. A public display of your intellectual dishonesty for all to see.

I approve of that too. :thumbsup:

 

[Craig234]

I notice that the cowardly TLC (he deserves far worse) ignores the utter refutation of his lie by Harvey, and respond to the post after it instead.

TLC lies:

Note that waterboarding is not violence. It's a form of discomfort, just like sleep deprivation, loud music, etc.

Harvey:

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward (the Trendelenburg position), and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.[1] Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent.[2] In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex.[3] Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.[4] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: OrByte
*cough* see sig *cough*

Congrats. A public display of your intellectual dishonesty for all to see.

I approve of that too. :thumbsup:

His sig says:

So?
[/i]- Vice President Dick Cheney, responding to ABC News's White House correspondent Martha Raddatz, after she cited a recent poll showing that most Americans do not believe the Iraq War was worth fighting.[/i]

Do I approve of rape in certain circumstances? Damn skippy I do. - TastesLikeChicken

He quoted Vice Traitor In Chief Dick Cheney and you EXACTLY.

Understanding "intellectual dishonesty" requires an intellect. The above post, and the rest of your sorry apologies for an administration full of torturers, traitors and murderers in this thread, suggest you are manifestly unqualified to make such a assessment.

They also mark you as morally and ethically bankrupt to the core.

 

[shira]

Notice how TLC slimily attempts to define "torture" as "violence" in this discussion, and then tries to re-define violence. Does anyone need a further demonstration of how low TLC will stoop and how pointless it is to attempt any sort of civilized discussion with him?

But this thread is focused on "torture". Why not look up what the international definition of torture is?:

torture

United Nations Convention Against Torture

Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

Twist and turn, TLC. Try to re-define torture to suit your dishonest purposes. Try to sidetrack the conversation. Try to evade, dissemble, cheat, and fool. But you'll fool no one. You're alone on this. Waterboarding is so clearly torture, only someone like you would try to claim otherwise.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Harvey

When they're convicted, they should all be given generous lifetime vacations at the beautiful downtown Guantanamo Hilton with free daily passes on the exciting waterboard ride.

It isn't torture.

Well apparently Havey is pro torture, although he doesn't think that waterboarding is torture. I quoted him EXACTLY right?

How is that any different than what Orbyte did?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: OrByte
*cough* see sig *cough*

Congrats. A public display of your intellectual dishonesty for all to see.

I approve of that too. :thumbsup:

His sig says:

So?
[/i]- Vice President Dick Cheney, responding to ABC News's White House correspondent Martha Raddatz, after she cited a recent poll showing that most Americans do not believe the Iraq War was worth fighting.[/i]

Do I approve of rape in certain circumstances? Damn skippy I do. - TastesLikeChicken

He quoted Vice Traitor In Chief Dick Cheney and you EXACTLY.

Understanding "intellectual dishonesty" requires an intellect. The above post, and the rest of your sorry apologies for an administration full of torturers, traitors and murderers in this thread, suggest you are manifestly unqualified to make such a assessment.

They also mark you as morally and ethically bankrupt to the core.

He quoted me exactly? He blatently parsed my statement and removed the real essense from my post in the process.

Don't be an idiot like all the rest of the wink, wink fools in here. Demonstrate some honesty for once instead of engaging in the blind ideological butt-patting that's so frequent amongst the anti-war crew in here.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: shira
Notice how TLC slimily attempts to define "torture" as "violence" in this discussion, and then tries to re-define violence. Does anyone need a further demonstration of how low TLC will stoop and how pointless it is to attempt any sort of civilized discussion with him?

But this thread is focused on "torture". Why not look up what the international definition of torture is?:

torture

United Nations Convention Against Torture

Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

Twist and turn, TLC. Try to re-define torture to suit your dishonest purposes. Try to sidetrack the conversation. Try to evade, dissemble, cheat, and fool. But you'll fool no one. You're alone on this. Waterboarding is so clearly torture, only someone like you would try to claim otherwise.

Erm, you might want to recheck who was trying to define torture as violence.

And, once again I'll point out that many of our own soldiers endure this very same "torture" every year as part of their training. Damn, we torture our own troops. Can you believe it?

Of course, you'll skirt that entire issue just as every other person in here wringing their hands and cryng tears of compassion over murdering terrorists and child rapists has.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Let's look at your definitions (And for someone who claims not to like to argue definitions, I find you posting one highly ironic. Surely though it will only mean what you say it means because, well, you don't want to actually argue definitions.)

So let's look at what your definition of "violence is:

1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing.

The "purpose" of waterboarding is not to violate, damage, or abuse. If that were the purpose we could return to good old fashioned whips, ripping off fingernails, smashing testicles, or another form of real violence. Waterboarding is intended to impart fear without doing physical damage. The CIA doesn't waterboard with the intent of drowning anyone or killing them. Is it possible waterboarding can cause problems? Sure, if it's done by someone who doesn't know what they're doing or by some zealot who actually does want to cause physical harm. But many of our OWN soldiers go through it as part of their training. If it's SO fucking dangerous then why do we put our own soldiers through it?

It might cause PTSD? Well that sucks. Maybe those who were subjected to waterboarding should have considered that possibility before they decided they were going to purposefully murder thousands of US citizens?

You and others in here claim that "torture" (Convenient of you to determine what is and what isn't torture.) makes us just as bad as them. Sorry, it doesn't, and that's a pathetic rationale. The difference is that we use torture on those who are inhumane and very selectively among those. Otoh, our enemies don't give a crap or stop to consider if those they want to maim or murder are humane or inhumane in the first place. Everyone is game to them. Whatever they have to do is alright in their book.

If you can't recognize the glaring difference between us and them I pity you and the rest with the ridiculous attempts at moral equivalence. If you want to imagine we're all the same, and if we're not then it's all Bush's fault, then please stand aside and STFU while those rough men protect you from your own insipid, idealism and do the sirty work you find so abhorant.

btw, I'm still waiting for you to actually state what interrogations you find acceptable. Making some blanket statement about violence doesn't really cut it because then you just weasel your way out by arguing those very definitions you claim to despise. I want specifics. Commit to something and make a stand in here, for once, so you can't weasel your way out.

Stop being an idiot. I listed the dictionary definition and said that if you are unwilling to accept it I will not argue the matter with you. It's always your last line of defense after you've been completely owned.

You want me to list every acceptable form of interrogation? That's unbelievably stupid. As a general rule I approve of all forms of interrogation that do not involve violence or severe mental duress. There are literally thousands of things someone could do to compel the disclosure of information from a prisoner, and so I couldn't begin to list them all. Orbyte did nothing to parse your statement. He took it exactly as you meant it to be said, only he took out the example you provided at the end. Absolutely nothing about the content or what information you were attempting to convey was changed. Sorry, but you're just that scummy that you approve of rape sometimes.

As for who was attempting to define something as violence, you were actually attempting to downgrade the evil that we were committing by calling it merely 'discomfort' other then violence. Another slimy tactic that helps you excuse the inexcusable. In addition, your statement that our own troops undergo this technique (or used to) is laughably stupid. These people VOLUNTEER to undergo it. Guess what, when someone volunteers to have sex with another person it's called fun. When someone has sex with someone against their will it's called rape. Shockingly enough, when someone volunteers to be waterboarded it is training, and when someone has it done against their will it is torture. This is obvious to everyone (yourself included), and to pretend otherwise is incredibly dishonest.

Do you not notice the dozen or so people who are piling on you at this point? Did you ever stop to think for a minute that if you disagree with one or two people, maybe it's those two people, but if EVERYONE disagrees with you... maybe the problem lies with you?

Stop behaving like a child. You were wrong, and you said something dumb. Man up and admit it. What would your son think of you if he read this thread? Honestly.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Let's look at your definitions (And for someone who claims not to like to argue definitions, I find you posting one highly ironic. Surely though it will only mean what you say it means because, well, you don't want to actually argue definitions.)

So let's look at what your definition of "violence is:

1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing.

The "purpose" of waterboarding is not to violate, damage, or abuse. If that were the purpose we could return to good old fashioned whips, ripping off fingernails, smashing testicles, or another form of real violence. Waterboarding is intended to impart fear without doing physical damage. The CIA doesn't waterboard with the intent of drowning anyone or killing them. Is it possible waterboarding can cause problems? Sure, if it's done by someone who doesn't know what they're doing or by some zealot who actually does want to cause physical harm. But many of our OWN soldiers go through it as part of their training. If it's SO fucking dangerous then why do we put our own soldiers through it?

It might cause PTSD? Well that sucks. Maybe those who were subjected to waterboarding should have considered that possibility before they decided they were going to purposefully murder thousands of US citizens?

You and others in here claim that "torture" (Convenient of you to determine what is and what isn't torture.) makes us just as bad as them. Sorry, it doesn't, and that's a pathetic rationale. The difference is that we use torture on those who are inhumane and very selectively among those. Otoh, our enemies don't give a crap or stop to consider if those they want to maim or murder are humane or inhumane in the first place. Everyone is game to them. Whatever they have to do is alright in their book.

If you can't recognize the glaring difference between us and them I pity you and the rest with the ridiculous attempts at moral equivalence. If you want to imagine we're all the same, and if we're not then it's all Bush's fault, then please stand aside and STFU while those rough men protect you from your own insipid, idealism and do the sirty work you find so abhorant.

btw, I'm still waiting for you to actually state what interrogations you find acceptable. Making some blanket statement about violence doesn't really cut it because then you just weasel your way out by arguing those very definitions you claim to despise. I want specifics. Commit to something and make a stand in here, for once, so you can't weasel your way out.

Stop being an idiot. I listed the dictionary definition and said that if you are unwilling to accept it I will not argue the matter with you. It's always your last line of defense after you've been completely owned.

You want me to list every acceptable form of interrogation? That's unbelievably stupid. As a general rule I approve of all forms of interrogation that do not involve violence or severe mental duress. There are literally thousands of things someone could do to compel the disclosure of information from a prisoner, and so I couldn't begin to list them all. Orbyte did nothing to parse your statement. He took it exactly as you meant it to be said, only he took out the example you provided at the end. Absolutely nothing about the content or what information you were attempting to convey was changed. Sorry, but you're just that scummy that you approve of rape sometimes.

As for who was attempting to define something as violence, you were actually attempting to downgrade the evil that we were committing by calling it merely 'discomfort' other then violence. Another slimy tactic that helps you excuse the inexcusable. In addition, your statement that our own troops undergo this technique (or used to) is laughably stupid. These people VOLUNTEER to undergo it. Guess what, when someone volunteers to have sex with another person it's called fun. When someone has sex with someone against their will it's called rape. Shockingly enough, when someone volunteers to be waterboarded it is training, and when someone has it done against their will it is torture. This is obvious to everyone (yourself included), and to pretend otherwise is incredibly dishonest.

Do you not notice the dozen or so people who are piling on you at this point? Did you ever stop to think for a minute that if you disagree with one or two people, maybe it's those two people, but if EVERYONE disagrees with you... maybe the problem lies with you?

Stop behaving like a child. You were wrong, and you said something dumb. Man up and admit it. What would your son think of you if he read this thread? Honestly.

Listing the dictionary definition and actually proving it makes your point are two separate things, kiddo. But, like I predicted already, you'd do nothing else other than accept your own interpretation and refuse anything else. So, whatever. You posting definitions is pretty much meaningless anyway considering your stance about arguing them.

I want you to list those forms of interrogation that YOU find acceptable; at least the ones you can think of. Not stupid. Not tought to do. I want to see some specifics from you instead of the generalities that you so frequently use as arguments. Generalities don't mean crap. So let's hear them.

And the entirety of 12 people on Anandtech have dogpiled on me? Wow dude. Impressive. What percentage is that out of the AT membership? :laugh:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Listing the dictionary definition and actually proving it makes your point are two separate things, kiddo. But, like I predicted already, you'd do nothing else other than accept your own interpretation and refuse anything else. So, whatever. You posting definitions is pretty much meaningless anyway considering your stance about arguing them.

I want you to list those forms of interrogation that YOU find acceptable; at least the ones you can think of. Not stupid. Not tought to do. I want to see some specifics from you instead of the generalities that you so frequently use as arguments. Generalities don't mean crap. So let's hear them.

And the entirety of 12 people on Anandtech have dogpiled on me? Wow dude. Impressive. What percentage is that out of the AT membership? :laugh:

My own interpretation happens to be the one accepted by the people who you know... make it their business to define words. Silly me. I said I don't want to argue about definitions, not that I don't want people to state what words mean. Surely you can see the difference.

Those 12 people happen to account for better then 90% of the people that have posted in this thread. If you want to include the people arguing in the video card forums as some sort of silent majority, feel free. Face the fact that you are sitting alone defending torture and rape. Think about it for a minute before you post again.

Generalities are just fine by the way, it is in fact the way Congress writes the laws defining what can and cannot be done. It's also the way treaties are written covering torture. Sorry if it doesn't meet the TLC standard, but then again seeing what that standard appears to be... I'm happy to avoid it.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Listing the dictionary definition and actually proving it makes your point are two separate things, kiddo. But, like I predicted already, you'd do nothing else other than accept your own interpretation and refuse anything else. So, whatever. You posting definitions is pretty much meaningless anyway considering your stance about arguing them.

I want you to list those forms of interrogation that YOU find acceptable; at least the ones you can think of. Not stupid. Not tought to do. I want to see some specifics from you instead of the generalities that you so frequently use as arguments. Generalities don't mean crap. So let's hear them.

And the entirety of 12 people on Anandtech have dogpiled on me? Wow dude. Impressive. What percentage is that out of the AT membership? :laugh:

My own interpretation happens to be the one accepted by the people who you know... make it their business to define words. Silly me. I said I don't want to argue about definitions, not that I don't want people to state what words mean. Surely you can see the difference.

Those 12 people happen to account for better then 90% of the people that have posted in this thread. If you want to include the people arguing in the video card forums as some sort of silent majority, feel free. Face the fact that you are sitting alone defending torture and rape. Think about it for a minute before you post again.

Generalities are just fine by the way, it is in fact the way Congress writes the laws defining what can and cannot be done. It's also the way treaties are written covering torture. Sorry if it doesn't meet the TLC standard, but then again seeing what that standard appears to be... I'm happy to avoid it.

I have to correct you on one point. TLC is not alone defending torture.

Originally posted by: Harvey

When they're convicted, they should all be given generous lifetime vacations at the beautiful downtown Guantanamo Hilton with free daily passes on the exciting waterboard ride.

It isn't torture.

However, I disagree with Harvey and TLC. Waterboarding is torture and I do not condone it, and neither do I condone the rape of anyone, even if they are a child rapist. If someone has done something that heinous they deserve to be put to death.

I've struggled with those concepts for quite a while, but after thinking about it long and hard, I just can't bring myself down to the level of those I despise. Now it does get tricky when you take into account the fact that we waterboard our own people, but I think the main thing to keep in mind is the context in which they are waterboarded.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Listing the dictionary definition and actually proving it makes your point are two separate things, kiddo. But, like I predicted already, you'd do nothing else other than accept your own interpretation and refuse anything else. So, whatever. You posting definitions is pretty much meaningless anyway considering your stance about arguing them.

I want you to list those forms of interrogation that YOU find acceptable; at least the ones you can think of. Not stupid. Not tought to do. I want to see some specifics from you instead of the generalities that you so frequently use as arguments. Generalities don't mean crap. So let's hear them.

And the entirety of 12 people on Anandtech have dogpiled on me? Wow dude. Impressive. What percentage is that out of the AT membership? :laugh:

My own interpretation happens to be the one accepted by the people who you know... make it their business to define words. Silly me. I said I don't want to argue about definitions, not that I don't want people to state what words mean. Surely you can see the difference.

Those 12 people happen to account for better then 90% of the people that have posted in this thread. If you want to include the people arguing in the video card forums as some sort of silent majority, feel free. Face the fact that you are sitting alone defending torture and rape. Think about it for a minute before you post again.

Generalities are just fine by the way, it is in fact the way Congress writes the laws defining what can and cannot be done. It's also the way treaties are written covering torture. Sorry if it doesn't meet the TLC standard, but then again seeing what that standard appears to be... I'm happy to avoid it.

You can argue your own interpretation all you want but until you recognize that the definition specifically refers to "purpose," you have no argument whatsoever. I've already explained that too yet you want to gloss over it. So...please. Is it your assertion that the specific purpose of waterboarding is "violating, damaging, or abusing?" If we wanted to do that why would waterboarding be necessary? Couldn't we just rope them up and toss them in the Carribean and let them flounder for a while instead? Now that would be some true "simulated" drowning. Why the controlled environment instead?

I notice you are dancing again concerning listing specifics of your approval of torture, as usual. Stop with your routine and commit; or admit you don't have the guts to do that because you might get called on your own hypocrisy.

Oh. And 12 whole people in this thread? Hahahaha. You just love to be the framer of what counts, don't you?

Pathetic. :roll:

 

[OrByte]

Let's look on the bright side:

Looks like our military has a heart after all.

Our US military let lose an innocent man without filing a singe charge against him. It only took 2 years to do it. While this might not be an example of torture, it signifies to me the line we are skirting in upholding the types of rules and laws that have governed war and that have existed in this country for a long time. 'Prisoners of war', 'terror suspects', 'enemy combatants?. These are all classifications that our esteemed pile of sh!t Attorney General Tony G muddled up in an attempt to create a grey area for our military forces to operate and detain people for unspecified reasons and for an indeterminate amount of time. Not good in my opinion.

OH and as for my sig. All TLC has to do is say that he doesn't in fact support rape in certain circumstances and then my quote would be wrong. But he won't and so the quote remains true. As for JD50s lame attempt to take Harvey's quote out of context...well...we ALL know how Harvey REALLY feels about waterboarding and torture now don't we?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Please continue to partially quote me OrByte because it's a perfect example of the low-brow, skanky tactics people like you will stoop to in this forum.

btw. *cough* see sig *cough*

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Please continue to partially quote me OrByte because it's a perfect example of the low-brow, skanky tactics people like you will stoop to in this forum.

btw. *cough* see sig *cough*

so then the sig is right. and you won't deny you support rape.

thanks TLC.

edit: BTW for those reading this...I feel really dirty doing this to TLC. I should be on Foxnews or something...I feel like Sean Hannity right about now...bleh.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

The "ticking time bomb" scenario is a thought experiment - it's almost purely theoretical. In fact, in our experience, people who defend torture by citing the scenario never cite a real-world example of its use.

Last year, Stuart Herrington, a retired Army colonel who's an expert in interrogation, penned an Op-Ed for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. In it, he wrote:

"The so-called ticking time bomb scenario is a Hollywood construct that I never encountered in my 30-year career."

If there really were a ticking time bomb...and the "detainee" knew about it, wouldn't he or she be able to hold out more easily, since the need for the torture would be ending at a prearranged time - when the ticking stopped? Just one more reason why that is a dumb "thought" experiment (more like an adrenaline experiment), no matter who uses it (including a Clinton).

The drive behind "state sponsered torture", it is to abrogate any notion of human rights, to drive out the Enlightenment-era idea of human rights in favor of a pre-Enlightenment conception of state power. Once you bring back state sponsered torture, the rest is easy, since there are fewer more egregious violations of human rights than torture. I just keep wondering whether the US wants to be the flagship nation for that particular charge into the abyss.

People who support torture, no matter what disclaimer they attach, really do so because at some level they like the idea of being in charge and reminding everyone who isn't in charge that any appearance of being a threat, or even competition, will be met with violence and pain. Those who advocate torture are doing it for no other reason than because they enjoy the idea of administering carefully metered, ever-increasing doses of suffering, regardless of any efficacy it might have, and most experts agree it's dubious at best as a source of info.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Here's a thought experiment..

If "waterboarding" is "not" torture, then why do it? How are we to believe that waterboarding, is effective if it's "not" brutal? How does anything less than torture get our worst, most dedicated sworn enemies to give up their secrets if it's no more stressful than a 7-11 Big Gulp? If it's not torture, it's not going to work, so why do it? If it is torture, and you believe it's effective and justified, then argue "that" position - don't hide behind euphemisms and implausible ignorance.

In the first public comment by any CIA officer involved in handling high-value al Qaeda targets, John Kiriakou, now retired, said the technique broke Abu Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds.

A "rabid" terrorist, such as Zubaydah who has sworn to die for his cause, spilled his guts with just 35 seconds of waterboarding?...Come on!

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: shira
Notice how TLC slimily attempts to define "torture" as "violence" in this discussion, and then tries to re-define violence. Does anyone need a further demonstration of how low TLC will stoop and how pointless it is to attempt any sort of civilized discussion with him?

But this thread is focused on "torture". Why not look up what the international definition of torture is?:

torture

United Nations Convention Against Torture

Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

Twist and turn, TLC. Try to re-define torture to suit your dishonest purposes. Try to sidetrack the conversation. Try to evade, dissemble, cheat, and fool. But you'll fool no one. You're alone on this. Waterboarding is so clearly torture, only someone like you would try to claim otherwise.

Erm, you might want to recheck who was trying to define torture as violence.

And, once again I'll point out that many of our own soldiers endure this very same "torture" every year as part of their training. Damn, we torture our own troops. Can you believe it?

Of course, you'll skirt that entire issue just as every other person in here wringing their hands and cryng tears of compassion over murdering terrorists and child rapists has.

You're trying to shift criteria, a classic strategy for the intellectually fraudulent.

First you tell us waterboarding isn't torture. I provided a description of what it is, the damage it does, and the international definition of torture to show that waterboarding is absolutely torture.

You, or course, can't dispute any of that. But instead of acknowleding that you're dead wrong, you try to throw in irrelevancies: First, you tell us that some members of the U.S. military are subjected to it as part of their training.

So what? Members of the military are trained in hand-to-hand combat, too, and can receive serious body-blows as a consequence. So by your reasoning, since members of the military are subjected to body blows as part their training, body blows can't possibly be a method of torture.

And of course you never addressed eskimospy's point that the members of the military are receiving that training voluntarily - they know what they're in for when the sign up for those special services. Do you think receiving such treatment involuntarily might make a difference? And you conveniently overlook that there's a big difference between a limited session of waterboarding administered to a trainee and long sessions of waterboarding inflicted day after day, week after week, on a prisoner. Finally, treatment has context: Giving Electro-convulsive therapy to someone who is severely depressed is not torture - the objective is to achieve a positive outcome. But if ECT were inflicted involuntarily on a prisoner, to get them to talk, that would be torture. You lump it all together and tell us that if an action has ANY non-torture applications (such as training the military), then it can't be torture in ANY context. You are a fool, a liar, or both.

As if this utter dishonesty weren't enough you shift criteria again, using the "argument" that the recipients of waterboarding are scum, so they don't deserve "compassion." Since the point of this thread is whether Cheney et al approved of torture, that "point" is completely irrelevant to this discussion. And in repeating that irrelevancy, you (again) ignore the cogent counter-argument that a principled opposition to torture doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "compassion" for terrorists and does have everything to with a strong belief of what a so-called "advanced socity" stands for.

So you repeat your absurd method of argumentation, exhibited over and over in the past: You ignore objective evidence opposing your position. You introduce illogical "points" that don't deserve the monitor-space they take up. You ignore the point of the thread, and try to sidetrack the discussion. And then you repeat your actions again and again, as if no one had corrected you already.

Intellectual honesty means reading and understanding what another is saying, and making to-the-point, honest responses. You do none those things.

 

[OrByte]

There is no point in reasoning with TLC and people like TLC. Which only leaves subjecting them to the same bullsh!t fallacious reasoning, ad hominem attacks, misdirection, and obfuscation that him and other like him love to employ in trying to get their message across.

Personally I think he does it on purpose just to try and egg us on to argue on the internet (something pointless) instead of actually being out there and doing some good in the real world.