Ah, good point, Rat. I'm not under the UCMJ and other military laws and rules. I suspect even with consent the military would be getting in a ton of trouble.

..

I'm not sure the convention outlines it specifically, but the U.N. has stated that waterboarding should be prosecuted as torture.

This assumes that everything that could ever possibly constitute torture is somehow listed somewhere. That's not how the law works.

Well, it's even more specific than that. The UN Convention on Torture defines torture as being applied or ordered by a regime or military/political leader (he said, not citing sources). What you do in a garage with your friends couldn't possibly be torture, under that definition. But done to an unwilling waterboardee, it's probably still a crime.

Why should we take your word for it that it was consensual? Because you say it was?

Shouldn't the authorities be the ones to determine that?

So, I ask again - you've admitted to committing a crime. Have you turned yourself over to the authorities so they can investigate?

I suppose I can be arrested (many innocent people are arrested), but since on the stand the "victims" will all either say it was entirely consensual or purger themselves, I'll be acquitted. Then I'll sue whomever turned me in for defamation.
I've admitted to waterboarding consenting adults and being waterboarded consensually, therefore I've not admitted to committing a crime. There's no reason to feign ignorance.

I don't believe the law works that way, otherwise Dr. Kevorkian could have sued for defamation of character.

I don't believe the law works that way, otherwise, Dr. Kevorkian would not be prosecuted for murder at all at all.

I can't stand repeating myself. Like I said above:
It's apples and oranges. Or do you think someone voluntarily killing a shock jock on camera would get away scott free? We're all agreeing that the man in the OP isn't currently being investigated or was arrested on the charge of torture or assault. I'm in the green on this one.

you are stating that because it's consensual makes it okay, I'm positing that the law doesn't distinguish consent as the determining factor. I'll be asking my legal friends about this at the office tomorrow.

It does in this case, but that's not important because you're fine with torture. You aren't responsible so it's not your problem, not yours to deal with. It's just a part of the human existence and you don't judge it ethically or morally. Right? Or am I wrong? If you aren't fine with torture I'm assuming you'll be leading the charge to arrest and prosecute those American military and intelligence personnel that tortured then, demonstrating that you're not "fine" with torture?

Man, you're really painting yourself into a corner on this one.

---------- Post added at 04:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:30 PM ----------

Wait a second, we've got plenty of lawyers here on TFP. I'm sure one of them can make an educated determination as to whether or not consensual waterboarding in a controlled environment warrants arrest or is simply stupid but perfectly legal. Anyone?

..

You're right, timalkin, that the UN has screwed up on a number of occasions, thus earning healthy skepticism, I'll be the first to admit that... but when the US signs to something like the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, it becomes US law. That's how these things work. If we didn't want to live by their rules, we shouldn't have signed the convention. It's US law now and legally has to be enforced, just like the Geneva Conventions and all other US treaties and agreements.

Willravel, now try beheading. Report back whether you think that's torture.

Third time:
Anyone care to go for 4?

actually I don't give a crap, because I'm fine with it. You're the one who can't be wrong, not me.

I've never not once said to not bring someone to courts to prosecute if there is evidence of breaking any laws. Like I've said, I'm not surprised if and when some politician has pushed for torture, was corrupt, or downright a crappy politician.

really should learn to read what I've posted, not what you want it to say.

with that, I'm done here because I won't be civil if I continue to post in this thread. consider this the back button.

You've really not been reading my posts.

What you've been saying seems to be more like this:
As you said:
I guess I'm just not understanding what you're saying.
There's honestly no need to get worked up. This is just a discussion between adults about a challenging and controversial subject. If you're wrong, you shouldn't take it personally and if I'm wrong, I promise I won't take it personally. Anyway, our discussion isn't going to yield any consequence on us policy, it's just an intellectual exercise.

My god. I'm not sure I've ever seen a thread on TFP quite as thoroughly destroyed by trolls. This is really something. I don't know if people here have an agenda not to be discussing this, or if it's personal against other posters here, but... Wow, people. Wow.

Let's try this again.

You say it was consensual. I ask why we should believe you. You've still not answered that. Is there some reason that some of us might have reason to doubt your honesty here? I mean, has there ever been a time here where you've been less than honest with the good members of tfp?

I'll ask again - why should we take your word for it that the torture you inflicted on another person was consensual, simply because you say so?

Are you planning on turning yourself in to the authorities so they can determine whether or not it was consensual?

Another question, if you don't mind. You've said you stopped waterboarding because it seemed like something a freshman would do. Are you now saying that waterboarding is little more than a sophomoric stunt?

One more question. Last one for this post - I promise. How is alerting the authorities that one suspects a crime has been committed defamation of character?

This is just an inane line of questioning. Get to your point already

What are you talking about?

At first I was surprised that we're still having this conversation. And then, upon reading it, I became surprised at how far out it's gotten.

JumpinJesus: I honestly don't know what's going through your head here. I see what you're getting at, I just don't understand why it's so bloody important to you. The merits of any personal claim made on an internet forum are dubious at best, and are not worth such tenacity.

I expected better from you. Let it go.

Willravel: Your personal claims regarding waterboarding don't strike me as particularly relevant when discussing said action as US policy. This is not your usual level of posting, either; even if we take as granted that your personal experience in the matter is relevant and actually carries weight in this discussion (which I'm not personally convinced it does), we have much more powerful testimony available in the accompanying video.

Before anyone says it, no I'm not a staff member here. At the same time, this is not the type of discussion I expect to encounter here. I would dearly like to see this topic move back into the realm of civility; as it is, I'm a bit embarrassed by the whole affair. The community that I identify with and that I consider to be one of the most mature and respectful communities in the online realm has degenerated into nothing more than mudslinging and name calling.

Seriously, people. This is grade school shit. Let's move on.

This is totally fair. And you're right that my personal experience doesn't really have any bearing on the discussion at hand. Citing the video seems just fine in order to demonstrate the severity of the process. This case can be argued using available and verifiable evidence, and I will do so.

Thanks for the objectivity.

Thank you, Martian. Much better said than I could have mustered. Or did muster.

Torture was so last week.

:)

Now, if Rush, Cheney, and Glenn Beck will see how long they will be able to last before giving up their bank account number (and will be penalized more for giving fake info). We'll see if they still think it is torture after that.

Oh look, I was right....

Gawker - Mancow's 'Waterboarding' Was Completely Fake - mancow

I'm gonna go with you're being sarcastic, right? Because otherwise... well, seriously? If not you're quoting "Gwaker" as a source for something. The next thing you know you'll be listening to Limbaugh and hearing rational thoughts.

That was already debunked Derwood. You see, since waterboarding is illegal, he was threatened with arrest for going through with it - even though it was consensual. In order to avoid the Chicago police from preventing the event from taking place, they passed it off as a hoax, or a radio stunt in their promotion of the event.

Seems that even if it's consensual, it's still illegal.

It also seems that it wasn't a hoax.

The whole story, with video from Keith Olbermann, can be found here.

From the article-

Sounds about right. I told the truth, now everyone hates me.

It's interesting that Mancow is having to deal with this from the other direction now. He's appeared several times on Countdown (partially because Olbermann/MSNBC donated to a good cause), and is earning a lot of respect from people on the left for being honest, but he's having to deal with what I would assume are people that used to listen to him religiously. That must be very surreal for him. Do you think that they honestly don't trust him after listening to him for so long, or is it feigned disbelief in order to sustain a state of cognitive dissonance? If it's the latter, how long can that dissonance really last? Will my liberal children's children be having this same debate?

Surprisingly not. On his original appearance on Olbermann last week, he said that his listeners respected that he was honest to them about it. Despite all of the hardcore beliefs of his fans, they stuck by him overall.

I'm pleasantly surprised. I respect those listeners a great deal for being mature and honest enough to stick to the facts. It's not always an easy thing to do, especially when you have your ego invested in something the way many torture supporters do.

And therein lies the sole aspect of this whole thing that still retains a glimmer of interest to me.

This is such a testosterone-laden discussion. Waterboarding isn't torture, it's just a splash on the face, and all those sissy trrists can't handle a taste of their own medicine. I was interested to see how this paradigm as I perceive it would react to Mancow's reversal on the subject, and what implications this might have for the overarching discussion.

I don't see many people denying that waterboarding is torture, now. They may be out there; there's too many filters in my way when it comes to American political debates for me to be 100% up to speed all the time, but it seems from what I do see that the vocal proponents of the practice have all but disappeared. Whether this is a direct consequence of the actions of Mr. Cow, or simply the result of a larger trend, I'm not certain. I suspect the latter, but really can offer no authority here.

This little drama seems played out to me. Some pundit thought he was relevant, and for a brief instant maybe he even was. Time to move on to important stuff now.

I think the last battle on this issue lies with ex-VP Cheney. If we can get him to shut up or someone to utterly shut him down completely during an interview, the last real bastion for pro-torture will have been lost. We can finally move on to things that deserve learned and honest debate.

Sorry, I only skimmed the article. Now I feel dumb :mad:

Here's the video of interview where Mancow answers the hoax allegations:



I give him a lot of respect for his honesty on all of this.