Conservative Shock Jock: Waterboarding is torture - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Baraka_Guru · 05-25-2009, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Well, first of all, waterboarding isn't unconstitutional nor illegal (In the U.S.). You might want it to be, but it isn't and referencing them as such doesn't do much to help your argument. But, moving on.

You're assuming that waterboarding isn't cruel and unusual punishment. It is, which is why it's unconstitutional. If it weren't cruel and unusual, it could be a standard practice in the justice system.

Quote:

The reason we waterboard suspected terrorists is because they're suspected terrorists who don't operate under the guidelines set forth by the Geneva Convention. They frequently target civilians, behead PoW's or journalists and have publicly stated that they won't stop until the opposing side is wiped out. We don't waterboard children because they're crimes don't necessitate being waterboarded. The same with priests or white collar criminals. Hell, we wouldn't even torture normal PoW's who were organized under a common banner.

This is why the terrorists are winning. They want America to play outside of its own boundaries. They're destroying the nation from within. That's what terror does.

Quote:

I don't care how callous of a sentiment you think it is, but if they're not going to "play nice", then neither should we. To make use of a popular idiom, "All's fair in love and war".

So to fight the terrorists one much do as they do. Interesting. You condone the moral destruction of America?

Quote:

Can no one pick up sarcasm anymore?

The basest form of irony? It's often hard to detect in text. It usually benefits from tonal nuances in speech, in addition to facial expressions such as eye rolling.

Willravel · 05-25-2009, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

I'm not that naive. Our enemies don't need a new recruiting tool.

Who said a "new" recruiting tool? Torture is their main recruiting tool. Main. Central. Most important. Without it, they would have lost their main recruiting tool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

They have 30/40/50 years worth of it. If you want to believe that a suspected terrorist released back to their country of origin would suddenly lose their anger and hatred towards the U.S., then that's your right to do so. But just because you believe it, doesn't make it so. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of detainees released by the U.S. went right back and joined a terrorist cell, and that they would do so regardless of the way they were treated whilst detained.

You've already lost that bet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

And through all of this, no one answered my questions so I'll ask again:

The difference is the intensity of suffering.

dippin · 05-25-2009, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Well, first of all, waterboarding isn't unconstitutional nor illegal (In the U.S.). You might want it to be, but it isn't and referencing them as such doesn't do much to help your argument. But, moving on. The reason we waterboard suspected terrorists is because they're suspected terrorists who don't operate under the guidelines set forth by the Geneva Convention. They frequently target civilians, behead PoW's or journalists and have publicly stated that they won't stop until the opposing side is wiped out. We don't waterboard children because they're crimes don't necessitate being waterboarded. The same with priests or white collar criminals. Hell, we wouldn't even torture normal PoW's who were organized under a common banner.

Not only is it cruel and unusual punishment, but there is actual legal precedent of the US prosecuting people for it.

This sort of "slippery slope" fallacy that you are trying to cling to here is just that, a fallacy. Claiming that it can't be torture because then anything that is unpleasant is torture is a great example of that fallacy.

roachboy · 05-25-2009, 10:21 AM

what's funny to me in this thread is that the more conservative folk persist in trying to control the rules that shape how the question of torture is framed, to keep it away from legal matters and problems that follow from the state as actor and instead want to substitute some manly man nonsense the basis for which is really nothing other than "the notion of torture is for wimps."

that folk seem to confuse this with an actual argument about torture makes the whole thing funnier still.

but it's not like this manly man shit isn't an element of how american foreign policy has worked for the past 70-odd years--after all, similar kinds of arguments underpin the national security state--effectively that if stalin was a dictator who didn't require parliamentary approval to act, then the united states had to structure itself so that it too could act as a dictatorship under certain conditions ("national security" dontcha know)--and there has been a steady stream of ultra-rightwingers who've been in positions to institute this logic through such delights as fascist paramilitaries in latin america and africa. there's a side of the united states that's been one of the priniciple terrorist organizations on the planet since the late 1940s. the problem that the ineptness of the bush administration created really is that now these practices are surfacing, and they're running into the fact that this ultra-right dimension of american-ness has been allowed to happen because it happens in the shadows---exposed the self-evident contradiction between it and any meaningful sense of "rule of law" makes the continuation of this fascist extension of the american empire untenable.

in the end it was always the manly men of the ultra-right who thought not only that torture was for wimps, but that law was as well.

to argue that torture is not torture if you in your manly man fantasy-world imagine that you'd be able to stand up to it sets you and only you up as the ultimate arbiter of everything. psychological dysfunction aside (narcissism--a kind of arrested development that stopped out just after object permanence--so an infantile view of the world) in a curious way these folk make the entire idea of a "war on terror" into a joke because, fundamentally, they are what they oppose. except of course these folk imagine that their Cause is correct and they believe it absolutely and so they can't possibly be what they oppose because those they oppose believe their cause is correct and they believe it absolutely.

the idiocy of this is astonishing.
fortunately, confined to the space of a messageboard, it unfolds as a joke. so it's funny.

Cynthetiq · 05-25-2009, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Who said a "new" recruiting tool? Torture is their main recruiting tool. Main. Central. Most important. Without it, they would have lost their main recruiting tool.

You've already lost that bet.

The difference is the intensity of suffering.

He has not lost that bet, the Pentagon released a study stating that 1 in 7 of the detained released from gitmo... it's not all but it's more than 0.

---------- Post added at 02:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:43 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

what's funny to me in this thread is that the more conservative folk persist in trying to control the rules that shape how the question of torture is framed, to keep it away from legal matters and problems that follow from the state as actor and instead want to substitute some manly man nonsense the basis for which is really nothing other than "the notion of torture is for wimps."

that folk seem to confuse this with an actual argument about torture makes the whole thing funnier still.

but it's not like this manly man shit isn't an element of how american foreign policy has worked for the past 70-odd years--after all, similar kinds of arguments underpin the national security state--effectively that if stalin was a dictator who didn't require parliamentary approval to act, then the united states had to structure itself so that it too could act as a dictatorship under certain conditions ("national security" dontcha know)--and there has been a steady stream of ultra-rightwingers who've been in positions to institute this logic through such delights as fascist paramilitaries in latin america and africa. there's a side of the united states that's been one of the priniciple terrorist organizations on the planet since the late 1940s. the problem that the ineptness of the bush administration created really is that now these practices are surfacing, and they're running into the fact that this ultra-right dimension of american-ness has been allowed to happen because it happens in the shadows---exposed the self-evident contradiction between it and any meaningful sense of "rule of law" makes the continuation of this fascist extension of the american empire untenable.

in the end it was always the manly men of the ultra-right who thought not only that torture was for wimps, but that law was as well.

to argue that torture is not torture if you in your manly man fantasy-world imagine that you'd be able to stand up to it sets you and only you up as the ultimate arbiter of everything. psychological dysfunction aside (narcissism--a kind of arrested development that stopped out just after object permanence--so an infantile view of the world) in a curious way these folk make the entire idea of a "war on terror" into a joke because, fundamentally, they are what they oppose. except of course these folk imagine that their Cause is correct and they believe it absolutely and so they can't possibly be what they oppose because those they oppose believe their cause is correct and they believe it absolutely.

the idiocy of this is astonishing.
fortunately, confined to the space of a messageboard, it unfolds as a joke. so it's funny.

and that's why i'm not interested in parsing the nuances, it's wrong on it's face, but at the same time so is murder and killing, yet that's acceptable in war or skirmish. This is why I've simply framed that I'm fine with it. America being the pinnacle of morals is not anything close to what I understand America. No moral high ground here that I see. We've stolen land, had our own genocide, corrupt politicians, and tortured people. To think that this is the end all be all, is naive at best.

Willravel · 05-25-2009, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

He has not lost that bet, the Pentagon released a study stating that 1 in 7 of the detained released from gitmo... it's not all but it's more than 0.

I'm afraid the Pentagon released that statistic without anything to back it up. Because records on detainees are so poor, there's literally no way the Pentagon could possibly know who were actually terrorists before they were picked up or who were innocent. This has been verified repeatedly in articles that I cannot cite here, but you can google if you google, say, "pentagon 1 7 return battlefield". When you get home from the pub. Worse still, the 1 in 7 that have become "terrorists" since being released have not been confirmed. The only two names that have come up—Mullah Shazada and Abdullah Al Ajmi—are involved in supposed terrorism that is HIGHLY suspect (it doesn't appear Mullah Shazada was ever captured, and there's no evidence Abdullah Al Ajmi blew himself up after being released).

I was under the recidivism rate argument had been debunked on TFP a while ago. Maybe it was another forum.

---------- Post added at 12:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

and that's why i'm not interested in parsing the nuances, it's wrong on it's face, but at the same time so is murder and killing, yet that's acceptable in war or skirmish.

Sometimes they are generally acceptable, but other times not so much. We have rules of war that we have to abide by. If we break those rules, there should be consequences.

roachboy · 05-25-2009, 11:24 AM

cyn--we've run through this before...the aspect of your position i respect while disagreeing is that you just say it. the problem is that it's hard to imagine a functional grounds on which this ok-ness could justify itself---on utility grounds, what torture generates is the desire on the part of the victim that the torture stop. so it is demonstrably *not* a way to get information that goes beyond "make this stop." the bush people appear to have understood this much, which explains why in some cases torture was used in an effort to get corroboration for an obviously false story that they understood to be politically useful.

there are also legal restrictions on it's use. international law, national law. in other debates, you've adopted positions that indicate you're a security-oriented kinda guy--in the everyday sense that you expect folk to abide by the law and seem to have little patience with folk who don't. except in this case, that of using torture. it seems inconsistent.

the "humanitarian" line on killing people is that pain is worse than death past a certain point, that it is more wrong to inflict unnecessary pain (and if you know that torture produces only one kind of information, and that information is that the torture stop, then the pain inflicted IS unnecessary) willfully and outside of that cordoned=off space of collective psychosis that we call battle than it is to kill people. this is obviously a very christian way of thinking about it for better (a moral Problem with the inflicting of unnecessary pain) and worse (this life is cheap because there's another one to follow, so death isn't necessarily so bad).

so you say you're fine with torture--but i don't think it's true---nor do i understand how the logic actually works that enables you to be fine with it because i can't figure out a coherent grounds for the position.

Willravel · 05-25-2009, 11:26 AM

I think that sentiment will have more weight coming from you, roach. Just for that I'm buying you a pint.

Cynthetiq · 05-25-2009, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

cyn--we've run through this before...the aspect of your position i respect while disagreeing is that you just say it. the problem is that it's hard to imagine a functional grounds on which this ok-ness could justify itself---on utility grounds, what torture generates is the desire on the part of the victim that the torture stop. so it is demonstrably *not* a way to get information that goes beyond "make this stop." the bush people appear to have understood this much, which explains why in some cases torture was used in an effort to get corroboration for an obviously false story that they understood to be politically useful.

there are also legal restrictions on it's use. international law, national law. in other debates, you've adopted positions that indicate you're a security-oriented kinda guy--in the everyday sense that you expect folk to abide by the law and seem to have little patience with folk who don't. except in this case, that of using torture. it seems inconsistent.

the "humanitarian" line on killing people is that pain is worse than death past a certain point, that it is more wrong to inflict unnecessary pain (and if you know that torture produces only one kind of information, and that information is that the torture stop, then the pain inflicted IS unnecessary) willfully and outside of that cordoned=off space of collective psychosis that we call battle than it is to kill people. this is obviously a very christian way of thinking about it for better (a moral Problem with the inflicting of unnecessary pain) and worse (this life is cheap because there's another one to follow, so death isn't necessarily so bad).

so you say you're fine with torture--but i don't think it's true---nor do i understand how the logic actually works that enables you to be fine with it because i can't figure out a coherent grounds for the position.

It's either wrong to kill people. Yes?

We don't want to kill people, but in the essense of war, it's okay to kill them. Otherwise, why not just make it a soccer match? or World Series of Poker? Or a chess match?

It's not a game, it's life or death stakes about how one is subjugated or not by another person or regime.

It's supposed to be ALWAYS wrong, but it's not, there's grey spots and areas where it's acceptable. I'm going with and have been, that someone will find that grey area where their moral code says that torture is fine. I'm not talking about gaining intel which you and others wish to keep putting this argument in front of. I've been stating that some will find it an acceptable position and action. It has in the past, and will in the future.

again, you may not believe it, but I am fine with it. It's something that happens not much different than warring and killing.

To put laws into place for the warring? Isn't that why they have military tribunals different than every day courts? If not why the difference? Because the moral code is different.

roachboy · 05-25-2009, 11:37 AM

so then the rationale for torture is that it is a theater of cruelty.
on the same order as saturation bombing, say--it generates the impression that the opponent is willing to do anything---anything at all---in this context.
so it's a signal that we're leaving the ordinary dehumanization of battle and entering into a special zone of it.

i know that's not what you said: im trying to fit it into a space i can interpret.

something closer to your argument might be that unless one is a pacifist and opposes war altogether, torture is simply part of the deal.

Cynthetiq · 05-25-2009, 11:39 AM

you can make it that simple, but then it is too simple because I'm not a pacifist and neither are most.

roachboy · 05-25-2009, 11:42 AM

i'm just trying to figure out the logic, so am thinking about the point of departure. everything else you say could be seen as an elaboration of the sentence, and all the nuances are in the elaboration--as is the case with almost any argument.

i'm don't buy it, but it's probably the closest to a coherent argument for torture i've seen in these threads.

but i want to be sure i understand it before i say anything else.

ratbastid · 05-25-2009, 11:43 AM

Or that, given the atrocities of war, it's going to happen anyway, so what the hell, might as well be for it? Is that roughly it, Cyn?

Like my fellow rb, I'm trying to get my head around your position, because from where I'm starting from it's entirely foreign. I'm clear there's something about it I'm not getting, and I'm clear I've got to get it before I can discuss it.

timalkin · 05-25-2009, 11:45 AM

Baraka_Guru · 05-25-2009, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

again, you may not believe it, but I am fine with it. It's something that happens not much different than warring and killing.

Dare I ask your opinion on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

But to keep this in context, would you be fine with American forces intentionally targeting civilians? I mean, that's what terrorists do, right?

Infinite_Loser · 05-25-2009, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

You're assuming that waterboarding isn't cruel and unusual punishment. It is, which is why it's unconstitutional. If it weren't cruel and unusual, it could be a standard practice in the justice system.

I don't see what's so cruel or unusual about it? And, again, the reason waterboarding isn't practiced in our criminal justice system is because there's no reason for it to be. I'm fairly sure that people aren't waterboarded willy-nilly. Indeed, they're waterboarded only when the situation necessitates (sp?) that they be waterboarded, and I'd guess this would be in situations where it's decided that the person might contain information which will save a great deal of American lives.

Quote:

This is why the terrorists are winning. They want America to play outside of its own boundaries. They're destroying the nation from within. That's what terror does.

In war, you know where "nice guys" end up? Dead. If we don't play their game then we're weak and they'll continue to attack us. If we do, then we're just as bad as them. Well, I'd rather be just as bad as them and alive to see another day.

Quote:

So to fight the terrorists one much do as they do. Interesting. You condone the moral destruction of America?

I don't really want to get into the whole "moral destruction of America" thing, as I believe that happened a long, long, long time ago.

Quote:

The basest form of irony? It's often hard to detect in text. It usually benefits from tonal nuances in speech, in addition to facial expressions such as eye rolling.

But then it would have been too obvious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Who said a "new" recruiting tool? Torture is their main recruiting tool. Main. Central. Most important. Without it, they would have lost their main recruiting tool.

I thought it was the fact that we've been inciting revolts and causing general instability in the area for our own economic goals (Mainly a safe access to oil).

Quote:

The difference is the intensity of suffering.

I'm sorry, but this is entirely subjective. Some people might have no reaction to being waterboarded, but react negatively to sleep deprivation. One person might have no reaction to physical beatings, but another be driven insane by listening to the same song for hours on end. Where, exactly, would you draw the line in labeling which one of these things is torture and which isn't?

Quote:

Not only is it cruel and unusual punishment, but there is actual legal precedent of the US prosecuting people for it.

This sort of "slippery slope" fallacy that you are trying to cling to here is just that, a fallacy. Claiming that it can't be torture because then anything that is unpleasant is torture is a great example of that fallacy.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm trying to find out what constitutes torture and where you draw the line being torture? Because, following the guidelines on torture set forth by the U.N., then very nearly anything which involves subjecting someone to something against their will in order to obtain information could be construed as torture.

Willravel · 05-25-2009, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timalkin

So if you kill someone with their permission, that's not murder?

I'm not a doctor, but if I remember correctly killing someone causes permanent physical damage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by timalkin

If you shoot someone with their permission, that's not attempted murder?

Again, not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure that causes serious physical damage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by timalkin

If you burn down somebody's house with their permission, that's not arson?

Do you see Hollywood special effects people getting hauled in for burning down houses? No? That's probably because they have permission. If I were to burn down a friend's house with his or her permission, I'd probably call the city and see what the legality was. I suspect it would break clean air laws in the area, but if the fire department gave me the okay (and the local fire departments give Myth Busters the okay on some really crazy stuff all the time), I would not be arrested for arson.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Dare I ask your opinion on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I wouldn't, he's got history with that question. Maybe ask him about the use of white phosphorus or botulinum toxin, as they're illegal but still within the theater of war.

timalkin · 05-25-2009, 12:29 PM

Willravel · 05-25-2009, 12:36 PM

Only if they have consent.

ratbastid · 05-25-2009, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timalkin

Well shit, if Myth Busters can do it, it must be OK. I wonder if they can legally waterboard terrorists?

No, dude, haven't you been reading? It's NOT legal to waterboard "terrorists", no matter who you are.

It's illegal (under a UN Convention that per the rules of this kind of thread I can't cite and so I'll bastardize by paraphrasing) when done by a government or under direct military orders.

If an individual waterboards somebody else against their will without being ordered to do so by a military superior or the like, I'd think it's probably assault of some type. Plus you'd probably have to have kidnapped them or incapacitated them in some way to get them ON the waterboard, so likely more things you could be charged with there.

That's all assuming the "victim" is not consenting. If the "terrorist" volunteers to be waterboarded on mythbusters... well, they'd still be smart to get him to sign a release. I agree with you that Will stepping up to torture his friends in their garage sounds like a uniquely bad idea, but there wasn't anything criminal in it.

Willravel · 05-25-2009, 12:40 PM

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.

timalkin · 05-25-2009, 12:48 PM

Baraka_Guru · 05-25-2009, 12:52 PM

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

Willravel · 05-25-2009, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timalkin

So waterboarding is specifically outlawed in the UN Convention? I don't remember seeing it.

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

ratbastid · 05-25-2009, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

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.

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.

JumpinJesus · 05-25-2009, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

You have to give it proper context, namely consent. If I walk up to someone on the street and punch him in the face, that's assault. If I do it in a boxing ring, it's a sport. If I have sex with a woman and she doesn't want it, it's rape. If she does, it's sex. Anyway, the guy in the above video certainly wasn't arrested for waterboarding that disc jockey. The training staff at SERE school aren't dragged off in handcuffs.

Like most crimes, torture is torture because it's not consensual. But you already know that.

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?

Willravel · 05-25-2009, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

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

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.

Cynthetiq · 05-25-2009, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

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.

Willravel · 05-25-2009, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I'm not a doctor, but if I remember correctly killing someone causes permanent physical damage.

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.

Cynthetiq · 05-25-2009, 03:16 PM

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.

Willravel · 05-25-2009, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

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.

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?

timalkin · 05-25-2009, 04:22 PM

Willravel · 05-25-2009, 04:33 PM

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.

powerclown · 05-25-2009, 04:39 PM

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

Willravel · 05-25-2009, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

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

Third time:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I'm not a doctor, but if I remember correctly killing someone causes permanent physical damage.

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.

Anyone care to go for 4?

Cynthetiq · 05-25-2009, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

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?

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.

Willravel · 05-25-2009, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

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.

What you've been saying seems to be more like this:

Quote:

Like I've said, I'm fine with some politician [pushing] for torture, [being] corrupt, or [being a] downright a crappy politician.

As you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

It's something that happens not much different than warring and killing.

I guess I'm just not understanding what you're saying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

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.

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.

ratbastid · 05-25-2009, 05:38 PM

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.

JumpinJesus · 05-25-2009, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

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.

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?

Derwood · 05-25-2009, 08:48 PM

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

05-25-2009, 10:21 AM	#84 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what's funny to me in this thread is that the more conservative folk persist in trying to control the rules that shape how the question of torture is framed, to keep it away from legal matters and problems that follow from the state as actor and instead want to substitute some manly man nonsense the basis for which is really nothing other than "the notion of torture is for wimps." that folk seem to confuse this with an actual argument about torture makes the whole thing funnier still. but it's not like this manly man shit isn't an element of how american foreign policy has worked for the past 70-odd years--after all, similar kinds of arguments underpin the national security state--effectively that if stalin was a dictator who didn't require parliamentary approval to act, then the united states had to structure itself so that it too could act as a dictatorship under certain conditions ("national security" dontcha know)--and there has been a steady stream of ultra-rightwingers who've been in positions to institute this logic through such delights as fascist paramilitaries in latin america and africa. there's a side of the united states that's been one of the priniciple terrorist organizations on the planet since the late 1940s. the problem that the ineptness of the bush administration created really is that now these practices are surfacing, and they're running into the fact that this ultra-right dimension of american-ness has been allowed to happen because it happens in the shadows---exposed the self-evident contradiction between it and any meaningful sense of "rule of law" makes the continuation of this fascist extension of the american empire untenable. in the end it was always the manly men of the ultra-right who thought not only that torture was for wimps, but that law was as well. to argue that torture is not torture if you in your manly man fantasy-world imagine that you'd be able to stand up to it sets you and only you up as the ultimate arbiter of everything. psychological dysfunction aside (narcissism--a kind of arrested development that stopped out just after object permanence--so an infantile view of the world) in a curious way these folk make the entire idea of a "war on terror" into a joke because, fundamentally, they are what they oppose. except of course these folk imagine that their Cause is correct and they believe it absolutely and so they can't possibly be what they oppose because those they oppose believe their cause is correct and they believe it absolutely. the idiocy of this is astonishing. fortunately, confined to the space of a messageboard, it unfolds as a joke. so it's funny. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-25-2009, 11:24 AM	#87 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	cyn--we've run through this before...the aspect of your position i respect while disagreeing is that you just say it. the problem is that it's hard to imagine a functional grounds on which this ok-ness could justify itself---on utility grounds, what torture generates is the desire on the part of the victim that the torture stop. so it is demonstrably not a way to get information that goes beyond "make this stop." the bush people appear to have understood this much, which explains why in some cases torture was used in an effort to get corroboration for an obviously false story that they understood to be politically useful. there are also legal restrictions on it's use. international law, national law. in other debates, you've adopted positions that indicate you're a security-oriented kinda guy--in the everyday sense that you expect folk to abide by the law and seem to have little patience with folk who don't. except in this case, that of using torture. it seems inconsistent. the "humanitarian" line on killing people is that pain is worse than death past a certain point, that it is more wrong to inflict unnecessary pain (and if you know that torture produces only one kind of information, and that information is that the torture stop, then the pain inflicted IS unnecessary) willfully and outside of that cordoned=off space of collective psychosis that we call battle than it is to kill people. this is obviously a very christian way of thinking about it for better (a moral Problem with the inflicting of unnecessary pain) and worse (this life is cheap because there's another one to follow, so death isn't necessarily so bad). so you say you're fine with torture--but i don't think it's true---nor do i understand how the logic actually works that enables you to be fine with it because i can't figure out a coherent grounds for the position. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-25-2009, 11:37 AM	#90 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so then the rationale for torture is that it is a theater of cruelty. on the same order as saturation bombing, say--it generates the impression that the opponent is willing to do anything---anything at all---in this context. so it's a signal that we're leaving the ordinary dehumanization of battle and entering into a special zone of it. i know that's not what you said: im trying to fit it into a space i can interpret. something closer to your argument might be that unless one is a pacifist and opposes war altogether, torture is simply part of the deal. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-25-2009, 11:39 AM	#91 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	you can make it that simple, but then it is too simple because I'm not a pacifist and neither are most. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

05-25-2009, 11:42 AM	#92 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i'm just trying to figure out the logic, so am thinking about the point of departure. everything else you say could be seen as an elaboration of the sentence, and all the nuances are in the elaboration--as is the case with almost any argument. i'm don't buy it, but it's probably the closest to a coherent argument for torture i've seen in these threads. but i want to be sure i understand it before i say anything else. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-25-2009, 11:26 AM	#88 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I think that sentiment will have more weight coming from you, roach. Just for that I'm buying you a pint.

05-25-2009, 11:43 AM	#93 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Or that, given the atrocities of war, it's going to happen anyway, so what the hell, might as well be for it? Is that roughly it, Cyn? Like my fellow rb, I'm trying to get my head around your position, because from where I'm starting from it's entirely foreign. I'm clear there's something about it I'm not getting, and I'm clear I've got to get it before I can discuss it.

05-25-2009, 11:45 AM	#94 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	.. __________________ Trinity: "What do you need?" Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns." -The Matrix Last edited by timalkin; 12-20-2010 at 07:08 PM..

05-25-2009, 12:29 PM	#98 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	.. __________________ Trinity: "What do you need?" Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns." -The Matrix Last edited by timalkin; 12-20-2010 at 07:08 PM..

05-25-2009, 12:36 PM	#99 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Only if they have consent.

05-25-2009, 12:40 PM	#101 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

05-25-2009, 12:48 PM	#102 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	.. __________________ Trinity: "What do you need?" Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns." -The Matrix Last edited by timalkin; 12-20-2010 at 07:06 PM..

05-25-2009, 12:52 PM	#103 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	I'm not sure the convention outlines it specifically, but the U.N. has stated that waterboarding should be prosecuted as torture. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

05-25-2009, 03:16 PM	#110 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	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. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

05-25-2009, 04:22 PM	#112 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	.. __________________ Trinity: "What do you need?" Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns." -The Matrix Last edited by timalkin; 12-20-2010 at 07:05 PM..

05-25-2009, 04:33 PM	#113 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

05-25-2009, 04:39 PM	#114 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Willravel, now try beheading. Report back whether you think that's torture.

05-25-2009, 05:38 PM	#118 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	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.

05-25-2009, 08:48 PM	#120 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	This is just an inane line of questioning. Get to your point already