"Duuuh....TORTURE DOESN'T WORK!
But besides even that PROVEN fact..."

I've learned over the years to disregard any argument that consists of some variation on "Everybody knows...." Unfounded assertions of "proven facts" don't fly. (If they're proven, surely you can easily find us a reference that doesn't consist of an opinion piece). In fact, I'm not sure I've heard that particular claim before this. Aggressive interrogation techniques have gotten us a _lot_ of useable information in this struggle, and previous ones.

"...I don't want my country involved in ANY kind of torture..."

Now you're getting closer to my previous point; but you're still missing it -- it's not torture. Is it n...

"Duuuh....TORTURE DOESN'T WORK!
But besides even that PROVEN fact..."

I've learned over the years to disregard any argument that consists of some variation on "Everybody knows...." Unfounded assertions of "proven facts" don't fly. (If they're proven, surely you can easily find us a reference that doesn't consist of an opinion piece). In fact, I'm not sure I've heard that particular claim before this. Aggressive interrogation techniques have gotten us a _lot_ of useable information in this struggle, and previous ones.

"...I don't want my country involved in ANY kind of torture..."

Now you're getting closer to my previous point; but you're still missing it -- it's not torture. Is it not nice? Extremely. But torture is not difined by "I don't like it". If a judge has declared it legal, than that judge has determined that, legally speaking, it's not torture.

I gave several examples of true torture. Are you arguing that scaring the s*** out of someone with fake drowning rises (sinks) to the level of starving rats eating your alive? THAT is torture. The two techniques are worlds apart, and repeatedly referring to one as "torture" does NOT, in fact, make it torture -- no matter how loudly you shout.

Okay I'll make it simple: It is not torture.

The word "torture", _especially_ in the context of the Geneva Conventions and (as one commenter put it) "war crimes", has a very specific legal definition. WATERBOARDING AIN'T IT.

I gave some very clear examples of _real_ torture, and conflating those examples (rats eating your stomach, drill to the kneecap, et al) with _scaring someone_, even scaring them _a lot_, shows a disturbing level of moral vacuity. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

Would I want it done to me? Of course not. But "I don't like it" does NOT equal the definition of torture. _Calling_ it "torture", even loudly and repeatedly, does not _make_ it torture -- in the real _or_ ...

Okay I'll make it simple: It is not torture.

The word "torture", _especially_ in the context of the Geneva Conventions and (as one commenter put it) "war crimes", has a very specific legal definition. WATERBOARDING AIN'T IT.

I gave some very clear examples of _real_ torture, and conflating those examples (rats eating your stomach, drill to the kneecap, et al) with _scaring someone_, even scaring them _a lot_, shows a disturbing level of moral vacuity. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

Would I want it done to me? Of course not. But "I don't like it" does NOT equal the definition of torture. _Calling_ it "torture", even loudly and repeatedly, does not _make_ it torture -- in the real _or_ legal sense.

The word _legal_ is very important here. The White House did not say it's "cool" or "fun", they said it was "legal". The story also says only to be used in "extraordinary circumstances" -- i.e. rarely. Thirdly, _you_ are the ones who have refexively applied the term "torture". The White House did not say "torture is legal", they said "waterboarding is legal".

While were on the topic of legalities...

Once and for all time.... The Geneva Conventions, very explicitly and deliberately, do not apply to people who fight in a war OUT OF UNIFORM. That is, you are specifically NOT allowed to fight an opponent while blending into the civilian population. If you do, the Geneva Conventions DO NOT APPLY to you _according to the Conventions themselves_. They did it on purpose when they wrote them.

The idea of the conventions is basically this: We're going to write down some rules that people have to follow -- even when fighting a war. If you break these rules, _you_ are guilty of a war crime, and your opponents are then _free of the rules themselves_ when fighting _you_. That is -- first person to break the Rules of War ceases to be _protected_ by them.

This is arguably what stopped Hitler from gassing London. If he did, he knew _we_ would have gassed Berlin. MILL

But just in case, I will let others speak on this matter:

Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40
years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S.
soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968
led to that soldier's severe punishment.

"The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968
was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The
Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius
Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.

Earlier in 1901, the United Stat...

read more»

But just in case, I will let others speak on this matter:

Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40
years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S.
soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968
led to that soldier's severe punishment.

"The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968
was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The
Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius
Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.

Earlier in 1901, the United States had taken a similar stand against
water boarding during the Spanish-American War when an Army major was
sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in
the Philippines.

And since we are comparing the users of torture and dividing them on who is naughty and who is nice, lets see who else has used this quaint procedure:

Spanish Inquisition
A form of torture similar to waterboarding called toca, along with garrucha (or strappado) and the most frequently used potro (or the rack), was used (though infrequently) during the trial portion of the Spanish Inquisition process. "The toca, also called tortura del agua,
consisted of introducing a cloth into the mouth of the victim, and
forcing them to ingest water spilled from a jar so that they had the
impression of drowning."[23] One source has claimed that the use of water as...

And since we are comparing the users of torture and dividing them on who is naughty and who is nice, lets see who else has used this quaint procedure:

Spanish Inquisition
A form of torture similar to waterboarding called toca, along with garrucha (or strappado) and the most frequently used potro (or the rack), was used (though infrequently) during the trial portion of the Spanish Inquisition process. "The toca, also called tortura del agua,
consisted of introducing a cloth into the mouth of the victim, and
forcing them to ingest water spilled from a jar so that they had the
impression of drowning."[23] One source has claimed that the use of water as a form of torture also had profound religious significance to the Inquisitors.

Colonial times

Agents of the Dutch East India Company used a precursor to waterboarding during the Amboyna massacre, which took place on the island of Amboyna in the Molucca Islands in 1623.
At that time, it consisted of wrapping cloth around a victim's head,
after which the torturers "poured the water softly upon his head until
the cloth was full, up to the mouth and nostrils, and somewhat higher,
so that he could not draw breath but he must suck in all the water."[25]
In one case, the torturer applied water three or four times
successively until the victim's "body was swollen twice or thrice as
big as before, his cheeks like great bladders, and his eyes staring and
strutting out beyond his forehead."

World War II

During World War II, Japanese troops, especially the Kempeitai, as well the Gestapo, the German secret police, used waterboarding as a method of torture. The German technique was called the German equivalent of "u-boat". During the Double Tenth Incident, waterboarding consisted of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, th...

read more»

World War II

During World War II, Japanese troops, especially the Kempeitai, as well the Gestapo, the German secret police, used waterboarding as a method of torture. The German technique was called the German equivalent of "u-boat". During the Double Tenth Incident, waterboarding consisted of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach.

Algerian War

The technique was also used during the Algerian War (1954-1962). The French journalist Henri Alleg, who was subjected to waterboarding by French paratroopers
in Algeria in 1957, is one of only a few people to have described in
writing the first-hand experience of being waterboarded. His book The Question, published in 1958 with a preface by Jean-Paul Sartre
(and subsequently banned in France until the end of the Algerian War in
1962) discusses the experience of being strapped to a plank, having his
head wrapped in cloth and positioned beneath a running tap:

The rag was soaked rapidly. Water flowed everywhere: in my mouth, in
my nose, all over my face. But for a while I could still breathe in
some small gulps of air. I tried, by contracting my throat, to take in
as little water as possible and to resist suffocation by keeping air in
my lungs for as long as I could. But I couldn't hold on for more than a
few moments. I had the impression of drowning, and a terrible agony,
that of death itself, took possession of me. In spite of myself, all
the muscles of my body struggled uselessly to save me from suffocation.
In spite of myself, the fingers of both my ha

Algerian War

The technique was also used during the Algerian War (1954-1962). The French journalist Henri Alleg, who was subjected to waterboarding by French paratroopers in Algeria in 1957, is one of only a few people to have described in writing the first-hand experience of being waterboarded. His book The Question, published in 1958 with a preface by Jean-Paul Sartre (and subsequently banned in France until the end of the Algerian War in 1962) discusses the experience of being strapped to a plank, having his head wrapped in cloth and positioned beneath a running tap:

The rag was soaked rapidly. Water flowed everywhere: in my mouth, in my nose, all ...

read more»

Algerian War

The technique was also used during the Algerian War (1954-1962). The French journalist Henri Alleg, who was subjected to waterboarding by French paratroopers in Algeria in 1957, is one of only a few people to have described in writing the first-hand experience of being waterboarded. His book The Question, published in 1958 with a preface by Jean-Paul Sartre (and subsequently banned in France until the end of the Algerian War in 1962) discusses the experience of being strapped to a plank, having his head wrapped in cloth and positioned beneath a running tap:

The rag was soaked rapidly. Water flowed everywhere: in my mouth, in my nose, all over my face. But for a while I could still breathe in some small gulps of air. I tried, by contracting my throat, to take in as little water as possible and to resist suffocation by keeping air in my lungs for as long as I could. But I couldn't hold on for more than a few moments. I had the impression of drowning, and a terrible agony, that of death itself, took possession of me. In spite of myself, all the muscles of my body struggled uselessly to save me from suffocation. In spite of myself, the fingers of both my hands shook uncontrollably. "That's it! He's going to talk," said a voice.

The water stopped running and they took away the rag. I was able to breathe. In the gloom, I saw the lieutenants and the captain, who, with a cigarette between his lips, was hitting my stomach with his fist to make me throw out the water I had swallowed.[29]

Alleg has stated that the incidence of "accidental" death of prisoners being subjected to waterboarding in Algeria was "very frequent."

How very French of you Mr. Bush.

Obviously your one content little bully, and no proof will change that.

Of course you talk about the Geneva Convention but show no links to back it up. Even the Administration is jumping through hoops to avoid the question, a spoke person says one thing, the A.G. another. But I guess reality has nothing to do with it.

Second torture is immoral and illegal and waterboarding, as described in the quotes above is torture. Inducing a reflex that can lead to your own body breaking its own bones against the restraints is torture.

But again, you want to feel safe and comfy, knowing your side can do no wrong. That is the definition of cowardice.

And as for the links, the first is a podcast, ...

Obviously your one content little bully, and no proof will change that.

Of course you talk about the Geneva Convention but show no links to back it up. Even the Administration is jumping through hoops to avoid the question, a spoke person says one thing, the A.G. another. But I guess reality has nothing to do with it.

Second torture is immoral and illegal and waterboarding, as described in the quotes above is torture. Inducing a reflex that can lead to your own body breaking its own bones against the restraints is torture.

But again, you want to feel safe and comfy, knowing your side can do no wrong. That is the definition of cowardice.

And as for the links, the first is a podcast, the second is satire, the third is from FRONTLINE and it is available both on my website and on their site:

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/rendition701/

Plus just because something is opinion does not mean that is not based on facts. I mean what you said above is clearly purely opinion, based on no facts whatsoever except those factoids spewed by the Bush Administration, who have not met a truth they can not twist or crush as they see fit.

3rd Geneva Convention, Article 4:

"Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
...
* 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
o that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
o that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
o that of carrying arms openly;
o that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

Al Qaeda certainly qualifies as an "o...

3rd Geneva Convention, Article 4:

"Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
...
* 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
o that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
o that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
o that of carrying arms openly;
o that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

Al Qaeda certainly qualifies as an "organized resistance", but routinely breaks all four of these rules, and thus are not "prisoners of war' under the conventions, but "unlawful combatants".

"Nowhere doe sit say that you can break the rules of war"

Ratifar -- It says that the rules of war (as defined by the Conventions) protect certain people, including Prisoners of War (as defined by the conventions). Civilians are a second protected group. You fall outside those definitions, the Conventions do _not_ protect you.

Al Qaeda are definitely combatants, and thus not civilians. Within the various groups of combatants described in that section of the Conventions, the quote above is the closest description of AQ, but really only as a description of what they could be but are not. That is, if you fit that description, you are a POW and covered. AQ fighters directly and routinely ...

"Nowhere doe sit say that you can break the rules of war"

Ratifar -- It says that the rules of war (as defined by the Conventions) protect certain people, including Prisoners of War (as defined by the conventions). Civilians are a second protected group. You fall outside those definitions, the Conventions do _not_ protect you.

Al Qaeda are definitely combatants, and thus not civilians. Within the various groups of combatants described in that section of the Conventions, the quote above is the closest description of AQ, but really only as a description of what they could be but are not. That is, if you fit that description, you are a POW and covered. AQ fighters directly and routinely break practically every point of the definition, and thus falls outside the protection of the Conventions.

The whole _point_ of the Conventions is to prevent crap like suicide bombers. There are rules, including "don't target civilians", and "don't _make_ targets of civians by blending into their numbers. The _reason_ for those rules is to spare civilians as much as possible during war. Soldiers know they face possible death, but targeting innocent bystanders crosses the line, beyond which they are no longer protected by the very rules of war that they have broken.

Excellent points, strider. Great job in the face of much irrationality.
Papananook, you made some good points too. They were just clouded by your inanity and self-righteous indifference. I wonder if the point of conflict is not, like strider points out, one of definition.
papananook, you seem to blindly ignore the point that referring to waterboarding as "torture" clearly violates the rational discussion to be had.
It is not unlikely that waterboarding may be responsible for the fact we have not had more terrorist attacks on our soil and perhaps limited them abroad. So lives saved is the higher good here in light of the method used. And it likely was used.

I am not sure where I place the...

Excellent points, strider. Great job in the face of much irrationality.
Papananook, you made some good points too. They were just clouded by your inanity and self-righteous indifference. I wonder if the point of conflict is not, like strider points out, one of definition.
papananook, you seem to blindly ignore the point that referring to waterboarding as "torture" clearly violates the rational discussion to be had.
It is not unlikely that waterboarding may be responsible for the fact we have not had more terrorist attacks on our soil and perhaps limited them abroad. So lives saved is the higher good here in light of the method used. And it likely was used.

I am not sure where I place the value of human life in regard to the method used in saving it. However, I am certain I do not place waterboarding off the table in that pursuit.