Yes it is.  Judge Mukasey knows it is.  Chuck Schumer is a wuss for not not condemning Mukasey for refusing to condemn torture.  Waterboarding is a standard form of torture dating back at least as far as the Spanish Inquisition.  The United States has recognized waterboarding as torture and put people on trial for doing it dating far back into the 19th centruy. 

Jon Stewart mentioned something that's been on my mind.  We shouldn't call it waterboarding because it sounds like a cross between skateboarding and waterskiing; it sounds recreational.

We should call it what it is: Simulated drowning.  I'd be content to call it "drowning a guy but stopping before it kills him."

This is evil.  We are at a crossroads in this country. If we go down the road that says it's OK to torture people, we join the wretched savages of the Earth. 
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/nono.gif

Waterboarding is indeed torture, but torture is sometimes necessary.

I'm ok with torturing terrorists and their cohorts, but then again, I think humanity itself can often be seen as savage.

Sometimes, in order to properly deal with a savage, you have to engage in a little savagery yourself.

Waterboarding is indeed torture, but torture is sometimes necessary.

I'm ok with torturing terrorists and their cohorts, but then again, I think humanity itself can often be seen as savage.

Sometimes, in order to properly deal with a savage, you have to engage in a little savagery yourself.


Torture is never necessary. I'm pretty sure that given sufficient amounts of it one could get me or you to confess to the JFK assassination, a chronological impossibility. The information attained by torture is dodgy at best.

The other main problem I have with torture (and why I bolded your sentence) is that saying it's okay or necessary to use on certain people creates yet more second class citizens, people who are not quite as important as the rest of us. Their rights are constantly curtailed in various ways and, given enough groups of them, they will be the majority in this country one day.

Torture is perhaps the oldest and least reliable method of gathering information. The fact that many consider waterboarding acceptable is scary. The Khmer Rouge thought it was a good idea too...

We've talked over the phone before. Let's say I used the following words in a conversation: kill, bush, nuke, bomb in the mail, plan of attack, hack to bits, chemical order, next Sunday, praise allah. Sounds quite terroristic to me! It might peak the interest of the government, and not in a good way. The next thing I know is I'm on a plane to Syria to be 'interrogated' and held without evidence or a trial for 16 months, because I used some key words that terrorists might use.

The hypothetical conversation actually goes like this:

"Hey man, I tried to kill off the privet hedge today, but couldn't do it. That is some tough bush! I think it could withstand a nuke. I've got a better plan of attack than trying to hack to bits those weeds: I placed a call and ordered some bush-b-gone. I heard that stuff is the bomb. It's in the mail and should arrive by next Sunday. Praise alla the people at DuPont for making some great bush killer."

Ant

The Bush Administrations definition of torture is completely open ended.  I wouldn't be surprised if they use the rack. 

I think that Bush, Cheney, Mukasey, Condi, et al, should experience waterboarding first before they say that it is not torture.  They will be just fine the next day.



Cat

I think that Bush, Cheney, Mukasey, Condi, et al, should experience waterboarding first before they say that it is not torture.  They will be just fine the next day.



Cat


Are you suggesting that they feel empathy for the enemy? 

I think they crack at the mere thought of it happening.

Are you suggesting that they feel empathy for the enemy? 

I think they crack at the mere thought of it happening.



Empathy? Them? I don't think they know the meaning of the word. I just want to see them tortured.  :D ;D ;D



Cat

If we do it to their guys, they'll do it to our guys.

Even a dope can understand that.

I think torture is immoral in any case. The ticking time bomb scenario is about as likely as a meteor landing on your head. It will always be a hypothetical.  Just for the sake of it, let's be logical about the hypothetical.  If the guyy subjected to the torture tells the truth and the authorities are able to thwart the bombing, he will have gotten his fellow terrorists in trouble and ruined all their plans.  Nobody likes a snitch.  He's a dead man.  Thus, your detainee is going to clam up or lie for fear of reprisal, which is bound to be worse than waterboarding!
:o

Torture is never necessary. I'm pretty sure that given sufficient amounts of it one could get me or you to confess to the JFK assassination, a chronological impossibility. The information attained by torture is dodgy at best.

Good point.

The other main problem I have with torture (and why I bolded your sentence) is that saying it's okay or necessary to use on certain people creates yet more second class citizens, people who are not quite as important as the rest of us. Their rights are constantly curtailed in various ways and, given enough groups of them, they will be the majority in this country one day.

Good point again...

Torture is perhaps the oldest and least reliable method of gathering information. The fact that many consider waterboarding acceptable is scary. The Khmer Rouge thought it was a good idea too...

We've talked over the phone before. Let's say I used the following words in a conversation: kill, bush, nuke, bomb in the mail, plan of attack, hack to bits, chemical order, next Sunday, praise allah. Sounds quite terroristic to me! It might peak the interest of the government, and not in a good way. The next thing I know is I'm on a plane to Syria to be 'interrogated' and held without evidence or a trial for 16 months, because I used some key words that terrorists might use.

The hypothetical conversation actually goes like this:

"Hey man, I tried to kill off the privet hedge today, but couldn't do it. That is some tough bush! I think it could withstand a nuke. I've got a better plan of attack than trying to hack to bits those weeds: I placed a call and ordered some bush-b-gone. I heard that stuff is the bomb. It's in the mail and should arrive by next Sunday. Praise alla the people at DuPont for making some great bush killer."

Ant


LOL...  point taken....

Empathy? Them? I don't think they know the meaning of the word. I just want to see them tortured.  :D ;D ;D



Cat


WEBCAM!!!!! http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/ylsuper.gif

"If it's torture, then it's unconstitutional."

I decline to answer this poll on the grounds that I might have to answer for any answer I might have given.  Whether I see the position of Attorney-General as a stepping stone to planetary overlordship, or a cushy fallback from a failed attempt at planetary overlorship, I gotta keep my options open.

I'm not a lawyer, but I was close enough to one to know that in law school, they teach even the most larval-stage lawyer to never answer a hypothetical.  They hate that, even when not in court.  Have you ever seen a lawyer ever answer any hypothetical question?  Thinking through the implications of a set of circumstances is something judges do, because what they do constitutes precedent.  It's emphatically not for lawyers, because the only time a lawyer will be asked a hypothetical question  is by the other guy's lawyer, and it'll only be asked when the answer won't help his client's case. 

Remember, if you're a lawyer, it's a court of law, not a court of justice.

Remember, if you're a lawyer, it's a court of law, not a court of justice.


Good point...  Some would say that true justice is impossible for humans to render.

Good point...  Some would say that true justice is impossible for humans to render.


Aww, you had to bring rendition into it... 

WEBCAM!!!!! http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/ylsuper.gif



ROTFLMAO!!!!



Cat

Aww, you had to bring rendition into it... 


I actually wasn't thinking of that, but that's a great reference as well...  lol 

"If it's torture, then it's unconstitutional."

I decline to answer this poll on the grounds that I might have to answer for any answer I might have given.  Whether I see the position of Attorney-General as a stepping stone to planetary overlordship, or a cushy fallback from a failed attempt at planetary overlorship, I gotta keep my options open.

I'm not a lawyer, but I was close enough to one to know that in law school, they teach even the most larval-stage lawyer to never answer a hypothetical.  They hate that, even when not in court.  Have you ever seen a lawyer ever answer any hypothetical question?  Thinking through the implications of a set of circumstances is something judges do, because what they do constitutes precedent.  It's emphatically not for lawyers, because the only time a lawyer will be asked a hypothetical question  is by the other guy's lawyer, and it'll only be asked when the answer won't help his client's case. 

Remember, if you're a lawyer, it's a court of law, not a court of justice.

If I was in trouble and my lawyer opened his remarks with, "OK, your honor, let's say you had three guys all suspects of robbing the same bank..." I'd be saying, "Ohhhh f-f-f-f*ck, I am going to prison!"
:o

Have you ever seen a lawyer ever answer any hypothetical question?

Tony Blair was (is) a lawyer... ditto Michael Howard... getting them to answer direct questions is hard enough, let alone hypothetical ones.

One of the things we condemn foreign governments for is use of torture: to use it ourselves is not just wrong, it's staggeringly hypocritical.

To say that it's OK if you think the person you're torturing is a terrorist is more than a little cringeworthy; to make any kind of exception is definitely the thin end of the wedge.  The extreme would be someone about whom you already have proof of complicity in a terror plot, the precise details of which are unknown but believed to be imminent... is it valid to use whatever methods, including torture, to get the person to say what is going to happen and when, so that lives may be saved?

The problem I have with the above scenario is exactly what Red Ant said: even if you are sure this person is complicit, how can you be sure that what they say under torture is accurate?  The majority of people subjected to torture will say exactly what they think the torturer wants to hear, irrespective of truth.

PS Take 'em out for a beer or two.. I'm sure that'll work on Islamist terrorists, anyway ;)

PPS Jack - hope you've managed to deal with that bush, and don't have to wait eight years to get rid of it.