Waterboarding Hyprocrisy

[SadisticNature]

The US has a long history of a double standard on waterboarding. They've done it cheerfully in the early 20th century invasion of the Philippines. They've done it somewhat reluctantly in the early 21st century. In the interim they've put people to death for war-crimes when US troops were waterboarded (namely the war-crimes trials in Japan).

One of the standards that would be consistent with US actions would suggest its acceptable to water-board someone as long as they are not white. I don't believe this is the actual case, I think its more likely something like "It's ok for the US to do it, but its not ok for anyone to do it to them."

Regardless the US seems to be rather hypocritical about this.

For the record: Early 20th century US Army song "The Water Cure"

Get the good old syringe boys and fill it to the brim.
We've caught another n!gger and we'll operate on him.
Let someone take the handle who can work it with a vim.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

Chorus:

Hurray. Hurray. We bring the Jubilee.
Hurray. Hurrah. The flag that makes him free.
Shove in the nozzle deep and let him taste of liberty.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

We've come across the bounding main to kindly spread around
Sweet liberty whenever there are rebels to be found.
So hurry with the syringe boys. We've got him down and bound.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

Oh pump it in him till he swells like a toy balloon.
The fool pretends that liberty is not a precious boon.
But we'll contrive to make him see the beauty of it soon.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

Keep the piston going boys and let the banner wave.
The banner that floats proudly o'er the noble and the brave.
Keep on till the squirt gun breaks or he explodes the slave.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

Chorus (variant at end):

Hurrah. Hurrah. We bring the Jubilee.
Hurrah. Hurrah. The flag that makes him free.
We've got him down and bound, so let's fill him full of liberty.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

For the record the Taft administration worked actively to portray the Filipino's as uneducated African tribesmen, hence the use of the n-word in the song.

American soldiers waterboarding a Filipino was actually on the cover of Life magazine, May 22nd 1902.

While we are on the topic of warcrimes, American generals gave the order to kill everyone over 10. No one was ever charged.

While China has actively protested changes to Japanese history books that downplay their atrocities, the US has largely ignored any protests by the Philippines about their downplaying the atrocities.

In fact despite experts having shown the claims to be outright false, they still describe those killed in the Phillipines as "freedom fighters" and not civilians and vastly reduce the numbers.

In WWII, Japanese and German prisoners shown to have participated in waterboarding were executed for warcrimes establishing a legal precedent that the US belives that waterboarding is a warcrime, and also a capital offense. Yet for several years in the 21st century they actively pursued it.

[MMI]

Isn't it a fact that all imperial powers, from Egypt, through Rome, Spain, Britain, France, Japan and to the USA sometimes have to use brutal measures on the territories they rule in order to prevent unrest and subversion among the natives, and if individuals have to receive harsh treatment to demonstrate the futility of resisting, then so be it. It isn't hypocrisy at all it is simply a demonstration of that true fact of life, some people cannot be reasoned with.

[SadisticNature]

The leader of the resistance in the Philippines was intent on establishing a democracy based on the US constitution. The US decided they needed to be in charge which meant destroying democracy and putting up a figurehead.

Also, the kind of atrocities committed by imperialist powers are exactly the reason imperialism has largely been abandoned.

And if by some people cannot be reasoned with you mean the Americans in said situation then by all means I'd agree. But the Philippines actively worked to throw off their Spanish oppressors and welcomed the US, in the belief that their Constitution did not support colonialism. The US decided to make the Philippines a colony and put down resistance resulting from this betrayal with orders like "shoot anyone over the age of 10".

I'm not saying other imperialist powers didn't do equally terrible things. I'm just saying the US has a long history of war crimes against non-whites, and tends to consider them as mild offenses, while the same acts against their own citizens are cause for execution.

[MMI]

I was trying to agree with you. By "cannot be reasoned with" I meant failing to submit to the imperial power completely instead of aspiring to freedom.

[TwistedTails]

Interesting bit of revisionist history there. But what the hey, any opportunity to do some good ol U.S. bashing right? Was there nothing recent you could distort? This is neither News or a World event unless of course your time machine is finally working. Would you mind citing a source or two? I'm interested in how you know what someone was thinking in 1903?

I support freedom of speech, so feel free to continue U.S. bashing. Just kindly do it in German, Chinese, or Russian on a Party approved message board.

Oh.. And try throwing in a fact or two. You know, Just for the fun of it.

[SadisticNature]

One of the great successes of conservatism is the ability to completely distort history but since you asked for sources here goes:

1) The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt, 8 Vols (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press) 1951-1954 V254

2) "United States Indian Policy and the Debate over Philippne Annexation: Implications for the Origins of American Imperialism" The Journal of American History 66, no 4 (March 1980) 810-831

3) Eric T. L. Love, Race over Empire: Racism and U.S. Imperialism 1865-1900 (Chapel HIll: University of North Carolina Press, 2004

4) TR, The Winning of the west 4:200

5) Matthew Frye Jacobson, Barbarian Virtues: The United States Encounters Foreign Peoples at Home and Abroad. 1876-1917 (New York: Hill & Wang, 2000).

6) Benevolent Assimilation: The American Conquest of the Phillipines 1899-1903. (New Havety, CT: Yale University Press, 1982).

7) James Blount, American Occupation of the Phillipines 1898-1912 (New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1913).

Along with several others.

As for knowing what people think. There are surviving records in the forms of: (i) Documented Conversations (ii) Collected Letters (iii) Policy Decisions and Documented Statements in support (for example to the senate or congress).

And what sources/evidence is your opinion that this is revisionist history based on? The fact that it doesn't jive with your idea of what America stands for?

[denuseri]

Oh btw being a conservative or a liberal doesnt have anything to do with it. All parties and political factions are just as capable when it comes to distorting history to suit their own means.

[TwistedTails]

One of the great successes of conservatism is the ability to completely distort history but since you asked for sources here goes:

So your first thought in reply is to attempt to discredit me with a sweeping charge against conservatives?
Fairly typical, but I must admit being called a conservative left me with sore sides from laughing so hard.
I won't stoop to tossing a "Liberal" label on you though. It's a tactic used by those who have no other legitimate response.

One of the great successes of conservatism is the ability to completely distort history but since you asked for sources here goes:

1) The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt, 8 Vols (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press) 1951-1954 V254

2) "United States Indian Policy and the Debate over Philippne Annexation: Implications for the Origins of American Imperialism" The Journal of American History 66, no 4 (March 1980) 810-831

3) Eric T. L. Love, Race over Empire: Racism and U.S. Imperialism 1865-1900 (Chapel HIll: University of North Carolina Press, 2004

4) TR, The Winning of the west 4:200

5) Matthew Frye Jacobson, Barbarian Virtues: The United States Encounters Foreign Peoples at Home and Abroad. 1876-1917 (New York: Hill & Wang, 2000).

6) Benevolent Assimilation: The American Conquest of the Phillipines 1899-1903. (New Havety, CT: Yale University Press, 1982).

7) James Blount, American Occupation of the Phillipines 1898-1912 (New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1913).

Along with several others.

Followed by a nice laundry list of books.
Nice titles, but all that shows is that you can manage a library reference or internet book search. You still gave exactly 0 references.


As for knowing what people think. There are surviving records in the forms of: (i) Documented Conversations (ii) Collected Letters (iii) Policy Decisions and Documented Statements in support (for example to the senate or congress).
Yes, very nice use of punctuation, someone just skimming the post might think you actually said something here, But again you fail to build your case, opting instead for some vague references to "documents". 0 documentation provided to support your claims


And what sources/evidence is your opinion that this is revisionist history based on? The fact that it doesn't jive with your idea of what America stands for?
Well, I do have some familiarity with the topic, but my sources are not in question. Yours are. As far as "Not Jiving" with my idea of what America stands for you are quite wrong. I am well aware. You on the other hand appear to be intentionally ignoring the fact that much has changed in the world since the beginning of the 20th century. The world was ruled by the "Empires" at that time. You would have had a very hard time finding a government that did not employ such practices in war. To attempt to make the argument that the U.S. of today is the same U.S. of that time is simply ludicrous. Following that logic we would need to hold the modern day residents of Athens responsible for the massacre of Melos at the end of the Peloponnesian War.

You make several other statements which I consider to be either uninformed, or intentionally obtuse, but I will give you the "benefit of the doubt" and not address them.

Oh, and this thread is still not News, or World Events. It's politics, not very good politics, but still politics.

[SadisticNature]

Firstly, you attack both my claim and my supporting evidence, without providing a counterclaim or any sources of your own. I still contend the parallels to conservatism are striking, where this is often the predominant tactic in all sorts of debates (particularly evolution). I was not making the argument that conservatives are the only side who distort history. I was more claiming that the instant disagreement without any supportive evidence.

The problem with the historic justification of "well everyone else was doing it" is that it can justify all sorts of atrocities, including the holocaust (It's not like other empires weren't oppressing minorities through the use of concentration camps, torture and slaughter).

As for the choice of forum, there have been other talks about waterboarding in this thread. I find it interesting to look at the history of waterboarding by and against Americans, particularly since it shows that by Americans goes unpunished while against Americans results in executions.

As for the grammar comments, yes I agree that was rather poorly written, the point was to list the documents and I wasn't checking over my work very carefully.

I'll be happy to attack your grammar with equal zeal, there are plenty of mistakes you've made even in just this thread. I just don't see how that is productive.

[SadisticNature]

The whole: If you disagree with me do it in German, Russian or Chinese on a party message board is exactly the kind of statement conservatives make. Liberals tend to believe that America includes people who according to them are "wrong" or "misguided". Conservatives say if you disagree with them, you're a "socialist" or you're "unamerican".

[SadisticNature]

In page 92 of "The Imperial Cruise" you can see the cover of "Judge" magazine. (Judge magazine went on to become the New Yorker), portraying the Filipino's as Negro's.

Much of the work from the sources I've mentioned comes from there, with properly referenced direct quotes. However, I lack the time to copy them all out for you so I'd recommend reading it.

[Saheli]

The US decided to make the Philippines a colony and put down resistance resulting from this betrayal with orders like "shoot anyone over the age of 10".


... is that a real example or a hyperbole?

[Saheli]

Interesting bit of revisionist history there. But what the hey, any opportunity to do some good ol U.S. bashing right? Was there nothing recent you could distort? This is neither News or a World event unless of course your time machine is finally working. Would you mind citing a source or two? I'm interested in how you know what someone was thinking in 1903?

I support freedom of speech, so feel free to continue U.S. bashing. Just kindly do it in German, Chinese, or Russian on a Party approved message board.

Oh.. And try throwing in a fact or two. You know, Just for the fun of it.

Ok...I basically have zero knowledge of waterboarding in the first place. But this is obviously an explosive topic. So you are responding in a very emotional way, but I am not really sure I know what your views are on waterboarding as much as your views on SadisticNature's views on waterboarding. I am very interested in hearing (or reading as the case may be) your opinions.

[SadisticNature]

To be clear "The Philippines" meant the area outside the concentration camps established by the US within the Philippines so its hyperbolic in the sense that it doesn't mean actually everyone. But it did mean if you were on your property and over 10 you were to be executed.

The US Army was also involved in the systematic execution of 1300 Filipino prisoners of war in one incident in 1902.

To conclude my post a quote from Roosevelt:

"Nineteenth-century democracy needs no more complete vindication for its existence than the fact that it has kept for the white race the best portions of the new world's surface." Theodore Roosevelt, 1897.

[TwistedTails]

Firstly, you attack both my claim and my supporting evidence, without providing a counterclaim or any sources of your own.
This surprises you? You have gone to a lot of trouble NOT to produce your sources. That tells me that you are simply parroting something you have read or been told, without bothering to do your own research to verify the accuracy of the statements. How do you expect someone to produce a "counterclaim" if you refuse to produce your documentation? Handy tactic if you don't really want a discussion. I see it a lot.

You have produced up to this point no supporting evidence. In fact up to this point I still contend the parallels to conservatism are striking, where this is often the predominant tactic in all sorts of debates (particularly evolution). I was not making the argument that conservatives are the only side who distort history. I was more claiming that the instant disagreement without any supportive evidence.
Here again you miss the point. You opened the topic, I challenged and asked for your sources. You refused to give them. You are again trying to shift this to a Liberal vs Conservative debate, sure it will distract readers from the fact that you have yet to support your claim, but I hate to break the news to you but a liberal with a healthy dose of common sense sounds a lot like a conservative and vice versa. I on the other hand will quote my resources if and when we actually begin to discuss the subject.


The problem with the historic justification of "well everyone else was doing it" is that it can justify all sorts of atrocities, including the holocaust (It's not like other empires weren't oppressing minorities through the use of concentration camps, torture and slaughter).

ROFL, Nice try, but that's not what I said, and you and everyone reading knows it. "That's the way it was" is a lot different than "well everyone else was doing it" It is not attempting to justify anything, it just states a fact. You can either accept that, or use the afore mentioned time machine to change history.


As for the choice of forum, there have been other talks about waterboarding in this thread. I find it interesting to look at the history of waterboarding by and against Americans, particularly since it shows that by Americans goes unpunished while against Americans results in executions.
News is recent.. as in NEWs and World Events. It is my opinion that this is politics. Its not an issue though, If the moderators feel the thread needs moved they will move it.


As for the grammar comments, yes I agree that was rather poorly written, the point was to list the documents and I wasn't checking over my work very carefully.

I'll be happy to attack your grammar with equal zeal, there are plenty of mistakes you've made even in just this thread. I just don't see how that is productive.

I was not attacking your grammar. That's not my style because, as you said, it would not be productive. What I was pointing out was this....

As for knowing what people think. There are surviving records in the forms of: (i) Documented Conversations (ii) Collected Letters (iii) Policy Decisions and Documented Statements in support (for example to the senate or congress).
Where you used a lot of punctuation to make it look like you were offering source documents, while producing none at all.

[TwistedTails]

The whole: If you disagree with me do it in German, Russian or Chinese on a party message board is exactly the kind of statement conservatives make. Liberals tend to believe that America includes people who according to them are "wrong" or "misguided". Conservatives say if you disagree with them, you're a "socialist" or you're "unamerican".

Nice editing, what I said was....


I support freedom of speech, so feel free to continue U.S. bashing. Just kindly do it in German, Chinese, or Russian on a Party approved message board.

Oh.. And try throwing in a fact or two. You know, Just for the fun of it.

You shouldn't edit something until it is out of context. It ruins your credibility. And there's the predictable Liberal vs Conservitave distraction again! LOL You may want to just abandon that tactic, it is not working. LOL

[TwistedTails]

In page 92 of "The Imperial Cruise" you can see the cover of "Judge" magazine. (Judge magazine went on to become the New Yorker), portraying the Filipino's as Negro's.

Much of the work from the sources I've mentioned comes from there, with properly referenced direct quotes. However, I lack the time to copy them all out for you so I'd recommend reading it.

Finally! an actual resource.

I was beginning to wonder why you were so hesitant to produce your source documents. Now I know. I would have been hesitant to admit that I made a statement like the original post based on a popular piece of quasi history too.

Not to worry though, theres still plenty to talk about. I may not agree with with the authors interpetations of all his source materiel, but he is a good researcher, his sources are verifiable and he references and quotes as appropiate.

For those following along or just arriving, This is a link to a google search for reviews on this book. You can pick and choose your own reviewing publication. If I suggest one I will be accused of either Liberalism or Conservatism in the choosing.

Google search link...
The Imperial Cruise by James Bradley (http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=imperial+cruise+book+review&aq=0&aqi=g1&oq=imperial+cruise+book)

And the Authors Bio...
James Bradely @ Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bradley_(author))

I would reccomend reading it too, his last work (Flags of our Fathers) was quite good.

So lets begin.....


The leader of the resistance in the Philippines was intent on establishing a democracy based on the US constitution. The US decided they needed to be in charge which meant destroying democracy and putting up a figurehead.

Please indicate which leader you are referring too. The first leader Andrés Bonifacio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9s_Bonifacio), a warehouseman and clerk from Manila, or Emilio Aguinaldo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilio_Aguinaldo), mayor of Cavite El Viejo who took over later after Bonifacios execution by the Spanish for treason? Also if you would kindly check your "source" was the leader you refer too above a Democrat as you stated or was he actually an Oligarchist?

The distinction makes a big difference in understanding the tactics used by both the revolutionaries and the U.S. in the conflict.

Cheers
Twisted

[TwistedTails]

Ok...I basically have zero knowledge of waterboarding in the first place. But this is obviously an explosive topic. So you are responding in a very emotional way, but I am not really sure I know what your views are on waterboarding as much as your views on SadisticNature's views on waterboarding. I am very interested in hearing (or reading as the case may be) your opinions.

Actually we have not come to the point of dicussing waterboarding yet. We are still working
on narrowing the sweeping comments made in his first two posts into something that can be
discussed without open warfare :)

My personal opinions on waterboarding are simple. Waterboarding is a form of torture. Under
the 3rd and 4th Geneva conventions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions)it became illegal for the 194 signing countries to practice
torture beginning in 1929. Prior to that time there were no restrictions on the use of torture
in military actions and such tortures were practiced by many, if not all, governments
as a matter of routine.

Cheers
Twisted

[steelish]

I thank SadisticNature for his original post because it led me to the history (http://waterboarding.org/water-based_torture_history_with_pictures) of waterboarding...and also this (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html) interesting article.

[TwistedTails]

... is that a real example or a hyperbole?

Sadly, the example is quite real.

[denuseri]

As for discussing water boarding itself, we have if no one remembers, been there and done that to death and back in another thread.

Here is a link:

http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14593&highlight=Water+boarding

[steelish]

Firstly, you attack both my claim and my supporting evidence, without providing a counterclaim or any sources of your own. I still contend the parallels to conservatism are striking, where this is often the predominant tactic in all sorts of debates (particularly evolution). I was not making the argument that conservatives are the only side who distort history. I was more claiming that the instant disagreement without any supportive evidence.

Well, for one thing, I believe what is asked for is sources. (as in, out of that list of books, what are the excerpts within them that are your exact sources?)

Another thing...Theodore Roosevelt was a very liberal Republican. He was not conservative at all.



The problem with the historic justification of "well everyone else was doing it" is that it can justify all sorts of atrocities, including the holocaust (It's not like other empires weren't oppressing minorities through the use of concentration camps, torture and slaughter).

I really don't think you can equate the holocaust with coercion to extract vital information in order to save thousands of innocent lives. I just don't see how it justifies those atrocities (or equates to them).



As for the choice of forum, there have been other talks about waterboarding in this thread. I find it interesting to look at the history of waterboarding by and against Americans, particularly since it shows that by Americans goes unpunished while against Americans results in executions.

It goes unpunished? Hmmm...On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier near Da Nang. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." This picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier. That can be found in the history of waterboarding...a link I posted previously.

[Saheli]

As for discussing water boarding itself, we have if no one remembers, been there and done that to death and back in another thread.

Here is a link:

http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14593&highlight=Water+boarding

So I went to see what had been said, and I didn't even get past the third post before I had a question. Mkemse said "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." If a person was not slanted in such a way, would the person drown? Is that the reason for the slanting, so that it would be more torturous than murderous?

[SadisticNature]

The Philippines casualties were comparable in number to the number of US soldiers dying in the pacific in WWII. There is no way that anywhere close to that many people had vital information. Concentration camps were used, and peaceful non-resisters were executed. Race based discrimination was the basis for both these camps and the executions. So I certainly see a strong comparison.

I was referring to Aguinaldo earlier.

Also I have no problem with using The Imperial Cruise as a source. It's certainly better than say Wikipedia (sourcing documents that change over time is problematic at best), given the authors credentials, past work, and the extensive properly sourced material throughout.

[MMI]

Excuse me for chiming in, but is this a thread about the use of torture, or about the sources used?

This isn't university. People here (I speak for myself and those like me) express our prejudices and our beliefs, however well-informed or misguided. I haven't a hope in Hell of accessing any source other than Wikipedia, which serves well enough for discussions here, but I'd hate to be excluded just because my personal library is wanting

If you agree with the proposition, say so: if you don't, say that instead. Don't run down an opinion because it isn't supported by evidence of a high enough academic standing. Especially if your own point of view is similarly bereft of citations.

Otherwise I won't be able to contribute at all!

Back to the point, I believe all imperial powers have behaved inhumanly towards the people they have subjected, and the USA is no exception. I don't know enough about the Phillipines, but I do know that USA for purchased the colony from Spain $20m and then proceeded to wage war upon the Filipinos.


The White Man's Burden
or
The United States and the Philippine Islands.
Rudyard Kipling (1899)

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!

I believe Kipling was pointing out that, if you want to take on an empire, you have a duty of care towards your colonial subjects rather than a right to abuse them.

[SadisticNature]

Mark Twain has some delightful little bon mots, one of my favorites is:

"There are many humorous things in the world; among them, the white man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."

It's a little inaccurate in that this belief had rather tragic consequences, but its nonetheless quite insightful.

The idea that the "enlightened" have a "moral duty" to "civilize" the world is basically an excuse for power or control of resources. Never in a million years would the US have been interested in the Philippines if they didn't think it was useful for completing the route to China (Pacific US -> Hawaii -> Philippines -> China).

Another point on the holocaust comparison is that the Theodore Roosevelt Administration worked actively to portray the Filipino's as the other. Which is much the idea of what Hitler did with the Jews. I'm not saying they were the first to do this (they aren't), but its a recurring theme throughout history.

[SadisticNature]

Well, I do have some familiarity with the topic, but my sources are not in question. Yours are.

You are finally starting to show some evidence of this. How about actually articulating your own viewpoint with sources rather than finding ways to avoid actually talking about this.

Instead of having a discussion you attack:
(i) My Sources
(ii) When I provide the sources I used you wanted me to spend the time looking up exact quotes in them.
(iii) My choice of location for posting
(iv) Various little quips and barbs along the way by both of us.

[SadisticNature]

I thank SadisticNature for his original post because it led me to the history (http://waterboarding.org/water-based_torture_history_with_pictures) of waterboarding...and also this (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html) interesting article.

I lol'd at this thanks but no thanks thing. You're welcome to actually thank the post you know :-).

[SadisticNature]

I'm happy to drop the whole liberal vs conservative thing, but when you attack me for doing so I'm going to respond to it. Generally getting someone to drop a line of argument is not done by making further points about it, which is what you were doing that led me to respond.

[SadisticNature]

Interesting bit of revisionist history there. But what the hey, any opportunity to do some good ol U.S. bashing right? Was there nothing recent you could distort? This is neither News or a World event unless of course your time machine is finally working. Would you mind citing a source or two? I'm interested in how you know what someone was thinking in 1903?

I support freedom of speech, so feel free to continue U.S. bashing. Just kindly do it in German, Chinese, or Russian on a Party approved message board.

Oh.. And try throwing in a fact or two. You know, Just for the fun of it.

You accuse me of trying to change the topic.

Yet you have not mentioned a single thing relevant to the topic in this post. Instead you initiate a bunch of diversions, and when I respond to any of them you accuse me of going off topic. That's quite the double standard.

[SadisticNature]

Excuse me for chiming in, but is this a thread about the use of torture, or about the sources used?

This isn't university. People here (I speak for myself and those like me) express our prejudices and our beliefs, however well-informed or misguided. I haven't a hope in Hell of accessing any source other than Wikipedia, which serves well enough for discussions here, but I'd hate to be excluded just because my personal library is wanting

My point is that my source is better academically than Wikipedia. I don't mean this as an attack on Wikipedia or the use of it as a source, but rather would politely suggest that those who do choose to use Wikipedia refrain from attacking the quality of other peoples sources (but should feel free to attack arguments based on information from those sources).

[DuncanONeil]

Apparently the song may have had some other reason for being. "In 1902, for example, Albert Gardner, in Troop B of the 1st U.S. Cavalry, composed a would-be comic song dedicated to “water-cure” torture" (http://www.japanfocus.org/-Paul_A_-Kramer/1745) While accurate members of the army in 1902 are hardly driven by the positions of a 20th century person, nor their opponents.
"In WWII, Japanese and German prisoners shown to have participated in waterboarding were executed for warcrimes establishing a legal precedent that the US belives that waterboarding is a warcrime, and also a capital offense. Yet for several years in the 21st century they actively pursued it."
Again the emphasis on waterboarding! Methinks you are angry about something that does not involve history.
Additionally, as described this is not waterboarding. In some respects "waterboarding" can be seen as another method of lying to the prisoner.
If you think "waterboarding was the worst thing the Japanese did to their prisoners you are sorely mistaken!

"While we are on the topic of warcrimes, American generals gave the order to kill everyone over 10. No one was ever charged."
In a war instituted in 1898? I take it then if our troops encounter an AK-47 wielding person of age 10 - 17 in Africa they must not return fire?


The US has a long history of a double standard on waterboarding. They've done it cheerfully in the early 20th century invasion of the Philippines. They've done it somewhat reluctantly in the early 21st century. In the interim they've put people to death for war-crimes when US troops were waterboarded (namely the war-crimes trials in Japan).

One of the standards that would be consistent with US actions would suggest its acceptable to water-board someone as long as they are not white. I don't believe this is the actual case, I think its more likely something like "It's ok for the US to do it, but its not ok for anyone to do it to them."

Regardless the US seems to be rather hypocritical about this.

For the record: Early 20th century US Army song "The Water Cure"

Get the good old syringe boys and fill it to the brim.
We've caught another n!gger and we'll operate on him.
Let someone take the handle who can work it with a vim.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

Chorus:

Hurray. Hurray. We bring the Jubilee.
Hurray. Hurrah. The flag that makes him free.
Shove in the nozzle deep and let him taste of liberty.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

We've come across the bounding main to kindly spread around
Sweet liberty whenever there are rebels to be found.
So hurry with the syringe boys. We've got him down and bound.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

Oh pump it in him till he swells like a toy balloon.
The fool pretends that liberty is not a precious boon.
But we'll contrive to make him see the beauty of it soon.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

Keep the piston going boys and let the banner wave.
The banner that floats proudly o'er the noble and the brave.
Keep on till the squirt gun breaks or he explodes the slave.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

Chorus (variant at end):

Hurrah. Hurrah. We bring the Jubilee.
Hurrah. Hurrah. The flag that makes him free.
We've got him down and bound, so let's fill him full of liberty.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

For the record the Taft administration worked actively to portray the Filipino's as uneducated African tribesmen, hence the use of the n-word in the song.

American soldiers waterboarding a Filipino was actually on the cover of Life magazine, May 22nd 1902.

While we are on the topic of warcrimes, American generals gave the order to kill everyone over 10. No one was ever charged.

While China has actively protested changes to Japanese history books that downplay their atrocities, the US has largely ignored any protests by the Philippines about their downplaying the atrocities.

In fact despite experts having shown the claims to be outright false, they still describe those killed in the Phillipines as "freedom fighters" and not civilians and vastly reduce the numbers.

In WWII, Japanese and German prisoners shown to have participated in waterboarding were executed for warcrimes establishing a legal precedent that the US belives that waterboarding is a warcrime, and also a capital offense. Yet for several years in the 21st century they actively pursued it.

[DuncanONeil]

Since you included WWII Germans in your evidence set of those punished for "waterboarding" your "non-white"argument is destroyed.
Further more "abuses" are not the reason for the collapse of imperialism!


The leader of the resistance in the Philippines was intent on establishing a democracy based on the US constitution. The US decided they needed to be in charge which meant destroying democracy and putting up a figurehead.

Also, the kind of atrocities committed by imperialist powers are exactly the reason imperialism has largely been abandoned.

And if by some people cannot be reasoned with you mean the Americans in said situation then by all means I'd agree. But the Philippines actively worked to throw off their Spanish oppressors and welcomed the US, in the belief that their Constitution did not support colonialism. The US decided to make the Philippines a colony and put down resistance resulting from this betrayal with orders like "shoot anyone over the age of 10".

I'm not saying other imperialist powers didn't do equally terrible things. I'm just saying the US has a long history of war crimes against non-whites, and tends to consider them as mild offenses, while the same acts against their own citizens are cause for execution.

[DuncanONeil]

Again this is old news! Kind of like saying that African Americans deserve something special, or reparations because of slavery.
No one alive in the US today has any direct contact with being a slave owner.


One of the great successes of conservatism is the ability to completely distort history but since you asked for sources here goes:

1) The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt, 8 Vols (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press) 1951-1954 V254

2) "United States Indian Policy and the Debate over Philippne Annexation: Implications for the Origins of American Imperialism" The Journal of American History 66, no 4 (March 1980) 810-831

3) Eric T. L. Love, Race over Empire: Racism and U.S. Imperialism 1865-1900 (Chapel HIll: University of North Carolina Press, 2004

4) TR, The Winning of the west 4:200

5) Matthew Frye Jacobson, Barbarian Virtues: The United States Encounters Foreign Peoples at Home and Abroad. 1876-1917 (New York: Hill & Wang, 2000).

6) Benevolent Assimilation: The American Conquest of the Phillipines 1899-1903. (New Havety, CT: Yale University Press, 1982).

7) James Blount, American Occupation of the Phillipines 1898-1912 (New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1913).

Along with several others.

As for knowing what people think. There are surviving records in the forms of: (i) Documented Conversations (ii) Collected Letters (iii) Policy Decisions and Documented Statements in support (for example to the senate or congress).

And what sources/evidence is your opinion that this is revisionist history based on? The fact that it doesn't jive with your idea of what America stands for?

[DuncanONeil]

In the time it took me to prepare this page for response the language has been controlled.
However, the claim you make below it totally with out either substance or merit.
It is liberals that have driven the creation of the need for virtually every venue have signage in multiple languages, not the conservative. Such signage does nothing to bring people into the mainstream of the community in which they live, it merely serves to allow the separateness to become entrenched. Conservative position is to have all of the people that desire to come here to become a part of a homogenous whole. Such a whole is much stronger than the sum of its parts. To constantly make effort to display differences prevents the parts from melding into the unique entity it could be.
People are not label Socialist because they disagree, but because they advocate taking from those that produce and giving it to those that do not! Un-American is reserved for those seeking to tear the country down.


The whole: If you disagree with me do it in German, Russian or Chinese on a party message board is exactly the kind of statement conservatives make. Liberals tend to believe that America includes people who according to them are "wrong" or "misguided". Conservatives say if you disagree with them, you're a "socialist" or you're "unamerican".

[DuncanONeil]

So what! All that really means is that the ability to determine a peoples origin was not fully understood!


In page 92 of "The Imperial Cruise" you can see the cover of "Judge" magazine. (Judge magazine went on to become the New Yorker), portraying the Filipino's as Negro's.

Much of the work from the sources I've mentioned comes from there, with properly referenced direct quotes. However, I lack the time to copy them all out for you so I'd recommend reading it.

[DuncanONeil]

It is not a response to Sadistics view on waterboarding, other than the fact that he is choosing to use occurrences from the absolute beginning of the 20th century as proof of how the US is acting and deceiding issues today.


Ok...I basically have zero knowledge of waterboarding in the first place. But this is obviously an explosive topic. So you are responding in a very emotional way, but I am not really sure I know what your views are on waterboarding as much as your views on SadisticNature's views on waterboarding. I am very interested in hearing (or reading as the case may be) your opinions.

[DuncanONeil]

I doubt the "facts of your first paragraph are accurate. And the use of the phrase "concentration camps"is a deliberate attempt to cast them in a light that may not be deserved. As well as being emotionally charged.


To be clear "The Philippines" meant the area outside the concentration camps established by the US within the Philippines so its hyperbolic in the sense that it doesn't mean actually everyone. But it did mean if you were on your property and over 10 you were to be executed.

The US Army was also involved in the systematic execution of 1300 Filipino prisoners of war in one incident in 1902.

To conclude my post a quote from Roosevelt:

"Nineteenth-century democracy needs no more complete vindication for its existence than the fact that it has kept for the white race the best portions of the new world's surface." Theodore Roosevelt, 1897.

[DuncanONeil]

Just pressing the "Thanks" button is insufficient for this posting.
I am pleased to have someone that is calling into question the propensity of the Sadistic method of positing an argument.
Along with stating the consistent refusal of providing supporting data when requested.


This surprises you? You have gone to a lot of trouble NOT to produce your sources. That tells me that you are simply parroting something you have read or been told, without bothering to do your own research to verify the accuracy of the statements. How do you expect someone to produce a "counterclaim" if you refuse to produce your documentation? Handy tactic if you don't really want a discussion. I see it a lot.

Here again you miss the point. You opened the topic, I challenged and asked for your sources. You refused to give them. You are again trying to shift this to a Liberal vs Conservative debate, sure it will distract readers from the fact that you have yet to support your claim, but I hate to break the news to you but a liberal with a healthy dose of common sense sounds a lot like a conservative and vice versa. I on the other hand will quote my resources if and when we actually begin to discuss the subject.



ROFL, Nice try, but that's not what I said, and you and everyone reading knows it. "That's the way it was" is a lot different than "well everyone else was doing it" It is not attempting to justify anything, it just states a fact. You can either accept that, or use the afore mentioned time machine to change history.


News is recent.. as in NEWs and World Events. It is my opinion that this is politics. Its not an issue though, If the moderators feel the thread needs moved they will move it.



I was not attacking your grammar. That's not my style because, as you said, it would not be productive. What I was pointing out was this....

Where you used a lot of punctuation to make it look like you were offering source documents, while producing none at all.

[DuncanONeil]

I found "this" much more informative than "history". Save that "history" showed that waterboarding was never intended to put the subject at risk!


I thank SadisticNature for his original post because it led me to the history (http://waterboarding.org/water-based_torture_history_with_pictures) of waterboarding...and also this (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html) interesting article.

[DuncanONeil]

Again the comparisons in your first paragrah are not appropriate!


The Philippines casualties were comparable in number to the number of US soldiers dying in the pacific in WWII. There is no way that anywhere close to that many people had vital information. Concentration camps were used, and peaceful non-resisters were executed. Race based discrimination was the basis for both these camps and the executions. So I certainly see a strong comparison.

I was referring to Aguinaldo earlier.

Also I have no problem with using The Imperial Cruise as a source. It's certainly better than say Wikipedia (sourcing documents that change over time is problematic at best), given the authors credentials, past work, and the extensive properly sourced material throughout.

[DuncanONeil]

Providing sources? I have had others do this in the past. Provide the title of a complete book. Then complaining when that book is not found and read in order to find the segment that they purport supports their argument.
As example I earlier quoted something from a specific source. The quote is the support, which I followed with data that would allow anyone to seek it out for comparison or analysis.

All you do is present a title of several books each of several hundred pages. See the difference? See the problem in your style of listing supporting documentation?


You are finally starting to show some evidence of this. How about actually articulating your own viewpoint with sources rather than finding ways to avoid actually talking about this.

Instead of having a discussion you attack:
(i) My Sources
(ii) When I provide the sources I used you wanted me to spend the time looking up exact quotes in them.
(iii) My choice of location for posting
(iv) Various little quips and barbs along the way by both of us.

[DuncanONeil]

While she did thank you that was not the purpose of her post!


I lol'd at this thanks but no thanks thing. You're welcome to actually thank the post you know :-).

[SadisticNature]

Kindly support this. I said that there were parallels, and I've drawn some parallels I haven't stated it corresponds exactly to how the US is acting today.


It is not a response to Sadistics view on waterboarding, other than the fact that he is choosing to use occurrences from the absolute beginning of the 20th century as proof of how the US is acting and deceiding issues today.

[SadisticNature]

While she did thank you that was not the purpose of her post!

It's wonderful that you're such a fervent attack dog that you even have to respond to a playful attempt at humor that had nothing to do with you with criticism.

[SadisticNature]

Again the comparisons in your first paragrah are not appropriate!

It's a comparison made by others before me. Others with no source or substantiation tried to claim the situation in the Philippines involved waterboarding a few extremists for information. I pointed out the level of casualties and incidents were so high that that was obviously not the case.

[Saheli]

I think we would get a lot more accomplished in this thread if we would stop talking about each other and start discussing the actual topic...It's fine to ask for sources and question points made, but this is absolutely ridiculous.

[SadisticNature]

Just pressing the "Thanks" button is insufficient for this posting.
I am pleased to have someone that is calling into question the propensity of the Sadistic method of positing an argument.
Along with stating the consistent refusal of providing supporting data when requested.

Or the DuncanONeil method of attacking an argument by avoiding to talk about the material at hand at all, but rather criticizing anything that avoids discussing the material at hand. I have responded to criticism on the sources by first providing source materials (the books involved) and some particular sources as well. You have said nothing relating to the Philippines in approximately 10 consecutive posts in a thread on the Philippines.

You also assert without any source or supporting documents that the ability to determine ones origins (or even ethnic grouping since the matter at hand is black vs asian) was not present in the early 20th century.

You state utterly absurd statements as self-evident and unsupported facts yet chastise people for commenting on historical events when they aren't willing to look up the exact page number and paragraph of a quote that you'll never look up anyways.

[SadisticNature]

I think we would get a lot more accomplished in this thread if we would stop talking about each other and start discussing the actual topic...It's fine to ask for sources and question points made, but this is absolutely ridiculous.

Completely agree, unfortunately, people have started doing this in multiple threads, and if they held themselves to the same standards as they require of those who disagree with them they'd never get anything done.

[TwistedTails]

Well it is a user edited encyclopedia, and some of the stuff off of the beaten path may not be entirely accurate. But, I would think that The Philippines with an English speaking national population of 92 million, a literacy rate of 94.3% of which 24 million have internet access and an additional 11 million Filipinos worldwide, someone may have made an edit if something were not as it should be. If the entry is wrong and you have proof but the author won't change it? Best thing about Wikipedia is if you want to dispute an entry you have to bring your proof, whoever has the best proof wins. It's a real annoyance to revisionists both Private and Government alike.

But you don't have to use it, feel free to link to any resource that you like. Or point out the inaccuracies. (with evidence :) )



You are finally starting to show some evidence of this. How about actually articulating your own viewpoint with sources rather than finding ways to avoid actually talking about this.

Instead of having a discussion you attack:
(i) My Sources
(ii) When I provide the sources I used you wanted me to spend the time looking up exact quotes in them.
(iii) My choice of location for posting
(iv) Various little quips and barbs along the way by both of us.

I have been citing references, I could cite better if you could narrow down your primal scream of anti Americanism. Was there a US vs Philippines war? Yes its right here.

Philippine American War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War)

No conspiracy exists to hide it. Did the US during that war use a method called "the water cure" Yes, its documented. Did they do it to millions as you imply in another post. No. The number that died from the war then number that died of the plague that erupted during the war? Over a million. It is there. Its not hidden.

Talking about what? Everything coherent you have posted up to this point has been properly noted or rebutted by myself or another poster, except for some rather racist lyrics (and the Taft statement and that's just too easy if you will not post sources for a counter claim.) In fact most of what you have posted was covered under "Yes that's the way it was back then"

If you are going to accuse me of not citing sources You should make sure you are not the one running into the room holding a book screaming believe this! Keep it up and the moderators will move this thread to Religion LOL

(i) My Sources
You didn't provide any.
(ii) When I provide the sources I used you wanted me to spend the time looking up exact quotes in them.
Well, actually someone else said that, but yes I agree. I think it is only fair. This is an open discussion, do you expect everyone to run out and "buy the book" just to participate?
(iii) My choice of location for posting
I gave you my reasoning on this before. It still stands. But again, That's up to the moderators. Let's let them worry about that shall we?
(iv) Various little quips and barbs along the way by both of us.
Me? I have not yet begun to "Quip" I'm a big fan of Don Rickles LOL

[TwistedTails]

I lol'd at this thanks but no thanks thing. You're welcome to actually thank the post you know :-).

Well since you seem to need some thanks, I thanked you for finally providing your reference. :D

[TwistedTails]

I'm happy to drop the whole liberal vs conservative thing, but when you attack me for doing so I'm going to respond to it. Generally getting someone to drop a line of argument is not done by making further points about it, which is what you were doing that led me to respond.

Who brought it up? I have only responded to you and never labeled you. If you are actually willing to drop the Liberal/Conservative labeling fine. I already stated my feelings on that tactic in a previous post.

[TwistedTails]

You accuse me of trying to change the topic.

Yet you have not mentioned a single thing relevant to the topic in this post. Instead you initiate a bunch of diversions, and when I respond to any of them you accuse me of going off topic. That's quite the double standard.

*looks back up the forum* Hmm, I don't even have to say how wrong that is. Yes I have. You just don't want to see it.

[steelish]

I lol'd at this thanks but no thanks thing. You're welcome to actually thank the post you know :-).

I thanked the post I am quoting here, but I definitely won't thank your original post because I disagree with a majority of it. What I was thanking you for was inducing me to investigate the history of waterboarding.

[TwistedTails]

So what did you want to talk about? You are probably not that interested in Philippine history or you would have called me out about this

after Bonifacios execution by the Spanish for treason?

When he was actually executed by Aguinaldo, or rather the First Republic. Oops, My mistake. :)

[TwistedTails]

My point is that my source is better academically than Wikipedia. I don't mean this as an attack on Wikipedia or the use of it as a source, but rather would politely suggest that those who do choose to use Wikipedia refrain from attacking the quality of other peoples sources (but should feel free to attack arguments based on information from those sources).

I did not attack your source, In fact I endorsed it. As reading materiel. Not as a gospel. Other books have been written that disagree, but they too were written as reading materiel.

[DuncanONeil]

It's a comparison made by others before me. Others with no source or substantiation tried to claim the situation in the Philippines involved waterboarding a few extremists for information. I pointed out the level of casualties and incidents were so high that that was obviously not the case.

Does not matter how many people say it. The comparrison is not appropriate.

[DuncanONeil]

You also assert without any source or supporting documents that the ability to determine ones origins (or even ethnic grouping since the matter at hand is black vs asian) was not present in the early 20th century.


First of all Filipinos would not be Asian, they are actually quite a mixed lot.
Also far from claiming any credentials I did have an anthropological course that had a section related to human genotypes. During which it was made clear that physical appearance is the worst indicator of said genotype. With this being displayed in the late 20th century it is easy to see how it could be more of an issue just barely out of the 19th!
But a bit of research indicates that the racial term may have been inappropriately to the negritos

[TwistedTails]

except for some rather racist comments

My sincere apologies, this should read "some rather racist lyrics" if a moderator could correct this I would be gratefull.
Again, My apologies.

[TwistedTails]

So I went to see what had been said, and I didn't even get past the third post before I had a question. Mkemse said "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." If a person was not slanted in such a way, would the person drown? Is that the reason for the slanting, so that it would be more torturous than murderous?

Would they drown without the slant? Probably not. Actually the slant is what does the work, water seeks the lowest level. By angling the subject (or just the subjects head ) water runs into the nose and fills up the back of the throat. Weather it is torturous or murderous is determined by a variety of factors but primarily how much air you are allowed between pouring.

[DuncanONeil]

In waterboarding, water does not enter the air passages of the subject.


Would they drown without the slant? Probably not. Actually the slant is what does the work, water seeks the lowest level. By angling the subject (or just the subjects head ) water runs into the nose and fills up the back of the throat. Weather it is torturous or murderous is determined by a variety of factors but primarily how much air you are allowed between pouring.

[SadisticNature]

First of all Filipinos would not be Asian, they are actually quite a mixed lot.
Also far from claiming any credentials I did have an anthropological course that had a section related to human genotypes. During which it was made clear that physical appearance is the worst indicator of said genotype. With this being displayed in the late 20th century it is easy to see how it could be more of an issue just barely out of the 19th!
But a bit of research indicates that the racial term may have been inappropriately to the negritos


I asked for a source. Anything I post based on my life experience and my courses you dismiss as irrelevant because it lacks a written source. Kindly hold yourself to the same standards you asked of others. Not I once took this course a while a go, and it had this one section and if I remember it right it said this :P

[DuncanONeil]

Getting a bit testy are we? I am not the one that took you to task! And at least I did qualify my statement.
Anywho!
Filipinos generally belong to several Asian ethnic groups.(Lewis, Paul M. (2009). Languages of Philippines. Ethnologue: Languages of the World (16th ed.). Dallas, Tex.: SIL International.) Taiwanese aborigines migrated to the Philippines from Taiwan, displacing the earlier Negrito groups of the islands. Eventually Chinese, Spanish, and American arrivals intermarried with the various indigenous ethnic groups that had evolved.(Capelli, Christian, James F. Wilson, Martin Richards, Michael P. H. Stumpf, Fiona Gratrix, Stephen Oppenheimer, Peter Underhill, et al. (2001-02-01). "A Predominantly Indigenous Paternal Heritage for the Austronesian-Speaking Peoples of Insular South Asia and Oceania") Their descendants are known as mestizos.("The Impact of Spanish Rule in the Philippines". (2009). Tagalog at NIU. Retrieved 2009-12-19 from the Northern Illinois University, Center for Southeast Asian Studies, SEAsite Project.)
Hope you find that satisfactory, however ....


I asked for a source. Anything I post based on my life experience and my courses you dismiss as irrelevant because it lacks a written source. Kindly hold yourself to the same standards you asked of others. Not I once took this course a while a go, and it had this one section and if I remember it right it said this :P

[SadisticNature]

Getting a bit testy are we? I am not the one that took you to task! And at least I did qualify my statement.
Anywho!
Filipinos generally belong to several Asian ethnic groups.(Lewis, Paul M. (2009). Languages of Philippines. Ethnologue: Languages of the World (16th ed.). Dallas, Tex.: SIL International.) Taiwanese aborigines migrated to the Philippines from Taiwan, displacing the earlier Negrito groups of the islands. Eventually Chinese, Spanish, and American arrivals intermarried with the various indigenous ethnic groups that had evolved.(Capelli, Christian, James F. Wilson, Martin Richards, Michael P. H. Stumpf, Fiona Gratrix, Stephen Oppenheimer, Peter Underhill, et al. (2001-02-01). "A Predominantly Indigenous Paternal Heritage for the Austronesian-Speaking Peoples of Insular South Asia and Oceania") Their descendants are known as mestizos.("The Impact of Spanish Rule in the Philippines". (2009). Tagalog at NIU. Retrieved 2009-12-19 from the Northern Illinois University, Center for Southeast Asian Studies, SEAsite Project.)
Hope you find that satisfactory, however ....

I'd still argue that this shows the details were not understood, but doesn't provide a reasonable belief that the Filipino's were of African origin, as represented to the American public.

[DuncanONeil]

I'd still argue that this shows the details were not understood, but doesn't provide a reasonable belief that the Filipino's were of African origin, as represented to the American public.

Did you complete miss the reference to the Negrito people?

[SadisticNature]

If I were to say the US is a country of black people that would be misrepresenting the country.

The fact is there were a bunch of diverse origins and while the president may have felt negritos were of African origin, that doesn`t excuse the fact that for political gain he represented the entire country as being of that group.

Your data specifically indicates a large number of diverse groups, that existed before the Americans came on the island. You indicate, that because one particular group of people may have believed to be of African origin it is ok to represent the entire country as being of African origin, and to misrepresent its population and attitudes for political gain.

[DuncanONeil]

However, if that group of people are perceived as the originals in the country.... Have you ever met a Negrito, I have. They are a very interesting, and talented, people!

"The term Negrito refers to several ethnic groups in isolated parts of Southeast Asia.[2]

Their current populations include the Aeta, Agta, Ayta, Pygmies, Ita, Baluga, Ati, Dumagat and at least 25 other tribes of the Philippines, the Semang of the Malay peninsula, the Mani of Thailand and 12 Andamanese tribes of the Andaman Islands of the Indian Ocean.

Negritos share some common physical features with African pygmy populations, including short stature, natural afro-hair texture, and dark skin; however, their origin and the route of their migration to Asia is still a matter of great speculation." (Snow, Philip. The Star Raft: China's Encounter With Africa. Cornell Univ. Press, 1989 (ISBN 0801495830))
"They have also been shown to have separated early from Asians, suggesting that they are either surviving descendants of settlers from an early migration out of Africa, or that they are descendants of one of the founder populations of modern humans." ( Kashyap VK, Sitalaximi T, Sarkar BN, Trivedi R 2003. Molecular relatedness of the aboriginal groups of Andaman and Nicobar Islands with similar ethnic populations. The International Journal of Human Genetics, 3: 5-11.)
The term "Negrito" is the Spanish or Portuguese diminutive of negro, i.e. "little black person", referring to their small stature, and was coined by early European explorers who assumed that the Negritos were recent arrivals from Africa.

Occasionally, some Negritos are referred to as pygmies, bundling them with peoples of similar physical stature in Central Africa, and likewise, the term Negrito was previously occasionally used to refer to African Pygmies.[4]

According to James J.Y. Liu, a professor of comparative literature, the Chinese term Kun-lun (Chinese: 崑崙) means Negrito.
(Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, 1910–1911: "Second are the large Negrito family, represented in Africa by the dwarf-races of the equatorial forests, the Akkas, Batwas, Wochuas and others..." (pg. 851))
Liu, James J.Y. The Chinese Knight Errant. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967 (ISBN 0-2264-8688-5)
The characters 崑崙 literally mean the Kunlun Mountains.

Seems as though speaking of these peoples as HAD been done at the beginning of the 20th was not far wrong!


If I were to say the US is a country of black people that would be misrepresenting the country.

The fact is there were a bunch of diverse origins and while the president may have felt negritos were of African origin, that doesn`t excuse the fact that for political gain he represented the entire country as being of that group.

Your data specifically indicates a large number of diverse groups, that existed before the Americans came on the island. You indicate, that because one particular group of people may have believed to be of African origin it is ok to represent the entire country as being of African origin, and to misrepresent its population and attitudes for political gain.

[SadisticNature]

However, if that group of people are perceived as the originals in the country.... Have you ever met a Negrito, I have. They are a very interesting, and talented, people!

"The term Negrito refers to several ethnic groups in isolated parts of Southeast Asia.[2]

Their current populations include the Aeta, Agta, Ayta, Pygmies, Ita, Baluga, Ati, Dumagat and at least 25 other tribes of the Philippines, the Semang of the Malay peninsula, the Mani of Thailand and 12 Andamanese tribes of the Andaman Islands of the Indian Ocean.

Negritos share some common physical features with African pygmy populations, including short stature, natural afro-hair texture, and dark skin; however, their origin and the route of their migration to Asia is still a matter of great speculation." (Snow, Philip. The Star Raft: China's Encounter With Africa. Cornell Univ. Press, 1989 (ISBN 0801495830))
"They have also been shown to have separated early from Asians, suggesting that they are either surviving descendants of settlers from an early migration out of Africa, or that they are descendants of one of the founder populations of modern humans." ( Kashyap VK, Sitalaximi T, Sarkar BN, Trivedi R 2003. Molecular relatedness of the aboriginal groups of Andaman and Nicobar Islands with similar ethnic populations. The International Journal of Human Genetics, 3: 5-11.)
The term "Negrito" is the Spanish or Portuguese diminutive of negro, i.e. "little black person", referring to their small stature, and was coined by early European explorers who assumed that the Negritos were recent arrivals from Africa.

Occasionally, some Negritos are referred to as pygmies, bundling them with peoples of similar physical stature in Central Africa, and likewise, the term Negrito was previously occasionally used to refer to African Pygmies.[4]

According to James J.Y. Liu, a professor of comparative literature, the Chinese term Kun-lun (Chinese: 崑崙) means Negrito.
(Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, 1910–1911: "Second are the large Negrito family, represented in Africa by the dwarf-races of the equatorial forests, the Akkas, Batwas, Wochuas and others..." (pg. 851))
Liu, James J.Y. The Chinese Knight Errant. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967 (ISBN 0-2264-8688-5)
The characters 崑崙 literally mean the Kunlun Mountains.

Seems as though speaking of these peoples as HAD been done at the beginning of the 20th was not far wrong!

So it would be acceptable to refer to the US as a country of Native Americans because they are among the ethnic groups of the country, and they are the original inhabitants?

[DuncanONeil]

So it would be acceptable to refer to the US as a country of Native Americans because they are among the ethnic groups of the country, and they are the original inhabitants?

Why not? I mean we already call it America! Of course were we to do that we would be accused of being exclusive.

[TantricSoul]

Why is it that whenever I have little or no time to be online here the fun starts happening?

I swear the thought process must be something like "Tantric hasn't been online... lets whip out our dicks and measure them (dildos for the ladies involved.)"

Ok folks... time to put them away and return to discussing the OP.
(whatever the topic of the OP is.)

Yes I moved the thread, I find little News here but LOTS of philosophy.

No I am not going to go back and issue warnings for flaming ... just KNOCK IT OFF.

My opinion about citing sources: This is an opinion forum, on a BDSM site, not an academic journal or paper. Citing sources is a great way to prove your not talking out of your ass, but even if you are, who really cares? (For Ace Ventura fans you might even find it amusing.) Yes it is polite to provide sources if someone requests. If you do , please provide enough info so that your source is easy to find. However, I did not notice any mandate to use MLA format for quotations or source citing in the forums guidelines, nor would I expect posters HERE to go through the trouble to do so.

(That said, if you have a source explaining how to waterboard your sub safely, I would love to see that cited!)

Anyway its true Im not here as often as I'd like, please feel free to PM me with any moderator issues (in the editorial section that is) including editing needs of your own posts, I get emails when I receive PMs and you will get a much faster response that way.

Respectfully,
TS

[DuncanONeil]

I believe that as "waterboarding" is designed is actually intended to be safe. Scary but safe.


Why is it that whenever I have little or no time to be online here the fun starts happening?

I swear the thought process must be something like "Tantric hasn't been online... lets whip out our dicks and measure them (dildos for the ladies involved.)"

Ok folks... time to put them away and return to discussing the OP.
(whatever the topic of the OP is.)

Yes I moved the thread, I find little News here but LOTS of philosophy.

No I am not going to go back and issue warnings for flaming ... just KNOCK IT OFF.

My opinion about citing sources: This is an opinion forum, on a BDSM site, not an academic journal or paper. Citing sources is a great way to prove your not talking out of your ass, but even if you are, who really cares? (For Ace Ventura fans you might even find it amusing.) Yes it is polite to provide sources if someone requests. If you do , please provide enough info so that your source is easy to find. However, I did not notice any mandate to use MLA format for quotations or source citing in the forums guidelines, nor would I expect posters HERE to go through the trouble to do so.

(That said, if you have a source explaining how to waterboard your sub safely, I would love to see that cited!)

Anyway its true Im not here as often as I'd like, please feel free to PM me with any moderator issues (in the editorial section that is) including editing needs of your own posts, I get emails when I receive PMs and you will get a much faster response that way.

Respectfully,
TS

[TantricSoul]

Thanks Duncan, I agree with you, in truth I was only attempting to add some levity into that message.

[DuncanONeil]

Oh I caught that!


Thanks Duncan, I agree with you, in truth I was only attempting to add some levity into that message.

[denuseri]

I believe that it would be a good idea to actually examine the actual topic of a thread for a change as opposed to side stepping it over classifications of descriptive racial morphography.

Does the USA employ a double standard when it comes to the use of torture?

In paticular the use of water boarding which btw was historically not questioned to be anything but a form of torture right up until it was discovered that the cia was using it with frequencey and then all the sudden it became an enhanced iterogation technique overnight for political convience.

Hardely a new topic, but perhaps a new perspective on the reasons why its considered ok by some.



http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14593&highlight=Water+boarding


Is the op sugesting that if the "enemy" combatants were cuacasians there would be no torture conducted?

[DuncanONeil]

Much of the enemy in the terrorist camp is Caucasian.
Perhaps the issue is that waterboarding does not do harm! And is quickly effective.


I believe that it would be a good idea to actually examine the actual topic of a thread for a change as opposed to side stepping it over classifications of descriptive racial morphography.

Does the USA employ a double standard when it comes to the use of torture?

In paticular the use of water boarding which btw was historically not questioned to be anything but a form of torture right up until it was discovered that the cia was using it with frequencey and then all the sudden it became an enhanced iterogation technique overnight for political convience.

Hardely a new topic, but perhaps a new perspective on the reasons why its considered ok by some.



http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14593&highlight=Water+boarding


Is the op sugesting that if the "enemy" combatants were cuacasians there would be no torture conducted?

[denuseri]

Actually:

I should have just said white instead of cuacasian shouldnt I, guess I couldnt keep you from trying to dance around it yet again the way I worded it orginally.

The question is do we in the USA think its ok to use on other than "white" people.

Many interogators, former cia members and those who train our military to resist such means of torture have said that water boarding does not in fact produce good inteligence, in fact the victums of it have a tendency to say anything you want them too to simpley make it stop and that there are far far better ways to get real information without resorting to such criminal methods.

And water boarding can and does harm, even permamently, in fact it can kill a person.

People have suffered everything from long term phcological disorders from it (including PTSD) to in some cases broken bones (as they thrashed uncontrolabely trying to get free during the torture sesssion), and heart attacks and yes even sometimes death.

[damyanti]

In the time it took me to prepare this page for response the language has been controlled.
However, the claim you make below it totally with out either substance or merit.
It is liberals that have driven the creation of the need for virtually every venue have signage in multiple languages, not the conservative. Such signage does nothing to bring people into the mainstream of the community in which they live, it merely serves to allow the separateness to become entrenched. Conservative position is to have all of the people that desire to come here to become a part of a homogenous whole. Such a whole is much stronger than the sum of its parts. To constantly make effort to display differences prevents the parts from melding into the unique entity it could be.
People are not label Socialist because they disagree, but because they advocate taking from those that produce and giving it to those that do not! Un-American is reserved for those seeking to tear the country down.

What are you...Borg? LOL

Two things, 1) Conservatives do not have the monopoly on being American and 2) Un-American is reserved for those seeking to tear the country down? Can you possibly make a more incorrect statement about the History of how U.S. came to be?

The first residents of what is now the United States immigrated from Asia prior to 15,000 years ago by crossing Beringia into Alaska. So, by your own standards, that means you are not a real American, lol.

Then came the handsome Norse fellow by the name Leif Ericson, followed by that pesky Italian working for the Spanish crown. Then came the The Thirteen British and settlements by Spain, France and Russia. Then came the steady steady flows of immigrants from Europe as well as slaves from the West Indies....etc etc.

And as any first grader knows...most of those people were rejects, independent spirits, criminals, religious folks looking for a safe way to worship...and so bent of never having to live in a country where anyone tries to homogenize them again, that they created a pesky little document called The Constitution.

But good luck with your homogeneous whole politics.....as we know historically that tends to end well.

[damyanti]

Well it is a user edited encyclopedia, and some of the stuff off of the beaten path may not be entirely accurate. But, I would think that The Philippines with an English speaking national population of 92 million, a literacy rate of 94.3% of which 24 million have internet access and an additional 11 million Filipinos worldwide, someone may have made an edit if something were not as it should be. If the entry is wrong and you have proof but the author won't change it? Best thing about Wikipedia is if you want to dispute an entry you have to bring your proof, whoever has the best proof wins. It's a real annoyance to revisionists both Private and Government alike.

But you don't have to use it, feel free to link to any resource that you like. Or point out the inaccuracies. (with evidence :) )

Actually that is very far from the truth. There have been numerous instances where common knowledge facts have been constantly corrected by Wikipedia because of all the cliquey games on the debates forum, it is not true that anyone can correct things, unless you are part of a clique and just a regular Joe trying to give a little something back the truth gets reverted to the party line in a matter of minutes....just as its true that its founder himself has proved that several times by abusing it himself. Wikipedia may be an ok resource to start you off on a topic, but it is a very dangerous thing the way people have started to use it as the beginning and the end of their research.

All of that is a matter for perhaps another thread on the credibility of Wikipedia...and just to clarify, this had nothing with a pointless debate on sources in this thread, but rather my distaste for all dictatorships, including Wikipedia.

[damyanti]

1. USA employs a hypocritical double standard when it comes to the use of torture and the international rules of war. Fact.

2. You are never going to be able to have a rational discussion on that on a Forum populated by U.S. Americans who think Glenn Beck is sane, lol. Most of them have a tough time stomaching any critique on their government policies. They will never argue the issue, but rather attack you personally. There are good intelligent people here (American and any other nationality you can think of) and you can discus it rationally in private with them, but in public.....*shrugs*

3. On the other threads that water-boarding has been debated, it has been proven numerous times that it is not effective, but rather that it is counter-productive. Numerous documents have come out now that show Bush, Cheney and co. lied about its effectiveness and how it was used.

4.Water-boarding is torture. If you have a face to defend it....I can not come up with a description that would accurately describe what a disgusting, low form of life that makes you....and if I were you, I would take a very hard look at myself and my own conscience and what kind of a person you are, and how that makes you appear to whatever Divinity you believe or don't believe in. All torture is wrong. No matter who does it and when it was done. There is and never will be moral justification for it. Violence only births more violence. That is what History teaches us, just as it shows that only when we can go above petty feelings of searching for revenge that we create lasting peace and prosperous societies. But hey, that would require thinking and studying...better to succumb to baser instincts, to succumb to manipulative rethorics (weather secular or religious) of hate, blood and gore.

5. I stopped following these threads and I come rarely to this site anymore because intelligent and respectful debates are rare. I clicked on this thread because I recently read a a lot of stuff on a similar topic (The Forgotten Highlander by Alistair Urquhart) but I don't know why I bothered, cause it was so predictable that it is not even funny, the people, the reactions, the jibes...but I was disgusted by the racist comments, that was a new low.

Peace out, peeps.

[SadisticNature]

I believe that it would be a good idea to actually examine the actual topic of a thread for a change as opposed to side stepping it over classifications of descriptive racial morphography.

Does the USA employ a double standard when it comes to the use of torture?

In paticular the use of water boarding which btw was historically not questioned to be anything but a form of torture right up until it was discovered that the cia was using it with frequencey and then all the sudden it became an enhanced iterogation technique overnight for political convience.

Hardely a new topic, but perhaps a new perspective on the reasons why its considered ok by some.



http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14593&highlight=Water+boarding


Is the op sugesting that if the "enemy" combatants were cuacasians there would be no torture conducted?

I certainly think there is a distinct possibility. It may just be coincidence that the use of waterboarding is widespread in wars with non-whites and largely absent from wars with whites, but this appears to be the case over the history of the US. Of course attitudes on race vary hugely over that time period so its hard to get an objective standard given limited data points. This of course means people interpret the data however they want.

As for the justification "if the president does it its ok", this is highly problematic. In fact, it seems to be true only when the president happens to do something the individual agrees with (judging from all the hate against the current US president). So this is obviously circular reasoning and doesn't justify anything.

[DuncanONeil]

The issue is that save for Blacks and Asian it can be very hard to tell who is white and and something "else".
I do not believe that it is a "white" "non-white" issue.
As for the comment about waterboarding producing bad info. Reports about 'boarding are that it was used to initiate talking. The actionable intelligence was determined after by other means.

The original comment is based in the believe that "torture" produces no actionable intell. It may it may not. But to make such a claim also presupposes that anything gleaned by the so-called "enhanced" techniques is accepted by and of itself.


Actually:

I should have just said white instead of cuacasian shouldnt I, guess I couldnt keep you from trying to dance around it yet again the way I worded it orginally.

The question is do we in the USA think its ok to use on other than "white" people.out waterboarding

Many interogators, former cia members and those who train our military to resist such means of torture have said that water boarding does not in fact produce good inteligence, in fact the victums of it have a tendency to say anything you want them too to simpley make it stop and that there are far far better ways to get real information without resorting to such criminal methods.

And water boarding can and does harm, even permamently, in fact it can kill a person.

People have suffered everything from long term phcological disorders from it (including PTSD) to in some cases broken bones (as they thrashed uncontrolabely trying to get free during the torture sesssion), and heart attacks and yes even sometimes death.

[DuncanONeil]

What are you...Borg? LOL

[B]I don't believe so!


[COLOR="Magenta"]Two things, 1) Conservatives do not have the monopoly on being American and 2) Un-American is reserved for those seeking to tear the country down? Can you possibly make a more incorrect statement about the History of how U.S. came to be? I did not see anything in the quote of mine that was in your message about history. And I actually said myself that; "Un-American is reserved for those seeking to tear the country down?"

[B]I have never made assertions as to who is American or un-American. As to the history comment I will have to come back to that.


[COLOR="Magenta"]The first residents of what is now the United States immigrated from Asia prior to 15,000 years ago by crossing Beringia into Alaska. So, by your own standards, that means you are not a real American, lol.

[B]Really!? How do you define a real American?


[COLOR="Magenta"]Then came the handsome Norse fellow by the name Leif Ericson, followed by that pesky Italian working for the Spanish crown. Then came the The Thirteen British and settlements by Spain, France and Russia. Then came the steady steady flows of immigrants from Europe as well as slaves from the West Indies....etc etc.

[B]You forgot Vespuccia. BTW Chris did not make the mainland.


[COLOR="Magenta"]And as any first grader knows...most of those people were rejects, independent spirits, criminals, religious folks looking for a safe way to worship...and so bent of never having to live in a country where anyone tries to homogenize them again, that they created a pesky little document called The Constitution.

[B]Pesky little document?? Why would yo say that?


[COLOR="Magenta"]But good luck with your homogeneous whole politics.....as we know historically that tends to end well.

Not sure I suggested that, but we also know how the current direction of the current administration goes as well.
I said nothing about "homogeneous whole politics".

[DuncanONeil]

2. You are never going to be able to have a rational discussion on that on a Forum populated by U.S. Americans who think Glenn Beck is sane, lol.


What is it about Glenn Beck that makes you think he is insane?

[DuncanONeil]

You mean unlike the hate against the previous President?


I certainly think there is a distinct possibility. It may just be coincidence that the use of waterboarding is widespread in wars with non-whites and largely absent from wars with whites, but this appears to be the case over the history of the US. Of course attitudes on race vary hugely over that time period so its hard to get an objective standard given limited data points. This of course means people interpret the data however they want.

As for the justification "if the president does it its ok", this is highly problematic. In fact, it seems to be true only when the president happens to do something the individual agrees with (judging from all the hate against the current US president). So this is obviously circular reasoning and doesn't justify anything.

[denuseri]

I think what I am saying is:

That water boarding is in fact torture. Just as its been defined as such by not only our own military for the longest time, but the world and that ones skin color shouldn't matter a hill of beans weather its ok to do or not. Its wrong, plain and simple.

And when it comes to "intel" and water boarding or any other form of torture even those types of torture most recently re-classified as "enhanced interogation" : the ends of its use most certianly do not justify the means under ANY circumstances.

It goes against everything our country stands for.

What are you who support it saying?

That is ok to torture people so long as one redefines what torture is?

That the ends justify the means?

That its not wrong?

What?

[TantricSoul]

Just want to say, as a mod, that this type of post ^ is exactly what I personally would like to see more of.

A thoughtful restating/clarification of position, without any attacks, and then some questions that seek to challenge (perhaps even understand?) the other viewpoint.

My sincere gratitude to those posting in this thread, and really all threads, that are on topic and off each others cases!

And I'd answer those questions if I could, but I don't support water boarding or any form of torture that is non consensual ;)

Respectfully,
TS

[TantricSoul]

Now as to the topic...

Seems like simple math to me...

Charging others who have used waterboarding, with war crimes + using waterboarding ourselves, while claiming its not a war crime = hypocrisy.

Yep if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... its a duck, even if the president declares it an elephant, its still a duck!

Respectfully,
TS

[DuncanONeil]

The problem is that, being individuals, we can not agree on what torture actually is.
If you can not have a common definition you can not have a reasoned discussion.


Just want to say, as a mod, that this type of post ^ is exactly what I personally would like to see more of.

A thoughtful restating/clarification of position, without any attacks, and then some questions that seek to challenge (perhaps even understand?) the other viewpoint.

My sincere gratitude to those posting in this thread, and really all threads, that are on topic and off each others cases!

And I'd answer those questions if I could, but I don't support water boarding or any form of torture that is non consensual ;)

Respectfully,
TS

[DuncanONeil]

I think what I am saying is:

That water boarding is in fact torture. Just as its been defined as such by not only our own military for the longest time, but the world and that ones skin color shouldn't matter a hill of beans weather its ok to do or not. Its wrong, plain and simple.

And when it comes to "intel" and water boarding or any other form of torture even those types of torture most recently re-classified as "enhanced interogation" : the ends of its use most certianly do not justify the means under ANY circumstances.

It goes against everything our country stands for.

[QUOTE=denuseri;852796]That the ends justify the means?

NO!


That is ok to torture people so long as one redefines what torture is?

Not "redefine" but "define"


What are you who support it saying?

For me at least it is wrong to presume I support torture. I do not!


That its not wrong?

Torture is, but then again we still have the problem of the definition.


What?
Basically the discussion here is not really about torture vs no torture. But a discussion of what the h*** qualifies as torture. Therein lies the rub. Some say that putting a prisoner in sack cloth and blindfold on a raised platform holding some weight outstretched is torture. Some would call it Basic Training.

Help at all?

[DuncanONeil]

I can't resist "Viaduct"?

Who have we charged with "war crimes" for waterboarding?

http://www.marx-brothers.org/whyaduck/info/movies/scenes/whyaduck.htm


Now as to the topic...

Seems like simple math to me...

Charging others who have used waterboarding, with war crimes + using waterboarding ourselves, while claiming its not a war crime = hypocrisy.

Yep if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... its a duck, even if the president declares it an elephant, its still a duck!

Respectfully,
TS

[TantricSoul]

If you can not have a common definition you can not have a reasoned discussion.

Following this line of reasoning, to me, equates to saying there is no such thing as a reasoned discussion.

Language is relatively agreed symbolism, fact is even simple symbols such as "red" or "hot" or "good" are defined uniquely by all of us, based on our perception, genetics, experiences and conditioning.

What is a human to do?

Respectfully,
TS

[TantricSoul]

I can't resist "Viaduct"?

Who have we charged with "war crimes" for waterboarding?

http://www.marx-brothers.org/whyaduck/info/movies/scenes/whyaduck.htm

According to Wiki ... this guy.

In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese civilian who had served in World War II as an interpreter for the Japanese military, Yukio Asano, for "Violation of the Laws and Customs of War," asserting that he "did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for" prisoners, but, far worse, that he also "did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture" prisoners of war. Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor.[109] The charges against Asano included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward."[172] The specifications in the charges with regard to "water torture" consisted of "pouring water up [the] nostrils" of one prisoner, "forcing water into [the] mouths and noses" of two other prisoners, and "forcing water into [the] nose" of a fourth prisoner.[173]

Pasted from this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#International_law
which also has wonderful definition of water-boarding as torture higher up the page.

Respectfully,
TS

[TantricSoul]

One last thought

Basic Training = consensual
Torture = not consensual

Consent defines the difference.

Respectfully,
TS

[SadisticNature]

Definitions are a complicated awkward thing.

I think for torture in the modern era one has to use the Geneva convention as interpreted by a court of law, which is still somewhat fuzzy as it involves a question as to whom (International War Crimes Tribunal, Supreme Court of the U.S., Supreme Court of the country whose citizens are subject to the crime?)

In an era prior to the Geneva convention, definitions are far more complicated.

As for the sanity of Glenn Beck I think that he is an opportunist who exploits conspiracy theories of the radical right to generate media success and personal profit. I think he's probably far more sane than a good portion of his viewers. The fact is this is more entertainment than news, and his character is likely a media personality much the way Stephen Colbert is.

The argument that he's "insane" is largely based in the fact that he buys in to all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories, on little to no evidence. Often retracting them at a later date in the face of overwhelming evidence, and then only reluctantly. People who believe something is true solely because they want it to be, even in the face of evidence to the contrary are by some definitions insane. Then there is the whole "fool me once, shame on you", "fool me twice, shame on me" argument. Glenn Beck uses sources that have a history of inaccuracy without qualms. Intentionally using bad sources to present the picture you want to believe as news, seems problematic to me. But I guess its nothing new for a station that won a verdict in a whistleblower case on the basis of "Falsifying the news is not a crime."

[DuncanONeil]

The best we can!



Following this line of reasoning, to me, equates to saying there is no such thing as a reasoned discussion.

Language is relatively agreed symbolism, fact is even simple symbols such as "red" or "hot" or "good" are defined uniquely by all of us, based on our perception, genetics, experiences and conditioning.

What is a human to do?

Respectfully,
TS

[DuncanONeil]

I admit that one consents to Basic, but not what happens after you get there.


One last thought

Basic Training = consensual
Torture = not consensual

Consent defines the difference.

Respectfully,
TS

[DuncanONeil]

Neither Beck nor Colbert present a news show. Have you spent much time watching either?
I have seen Beck attack the right with as much fervor as the left!

Even the Geneva Convention definitions are problematic. Kind of makes the definition of torture like that of harrassment.


Definitions are a complicated awkward thing.

I think for torture in the modern era one has to use the Geneva convention as interpreted by a court of law, which is still somewhat fuzzy as it involves a question as to whom (International War Crimes Tribunal, Supreme Court of the U.S., Supreme Court of the country whose citizens are subject to the crime?)

In an era prior to the Geneva convention, definitions are far more complicated.

As for the sanity of Glenn Beck I think that he is an opportunist who exploits conspiracy theories of the radical right to generate media success and personal profit. I think he's probably far more sane than a good portion of his viewers. The fact is this is more entertainment than news, and his character is likely a media personality much the way Stephen Colbert is.

The argument that he's "insane" is largely based in the fact that he buys in to all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories, on little to no evidence. Often retracting them at a later date in the face of overwhelming evidence, and then only reluctantly. People who believe something is true solely because they want it to be, even in the face of evidence to the contrary are by some definitions insane. Then there is the whole "fool me once, shame on you", "fool me twice, shame on me" argument. Glenn Beck uses sources that have a history of inaccuracy without qualms. Intentionally using bad sources to present the picture you want to believe as news, seems problematic to me. But I guess its nothing new for a station that won a verdict in a whistleblower case on the basis of "Falsifying the news is not a crime."

[denuseri]

"...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person..."

It is what it is.

"Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the subject on his back with the head inclined downwards; water is then poured over the face into breathing passages, causing the captive to experience the sensations of drowning."

"Dating back to the Spanish Inquisition, the suffocation of bound prisoners with water has been favored because, unlike most other torture techniques, it produces no marks on the body."

"Malcolm Nance, an advisor on terrorism to the US departments of Homeland Security, Special Operations and Intelligence, publicly denounced the practice. He revealed that waterboarding is used in training at the US Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School in San Diego, and claimed to have witnessed and supervised "hundreds" of waterboarding exercises. Although these last only a few minutes and take place under medical supervision, he concluded that "waterboarding is a torture technique – period".

"While US media reports typically state that waterboarding involves "simulated drowning", Mr Nance explained that "since the lungs are actually filling with water", there is nothing simulated about it. "Waterboarding," he said, "is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration. When done right, it is controlled death."

"Henri Alleg, a journalist, was tortured in 1957 by French forces in Algeria. He described the ordeal of water torture in his book The Question. Soldiers strapped him over a plank, wrapped his head in cloth and positioned it beneath a running tap. He recalled: "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."

"A Bush administration memo from 2005, intended to establish a legal basis for aggressive interrogation techniques, contains a footnote that actually describes waterboarding as falling within the administration's definition of torture."



Bravo to Nance and others who are in the know, and are finally stepping forward and calling waterboarding what it is...TORTURE.

[SadisticNature]

Neither Beck nor Colbert present a news show. Have you spent much time watching either?
I have seen Beck attack the right with as much fervor as the left!

Even the Geneva Convention definitions are problematic. Kind of makes the definition of torture like that of harrassment.

I don't really watch much of either. The fact is they make commentary on current events, which for most people falls within the definition of news show.

As for torture vs harassment that seems like hyperbole, perhaps you can include specifics demonstrating why you feel this way?