Waterboarding Hyprocrisy

[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/Waterbo...ernational_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?