Waterboarding Hyprocrisy

[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/sh...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]

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.

[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]

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."

[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?