If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Senator: "Is waterboarding torture?" Mukasey: "I don't know." Senator: "Would it be if done to you?" Mukasey: "I would feel that it was." Marie Antoinette unavailable for comment   (cnn.com) divider line 231
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

1077 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Jan 2008 at 12:29 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



231 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-01-30 09:54:27 PM
Anyone who supports this activity, help me out here...

UN definition of torture: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him...information or a confession... [etc]"

Assumption 1: The point of waterboarding is to get people to tell you things.

Assumption 2: Waterboarding involves the intentional causing of pain, fear & suffering by one party upon another

Assumption 3: The pain, fear & suffering caused by waterboarding (or, more to the point, the desire for it to stop) is most likely what would make the recipient tell you things

Assumption 4: Other methods of getting people to tell you things (used in the past by various people) include electric shocks, cutting with knives, jamming red hot pokers into sensitive areas, etc.

Assumption 5: The point of methods described in (4) is that the pain /fear/suffering caused by such methods (or the desire to make it stop) will induce the recipient to tell you things

Fact: The methods described in (4) are generally referred to as "torture" as defined because they involve the intentional causing of pain/fear/suffering by one party upon another


Riddle me this, Mr. Attorney General: How is waterboarding not torture?

This whole debate utterly mystifies me.
 
2008-01-30 10:12:25 PM
Let's also point out who the senator was - Ted Kennedy. Good on him.
 
2008-01-30 10:18:47 PM
Infamous Dr. X: This whole debate utterly mystifies me.

That's because you're human. The folks involved here aren't - empathy is highly overrated in law and politics.

The very fact that this debate exists is horrifying to me. Waterboarding is torture. It's not a debate. It's not even a question. The idea that we're living in the 21st century and discussing the possibility that a torture technique, used in one form or another since the friggin' Inquisition, is somehow acceptable should be a clear indicator of moral relativism.

We're not a humane nation if this just triggers debate instead of revulsion.
 
2008-01-30 10:25:55 PM
FormlessOne: That's because you're human.

Yup. Hell, I give people credit for at least being honest when they say "Yeah, it's torture, but I'm OK with that." Disgusting, but honest.

People who quibble about whether or not it is torture are just plain batshiat crazy and/or lying their sick asses off.
 
2008-01-30 10:38:40 PM
FormlessOne: The very fact that this debate exists is horrifying to me. Waterboarding is torture. It's not a debate. It's not even a question. The idea that we're living in the 21st century and discussing the possibility that a torture technique, used in one form or another since the friggin' Inquisition, is somehow acceptable should be a clear indicator of moral relativism.

Let's figure out what the purpose here is. Is it to get all the right people to say "we don't torture?" Or is it for torture to actually not happen? The former is very easy to accomplish, but it really would mean nothing. The latter costs a great deal, but it would be a very, very big accomplishment.
 
2008-01-30 10:39:45 PM
The fact that this barely registers in the national consciousness is what makes me sick.

No one cares though, there's a new episode of American Gladiators on Sunday! And it's hosted by the Hulkster brother!

I'm just waiting for the inevitable election year "flag burning" distraction from important issues.

/oh look American Idol is back on too!
 
2008-01-30 10:40:53 PM
Mukasay is walking this issue right into the middle of the general election. That's an interesting decision for a loyal Republican.

Being a Democrat, I'm OK with that.
 
2008-01-30 11:18:03 PM
wejash: Mukasay is walking this issue right into the middle of the general election. That's an interesting decision for a loyal Republican.

Being a Democrat, I'm OK with that.


Hey, it might be because he really cares about it and wants to extract promises to stop it. Old school conviction politics? (Know nothing about the guy so may be way off)

Freedom, justice and the Scandinavian way!
 
2008-01-31 12:12:17 AM
Mukase later went on to say:

"But I believe that most terrorists are actually hydrophilic and masochistic... so they would enjoy this and therefor would not be torture."
 
2008-01-31 12:34:30 AM
Why don't the Democrats make it explicitly illegal? Oh, right, they couldn't even be bothered to speak out against it until it got leaked to the press. Only then were they the party of high-and-mighty moral values. I don't expect much...it's all just for show at this point guys. And you're all lapping it up. Feed on!
 
2008-01-31 12:38:17 AM
god i'm so SICK of hearing about this.

look, i have too kids... and if what our boys are doing keeps my kids safe well im not gonna stand up and demand we give these barbians backrubs until they tell us what there gonna do. simple as that.

they started this and thats that. these are guys willing to BLOW THEMSELVES UP and were getting our collective pantys in a bunch because they might be hurting a little bit?

do what you have to do.
 
2008-01-31 12:39:17 AM
Shaggy_C: Why don't the Democrats make it explicitly illegal? Oh, right, they couldn't even be bothered to speak out against it until it got leaked to the press. Only then were they the party of high-and-mighty moral values. I don't expect much...it's all just for show at this point guys. And you're all lapping it up. Feed on!

Just a guess, but the Democrats probably didn't have a clue this went on until it leaked, being secret and all that. As to why they haven't banned it, see there's this guy named George Walker Bush, and he has to sign any bill that Congress wants to have made into law...
 
2008-01-31 12:42:11 AM
Aeonic_Blue: god i'm so SICK of hearing about this.

look, i have too kids... and if what our boys are doing keeps my kids safe well im not gonna stand up and demand we give these barbians backrubs until they tell us what there gonna do. simple as that.

they started this and thats that. these are guys willing to BLOW THEMSELVES UP and were getting our collective pantys in a bunch because they might be hurting a little bit?

do what you have to do.


This, ladies and gentlemen, is how this great nation sank so far.

Fear.
 
2008-01-31 12:45:29 AM
Aeonic_Blue: god i'm so SICK of hearing about this.

look, i have too kids... and if what our boys are doing keeps my kids safe well im not gonna stand up and demand we give these barbians backrubs until they tell us what there gonna do. simple as that.

they started this and thats that. these are guys willing to BLOW THEMSELVES UP and were getting our collective pantys in a bunch because they might be hurting a little bit?

do what you have to do.


Hahahahaha, good show.

... You were joking, right?

/please be joking
 
2008-01-31 12:45:53 AM
Fido McCokefiend: The fact that this barely registers in the national consciousness is what makes me sick.

No one cares though, there's a new episode of American Gladiators on Sunday! And it's hosted by the Hulkster brother!

I'm just waiting for the inevitable election year "flag burning" distraction from important issues.

/oh look American Idol is back on too!


img230.imageshack.us
 
2008-01-31 12:46:40 AM
Problem is, and has always been, with torture....It has almost never in recorded history provided any useful information.

Even waterboarding has yet to make any high-ranking al-Qaeda operative divulge any information we didn't already have, or couldn't have gotten much more readily from a more reliable source.

Sure, they'll talk...but do they say anything useful? Nope. At best, it softens them up for interrogation later; but there are better, non-torture methods for working up someone for interrogation.
 
2008-01-31 12:47:04 AM
Wolf_Blitzer: Just a guess, but the Democrats probably didn't have a clue this went on until it leaked, being secret and all that. As to why they haven't banned it, see there's this guy named George Walker Bush, and he has to sign any bill that Congress wants to have made into law...

Nope, they knew back in 2002. Link (new window) Nice try though; your deflection almost worked. The 'Bush would just veto it' is a convenient excuse for why they didn't even bother drafting a bill until last month...Link (new window)
 
2008-01-31 12:50:44 AM
Aeonic_Blue: god i'm so SICK of hearing about this.

look, i have too kids... and if what our boys are doing keeps my kids safe well im not gonna stand up and demand we give these barbians backrubs until they tell us what there gonna do. simple as that.

they started this and thats that. these are guys willing to BLOW THEMSELVES UP and were getting our collective pantys in a bunch because they might be hurting a little bit?

do what you have to do.


Two things:

1) These guys are willing to BLOW THEMSELVES UP. Do you really think a little water in the nose is going to make them give up their 72 virgins in the afterlife? Faith in God has allowed people to withstand torture more gruesome than anything I think (I hope) we'd be willing to try.

2) Other people can't stand pain and will tell their integrators whatever they think they want to hear in order for the pain to stop. Send 50,000 volts up my penis and I'll tell you I'm Moses if that's what I think you want to hear - but that does not make me Moses.

Torture is an ineffective interrogation technique.
 
2008-01-31 12:50:57 AM
Wolf_Blitzer: This, ladies and gentlemen, is how this great nation sank so far.

Fear.


Precisely. Fear is what motivated the White House administration to discard our ideals. Fear is why the public has been keen to just hand over our unique freedoms.

Yes, this is a dangerous world. Yes, having a free and open society makes us more vulnerable to being harmed. Sometimes we're going to get hurt, to get our nose bloodied, but the threat of violence is something that will never make us compromise our ideals, our principles that individual liberty is a cornerstone of a great society.

At least, that's how we used to be.
 
2008-01-31 12:51:17 AM
Shaggy_C

So it is ok then? WTF?
 
2008-01-31 12:54:03 AM
boomaze: So it is ok then? WTF?

No. Not at all; it should be illegal. But our government officials obviously don't really care at all from a exigency standpoint. They only care as much as it gives bad press to the Republicans, especially going into an election year. That's my point: we're being treated like a bunch of suckers.
 
2008-01-31 12:56:05 AM
okay if waterboarding (which ISN'T torture BTW) is ineffective then why did information we got for it end up helping us catch alquida #2?

go ahead and take your time with an answer i know it can be hard to spin cold hard facts.
 
2008-01-31 12:56:17 AM
Shaggy_C: Why don't the Democrats make it explicitly illegal? Oh, right, they couldn't even be bothered to speak out against it until it got leaked to the press. Only then were they the party of high-and-mighty moral values. I don't expect much...it's all just for show at this point guys. And you're all lapping it up. Feed on!

Ok, knowing who you are I know I probably should be replying but, because many actually think this...waterboarding is already illegal, because it is torture and torture is illegal. Specifically outlawing waterboarding would be like outlawing beating someone to death with a golf club, it's already illegal.
 
2008-01-31 12:57:34 AM
Aeonic_Blue: okay if waterboarding (which ISN'T torture BTW) is ineffective then why did information we got for it end up helping us catch alquida #2?

We waterboarded Al Qaeda #2 who told us a bunch of BS about trying to attack US elementary schools. Nice troll though; the all lower-case letters and misspellings were a great touch. I'll give it a 7/10.
 
2008-01-31 12:57:58 AM
Shaggy_C: boomaze: So it is ok then? WTF?

No. Not at all; it should be illegal. But our government officials obviously don't really care at all from a exigency standpoint. They only care as much as it gives bad press to the Republicans, especially going into an election year. That's my point: we're being treated like a bunch of suckers.


It is illegal. If there's another opinion it should be tested in Den Hague.

/cos that'll happen.
 
2008-01-31 12:59:45 AM
attackingpencil: waterboarding is already illegal, because it is torture and torture is illegal.

Well that's the problem. It wasn't explicitly written into the law that it was considered torture; it's very vague on that point. Really, how can you define the word 'torture' and possibly hope to include everything? That's why it needs to be more specific. Otherwise, we'll argue all day on semantics.

/And why the 'knowing who you are'? Am I really that scary?
 
2008-01-31 01:00:26 AM
Aeonic_Blue: okay if waterboarding (which ISN'T torture BTW) is ineffective then why did information we got for it end up helping us catch alquida #2?

go ahead and take your time with an answer i know it can be hard to spin cold hard facts.


So the CIA is credible now?
 
2008-01-31 01:01:47 AM
Shaggy_C: attackingpencil: waterboarding is already illegal, because it is torture and torture is illegal.

Well that's the problem. It wasn't explicitly written into the law that it was considered torture; it's very vague on that point. Really, how can you define the word 'torture' and possibly hope to include everything? That's why it needs to be more specific. Otherwise, we'll argue all day on semantics.

/And why the 'knowing who you are'? Am I really that scary?


The fact that we prosecuted Japanese war criminals for doing it should be enough.
 
2008-01-31 01:04:07 AM
Shaggy_C: attackingpencil: waterboarding is already illegal, because it is torture and torture is illegal.

Well that's the problem. It wasn't explicitly written into the law that it was considered torture; it's very vague on that point. Really, how can you define the word 'torture' and possibly hope to include everything? That's why it needs to be more specific. Otherwise, we'll argue all day on semantics.

/And why the 'knowing who you are'? Am I really that scary?



I meant you're amazing at two-way trolling and I am a bit scared of getting succesfully caught.

The problem with explicitly defining torture is the omissions. So if the list includes waterboarding, pulling out fingernails, etc. but doens't include electrode-testicle shocking then all of a sudden we're doing that and claiming it's not torture because it isn't on some list. I think that the UN definition cited above was a pretty good guideline and certainly would include waterboarding.
 
2008-01-31 01:04:17 AM
CHAZZZ: The fact that we prosecuted Japanese war criminals for doing it should be enough.

Obviously not; winners make the rules and the punishments. We dropped atomic bombs on civilian populations for christ sakes, but that would be a huge war crime today.

We waterboarded in Viet-farking-nam as well. Link (new window)
 
2008-01-31 01:05:09 AM
Aeonic_Blue: okay if waterboarding (which ISN'T torture BTW)

Well, argument's over! It's not torture!
 
2008-01-31 01:06:14 AM
attackingpencil: I think that the UN definition cited above was a pretty good guideline and certainly would include waterboarding.

Agreed, but unfortunately the vagueness that is supposed to make it all-encompassing is also being used to exclude things based on technicality. I feel the only way to counter that is to specifically codify that action because otherwise you leave it open to interpretation by future administrations, etc., which is not a good thing.
 
2008-01-31 01:07:23 AM
Aeonic_Blue: okay if waterboarding (which ISN'T torture BTW) is ineffective then why did information we got for it end up helping us catch alquida #2?

go ahead and take your time with an answer i know it can be hard to spin cold hard facts.


While you were typing that, I was weinerboarding your mom.
 
2008-01-31 01:07:27 AM
clgrin: Mukase later went on to say:
"But I believe that most terrorists are actually hydrophilic and masochistic... so they would enjoy this and therefor would not be torture."


zOMFG. oh, THAT is rich. WHERE does he get that "interesting notion"?

"hydrophilic"... WTF?! what, are they beavers or something? define: "Hydrophilic literally translates as 'water loving' or 'water friend.'" and "of, relating to, or having a strong affinity for water "

"masochistic"... yeah, sure. they're just sitting in the cells going "i sure hope those cool CIA guys come back in and WATERBOARD me."

so, "they" ("those people"?) are all just crazy, torture seeking, water loving folks who are looking forward to their waterboarding..


anybody get the Marie Antoinette ref? (had to look up the spelling)


/loving this thread even thought it seems not to have taken off just yet
//subby
 
2008-01-31 01:07:29 AM
Shaggy_C: attackingpencil: I think that the UN definition cited above was a pretty good guideline and certainly would include waterboarding.

Agreed, but unfortunately the vagueness that is supposed to make it all-encompassing is also being used to exclude things based on technicality. I feel the only way to counter that is to specifically codify that action because otherwise you leave it open to interpretation by future administrations, etc., which is not a good thing.



But how do you deal with the problem of things that aren't added to the list (such as new tortures or just stuff that's forgotten)? Do you keep modifying the law?
 
2008-01-31 01:10:17 AM
Aeonic_Blue: okay if waterboarding (which ISN'T torture BTW) is ineffective then why did information we got for it end up helping us catch alquida #2?

go ahead and take your time with an answer i know it can be hard to spin cold hard facts.


Umm, the person widely regarded as Al Qaeda's #2 is Ayman Al-Zawahiri, who remains at large. You've probably confused him with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the original planner of the 9/11 attack, who was waterboarded after his capture. Remember all those changes in the terror alert level that never amounted to anything? The ones that Tom Ridge later said were crap? Allegedly they were all based on information extracted from Mohammed through water boarding and threats to his family.

Also, every major legal and human rights organization has stated that water boarding is torture. The US government has even considered it torture when it was used against our own people. After World War 2, we executed several Japanese officers for torturing our military personnel, including water boarding. So I'm curious where your certainty that water boarding isn't torture comes from.
 
2008-01-31 01:10:34 AM
attackingpencil: But how do you deal with the problem of things that aren't added to the list (such as new tortures or just stuff that's forgotten)? Do you keep modifying the law?

That's the unfortunate consequence of vaguely written law. The worst part of all of this? It's illegal according to the UMCJ. But the AG says that the CIA is completely exempt from the rules for the military. I just don't get why something like that isn't codified to apply to ALL officers of the state, be it federal, state, or local.
 
2008-01-31 01:10:35 AM
Infamous Dr. X: Anyone who supports this activity, help me out here...

UN definition of torture [lots of goodies snipped here]

This whole debate utterly mystifies me.


I can only assume that he is a COMPLETE lackey and is just pulling a "protect the (whoever the guys are) at any cost" or there is something VERY odd that we really don't have a clue about. I HOPE it's the latter, but i seriously doubt it.
 
2008-01-31 01:10:35 AM
whatever. its not even worth fighting with you morons.

go ahead and give these farking barbians puppies and flowers. they would kill you at the drop of a hat rape your wife and children... but we can only give them kisses and hugs and ask em really nicely who they are planning to murder next.

and the next time something happens you can take the blame for all the innocent people taken from this earth. you can be responsible and party with abdul mohamadbomber in hell.

and you better damn well hope he doesnt get anyone i love, cause ill be after you to.
 
2008-01-31 01:11:03 AM
Shaggy_C: CHAZZZ: The fact that we prosecuted Japanese war criminals for doing it should be enough.

Obviously not; winners make the rules and the punishments. We dropped atomic bombs on civilian populations for christ sakes, but that would be a huge war crime today.

We waterboarded in Viet-farking-nam as well. Link (new window)


We have done a lot of bad things in the past. And I'm sure the public wasn't aware of it being used in Vietnam at the time. We are supposed to learn from our mistakes. And when was the last time anybody used a Nuclear weapon? We don't, because it is wrong.
 
2008-01-31 01:12:03 AM
To quote Barbara Lee, the only member of congress to vote "No" on authorizing military action after 9/11, "As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore."
 
2008-01-31 01:12:32 AM
Aeonic_Blue: puppies and flowers

Sigh...Why don't you just simplify? Post a Cox and Forkum picture and don't bother wasting your time typing. You're not even arguing anything substantial, you're just saying "You are all stupid! Terrorists are bad!"
 
2008-01-31 01:12:34 AM
www.nndb.com

/would approve of the whole situation
/for a while, at least
 
2008-01-31 01:12:59 AM
"If you beat this prick long enough, he'll tell you he started the Chicago Fire. NOW THAT DON'T farkING NECESSARILY MAKE IT SO!!!!"
 
2008-01-31 01:13:08 AM
What's the point of trying to make Mukasey admit it? He's a member of the Bush administration, not a judge. The Democrats are idiots for not just drafting legislation to ban it. At worst, the Republicans would block it, which would be a victory for the dems anyway.
 
2008-01-31 01:13:18 AM
u guyz say no waterbording now but if it werent 4 waterbording we'd all be speaking muslim.
 
2008-01-31 01:13:25 AM
Aeonic_Blue:
and you better damn well hope he doesnt get anyone i love, cause ill be after you to.


.... to ...? To what? I hope it doesn't involve waterboarding.
 
2008-01-31 01:14:33 AM
"You know who else waterboarded?"

/srsly
/very srsly
 
2008-01-31 01:15:32 AM
El_Dan: What's the point of trying to make Mukasey admit it? He's a member of the Bush administration, not a judge. The Democrats are idiots for not just drafting legislation to ban it. At worst, the Republicans would block it, which would be a victory for the dems anyway.

Thanks man, a voice of reason. I said the same thing and people started getting upset :/ I think you may have said it in a nicer way!
 
2008-01-31 01:15:33 AM
Infamous Dr. X: Anyone who supports this activity, help me out here...

UN definition of torture: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him...information or a confession... [etc]"

Assumption 1: The point of waterboarding is to get people to tell you things.

Assumption 2: Waterboarding involves the intentional causing of pain, fear & suffering by one party upon another

Assumption 3: The pain, fear & suffering caused by waterboarding (or, more to the point, the desire for it to stop) is most likely what would make the recipient tell you things

Assumption 4: Other methods of getting people to tell you things (used in the past by various people) include electric shocks, cutting with knives, jamming red hot pokers into sensitive areas, etc.

Assumption 5: The point of methods described in (4) is that the pain /fear/suffering caused by such methods (or the desire to make it stop) will induce the recipient to tell you things

Fact: The methods described in (4) are generally referred to as "torture" as defined because they involve the intentional causing of pain/fear/suffering by one party upon another


Riddle me this, Mr. Attorney General: How is waterboarding not torture?

This whole debate utterly mystifies me.


Assumption 2 is rather weak. No pain or suffering involved, just fear. So it won't actually do anything to you unless you have such a ridiculously weak heart that you weren't probably going to live much longer anyhow.

Basically the argument over waterboarding is wether using the illusion of torture to get people to tell you things counts as actual torture. So kind of like arguing wether assault is equivalent to battery-- maybe valid in a sort of fuzzy psychological sense, but most reasonable people would not consider it equivalent.

Honestly, I'm not really overly upset about the waterboarding thing. We need to start prosecuting people formally before detaining them, though. That's the one that gets my goat. You don't jail people for years at a time without convicting them of something first, that's not how it's supposed to work.
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report