Water Boarding

[Californiaman]

Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple.

Jesus forgave the sins of humanity.

Jesus called the Sadusies and Pharasies a brood of vipers and sons of the devil.

Jesus died for all of mankind.

Which one of the above would you stone him for.

Your statement is so off the mark. What would Jesus do. Mankind isn't Jesus. Your rhetorical question is purely contentious in its' nature.

[wicked1]

Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple.

Jesus forgave the sins of humanity.

Jesus called the Sadusies and Pharasies a brood of vipers and sons of the devil.

Jesus died for all of mankind.

Which one of the above would you stone him for.

Your statement is so off the mark. What would Jesus do. Mankind isn't Jesus. Your rhetorical question is purely contentious in its' nature.

 

Jesus said, "Treat others as you yourself would want to be treated."

Jesus said, "That which you have done to the least among you, you have done to me."

 

Jesus did NOT say "If the other guy would do it or you think you might get some 'valuable' information from it, go ahead and do it."

 

Jesus said we are all sinners. He didn't say, "Wallow in that knowledge and use it to explain away all your sins."

 

Yes, he drove the money changers out of the temple. He chastised the man who prayed "too loudly" in temple. And then he *taught* people the appropriate way to behave.

 

So you believe he died for our sins, ok. Does that mean we have no challenge to rise above "human nature"?

[grampa]

It doesn't matter what Jesus would do. What matters is what are we doing here and now. If this was a discussion about religion then what Jesus would do would be pertinent.

[The Fool on The Hill]

Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple.

Jesus forgave the sins of humanity.

Jesus called the Sadusies and Pharasies a brood of vipers and sons of the devil.

Jesus died for all of mankind.

Which one of the above would you stone him for.

Your statement is so off the mark. What would Jesus do. Mankind isn't Jesus. Your rhetorical question is purely contentious in its' nature.

 

I always thought the point of being a Christian was to strive to be like Jesus?

 

I find it ironic that Christians would support Torture when Jesus himself was Tortured.

 

In 1947' date=' the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian.

 

 

"There should be little doubt from American history that we consider that as torture otherwise we wouldn't have tried and convicted Japanese for doing that same thing to Americans," McCain said during a news conference.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/29/politics/main3554687.shtml

 

"I forgot to mention last night that following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding," [McCain'] told reporters at a campaign event.

[Californiaman]

Big difference between a war combatant and a civilian.

Also, the geneva convention does not recognize terrorists as war combatants.

A war terrorist, illegally in another country, killing Americans or Iraqis, or Afganis or any other nationality is not a war combatant.

Leave to McCain to throw America under the bus. There's a reason he didn't get elected.

[Homz]

Big difference between a war combatant and a civilian.

Also' date=' the geneva convention does not recognize terrorists as war combatants.

A war terrorist, illegally in another country, killing Americans or Iraqis, or Afganis or any other nationality is not a war combatant.

Leave to McCain to throw America under the bus. There's a reason he didn't get elected.[/quote']

 

Just maybe when you've experienced torture you can than identify what it is with a bit more clarity than you or I. Just maybe. Worth thinking about.

[Bluemoon]

Big difference between a war combatant and a civilian.

Also' date=' the geneva convention does not recognize terrorists as war combatants.[/quote']

 

What's the difference between a terrorist and war combatants? Can you define it for me.

[Robin Nahum]

Two issues.

 

Many of those being waterboarded, for instance at Guantanamo Bay are suspected of terrorism; no case against them has been proved. Is it okay to torture people who may simply be at Guantanamo Bay because somebody back home had a grudge against them?

 

Even if they were convicted, the US Constitution forbids, at least in respect of US citizens and residents, cruel and unusual punishment. Not sure why this wouldn't extend to war captives.

 

RN

[KSG_Standard]

The Geneva conventions ONLY apply to Prisoners of War, not Enemy Combatants...Look up the Geneva conventions, I believe it's the 3rd or 4th convention that clearly defines what a prisoner of war is and what treatment they are provided. Enemy combatants are not provided the protections of the Geneva Conventions, it's been ruled on by the Supreme Court at least twice...The enemy combatants that we hold in Guantanamo are classified as Illegal Enemy Combatants, also ruled on by the supremes, and Illegal Enemy Combatants have been held by American Commanders in Chief, since WW1 and have NEVER been provided the protections of the Geneva Conventions...When Reagan brought the UN Treaty on Torture to the US senate for ratification in 1988, the Senate worked for 2 years defining what we in America would consider torture, they defined torture differently than the UN did and then they ratified the treaty...you can read the treaty yourself...If Bush, Cheney or anybody else broke the law, and the Bush Haters have been in charge of the congress for over 3 years now, and now they have a Bush hater for President too...ask yourself, with all of the power in the hands of the dems, and all the dem lawyers in DC, why have there been NO charges brought against Bush or anyone else in his administration? Could it be because NO laws were broken? You libs are running on pure emotion, try some facts and logic!

[Rocky4]

 

I always thought the point of being a Christian was to strive to be like Jesus?

 

Wrong (as usual) As a Christian, I believe I was put on this earth to serve God.

 

Just wondering, what is the liberal solution to the terrorist problem?

[Californiaman]

Just maybe when you've experienced torture you can than identify what it is with a bit more clarity than you or I. Just maybe. Worth thinking about.

 

Torture? Torture?? You ever try and pass something like this out your urethra?

That's right' date=' Kidney Stones. I'll tell you about torture, Homz. This shtuff'll tear you up!

 

[img']http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj438/Californiaman5/Snapshot2009-06-0921-12-40.jpg[/img]

 

 

[axuality]

 

So do you agree with me that the police should have the right to water board you and other American citizens when they want the slightest bit of information?

 

I would assume you would since "It works".

 

Well, now that you mention it, if a guy gets arrested for jaywalking and then admits

that he knows two guys who are going to blow up New York City tomorrow, yea I guess

your idea is good- waterboard him. Because if you don't get the info on the two guys

you might lose 8 million folks.

 

But if his only crime is jaywalking and you don't have GOOD reason to suspect that he

knows about a plot to kill many people, naaaahhh, I don't think it would be

appropriate to waterboard him.

 

Does that make sense to you?

[tulsaslim]

 

Wrong (as usual) As a Christian' date=' I believe I was put on this earth to serve God.

 

Just wondering, what is the liberal solution to the terrorist problem?

[/quote']

 

What's YOUR solution to solving the terrorist problem, Mr. Christian Man?

 

After all, the Taliban are dead-sure they're 'serving God' too.

[axuality]

 

What's the difference between a terrorist and war combatants? Can you define it for me.

 

Certainly. The problem is, you wouldn't listen because your mind is prematurely made up.

 

One of the problems with so many people who argue waterboarding is that in their opinion it is

torture and so they use the word torture to describe it. This however is flawed logic. The position

as to whether it's torture or not is WHAT IS BEING DEBATED.

 

That's like having the opinion that "Obama is a bum". And then thinking that it is logical to say,

"We shouldn't have elected Obama, because we shouldn't elect bums".

 

That logic is flawed because not everyone in the debate agrees that waterboarding is torture, so

you can't win anything by asserting that "we shouldn't torture" equals "we shouldn't waterboard".

Not everybody took Logic 101, I guess. Or else they're just dishonest. Hopefully the former.

[axuality]

 

What's the difference between a terrorist and war combatants? Can you define it for me.

 

Certainly. The problem is, you wouldn't listen because your mind is prematurely made up.

 

One of the problems with so many people who argue against waterboarding is that in their opinion it is

torture and so they use the word torture to describe it. This however is flawed logic. The position

as to whether it's torture or not is WHAT IS BEING DEBATED.

 

That's like having the opinion that "Obama is a bum". And then thinking that it is logical to say,

"We shouldn't have elected Obama, because we shouldn't elect bums".

 

That logic is flawed because not everyone in the debate agrees that waterboarding is torture, so

you can't win anything by asserting that "we shouldn't torture" equals "we shouldn't waterboard".

Not everybody took Logic 101, I guess. Or else they're just dishonest. Hopefully the former.

[80LPC]

not everyone in the debate agrees that waterboarding is torture

 

Can I waterboard those of you who doubt that it is torture ? Afterwards we could have a quaint discussion about it...

[Bowdiddley]

 

Can I waterboard those of you who doubt that it is torture ? Afterwards we could have a quaint discussion about it...

 

 

I get so amused at folks talking about this who really have no clue as to what they are talking about. They simply read the liberal blogs and assume what they say is gospel. :-

 

I've had it done as training while in the military, so, I can make a educated assessment that it isn't torture.

 

As to your question, sure you can do it to me if I get to return the favor to you and I'll only use a half gallon.

[tulsaslim]

If it is NOT torture then why do the people confess their sins in order to make it stop? By definition anything that is painful enough to make somebody 'crack' has got to be torture otherwise there would be no point in doing it at all since the victim wouldn't confess.

 

If somebody did it to you when you were in the military and you said it was 'no big deal' then why are you so anxious to do it to somebody else? Simple logic tells you that if the act is heinous enough to get somebody to confess anything in order to make it stop then it is by definition 'torture'.

 

Of course you conservatives wouldn't understand abstract thinking if it hit you in the face. Here's a clue: just because Alberto Gonzalez and Bush said it wasn't doesn't make it true.

[jannusguy]

 

 

I've had it done as training while in the military' date=' so, I can make a educated assessment that it isn't torture.

 

. [/quote']

 

i smell bullsh*t. just sayin'.

[DrJustice]

Dang, I had specifically planned on not participating in any of these threads...

 

Torture is pain and fear inflicted on you by a hostile party with no friends around to make you feel better about it. You're usually a long way from home with little hope of anything but more torture, imprisonment and degradation. You'll readily fear for your life, perhaps sometimes wanting it to end. You may suffer serious psychosis and be scarred for life on body and soul.

 

E.g. being briefly waterboarded by your buddies as part of military training has got nothing on being thoroughly waterboarded in enemy captivity. They are two completely different things. You and me and many more of us has experienced excruciating physical pain, like californiamans kidney stones and worse, but that has got nothing to do with torture.

 

And as for the discussion about whether wateboarding is torture, of course it is. It falls nicely in under the definition. Unless severely lacking in comprehension of humane issues and empathy I can't see how it's so hard to understand.

 

(Note that I do not comment on the use of torture or not, only on what is and isn't.)

 

(And no, before somebody pull any of those: I'm not a 'liberal', I don't read any 'liberal blogs', I don't have the answer to how USA or others can rid themselves of terrorists, murderers and other scum, etc. etc. - I just think for myself, using my life learnings and experiences as a measure.)

 

DJ

--

[KSG_Standard]

Whatever any of our feelings are on the subject of what is torture and what is not, is irrelevant. The ONLY thing that matters, is what is the legal definition of torture. Here is article one of the United Nations Convention Against Torture, THE law of the land in the US since the treaty was ratified by congress and signed by the President in 1990.

 

Article 1 of the Convention defines torture as:

 

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 or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

 

– Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm

 

We know from investigations, reporting, testimony and experience, that waterboarding does NOT cause SEVERE PAIN OR SUFFERING, WHETHER PHYSICAL OR MENTAL, but instead it causes "irrational" fear of drowning. In order to rise above the threshold to be defined as torture, severe mental or physical pain must be inflicted on the prisoner.

 

The democrat leadership has been aware of the practice of waterboarding since 2002-2003. The democrats are in charge now, and in fact obama has reserved the right to use this technique if need be, along with detention of illegal enemy combatants and rendition. If W or any of his administration broke ANY laws, then why are there no charges or indictments against any of them? The dems control ALL of the Federal Gov't, including the justice department. Why are there no trials planned to punish the "guilty"?

 

If you believe that waterboarding is torture, that's your prerogative, but your feelings don't mean sh!t! We are a nation of laws, not emotions.

[Bowdiddley]

If it is NOT torture then why do the people confess their sins in order to make it stop? By definition anything that is painful enough to make somebody 'crack' has got to be torture otherwise there would be no point in doing it at all since the victim wouldn't confess.

 

I just don't look at scaring the crap out of someone as being torture.

 

If somebody did it to you when you were in the military and you said it was 'no big deal' then why are you so anxious to do it to somebody else? Simple logic tells you that if the act is heinous enough to get somebody to confess anything in order to make it stop then it is by definition 'torture'.

 

Reread my post' date=' I never said it was no big deal, it will scare you, bad.[/color']

 

Of course you conservatives wouldn't understand abstract thinking if it hit you in the face. Here's a clue: just because Alberto Gonzalez and Bush said it wasn't doesn't make it true.

 

Actually I consider myself having more libertarian views than conservative.

 

 

 

i smell bullsh*t. just sayin'.

 

Wipe your upper lip then. Just sayin'

[KSG_Standard]

And another thing...here's article 3 of the UNCAT document, it concerns the practice known as rendition, which is, if you don't already know, the act of transferring a prisoner (with NO judge involve, NO habeus corpus rights, NO congressional permission involved, NO advocate for the prisoner involved) to a third party/country where Torture is allowed, and approved, in order for the third party/country to torture or use the fear of torture on our prisoner for us...this practice was used, and it's use is documented, by Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and G.W. Bush. This option to use this practice is still available to B.H. Obama. So, why are we not talking about the upcoming war crimes trials for all of the past Presidents that violated the law?

 

Article 3

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

 

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

[Rocky4]

 

What's YOUR solution to solving the terrorist problem' date=' Mr. Christian Man?

 

After all, the Taliban are dead-sure they're 'serving God' too.[/quote']

 

We should have nuked Iran 9/12/2001

[tulsaslim]

Here's a little something for you all to think about:

 

Why is there a direct correlation between the quality of education versus one's political beliefs? Look at the last election breakdown then look at the national rankings for the quality of education and you'll see a clear pattern:

 

Those states that rank near the top in quality of education are the same states that voted overwhelmingly Democrat in the last election.

 

Those states that ranked near the bottom in quality of eduction (like my home state of Oklahoma) voted overwhelmingly Republican in the last election.

 

This strongly supports something the Republicans have known for a long time: "the dumber they are the more likely they are to vote for us".