Ah, the "it's only illegal if you get caught" defense. This from the side of the aisle that is so proud of being seen as big on law and order.If President Bush did something illegal he had an obligation as a Senator to call for Impeachment charges and didn't.
No, you're skipping that there are many different ways to do the same thing. Waterboarding is just a euphemism for what has always been called the watert torture. No credible person is making the distinction you're trying to make.
what is the difference in the below and what bush authorized?
Context of '1947: Japanese Soldier Who Waterboarded US Civilian Convicted of War Crime'
I could close my eyes, put my fingers in my ears, and go la-la-la-la, but you seem to have cornered the market on that argument for now.
Ah, the "it's only illegal if you get caught" defense. This from the side of the aisle that is so proud of being seen as big on law and order.
Laws for thee but not for me, I guess. :shrug:
What I want is a little consistency from people like you. Apparently it is, as you say, nothing more than a pipe dream.What exactly do you want? You want Bush prosecuted? Want him thrown in jail? Tell us exactly what you want because what you seem to want is nothing more than a pipe dream as nothing is going to happen and those like you with BDS are going to continue to foam at the mouth.
Is this your way of ingnoring the rebuttal. I linked an overview for that says exactly what I'm saying. That is ahrdly putting my fingers in my ears. You simply have this wrong. Waterboarding isThi the water torture. All the differening methods do exactly the same thing.
Another description of Japanese "water torture":A type of funnel, usually formed from a towel, was placed over the victim's mouth and nose. At the same time, a 5-gallon can was filled with water and usually urine and kerosine. The concoction was poured into the funnel, and the victim had to either swallow all 5 gallons of this mixture or drown.
Having swallowed 5 gallons of this liquid, the victim's stomach would stretch and swell. The victim would then be bound, often with barbed wire, and the stomach would be struck, either with a rod of some sort or soldiers would even jump on it, depending on how the prisoner was bound. This pressure could easily cause the bloated stomach to burst. If not, the victim was then hanged by his ankles and the liquid would drain out through his mouth, risking drowning once again. The process could then be repeated.
It was law to begin with. Torture is and was illegal.
This was a civilian. Do you not see the difference?
Torture is/was illegal, waterboarding was not, until Obama declared formally that it was torture.
Why would a that make a difference? It is the act and not the who that is important. Most of those we waterbaorded were civilians as well, belonging to no army.
Just saying. . .
At least be realistic. Waterboarding as done at Gitmo is not this:
You lose all credibility when you argue that it's the same thing.
Why would that make a difference? Well, if you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.
If you believe the Gitmo detainees are innocent civilians, then that is what you should argue.
Again, read my links. All of those are different forms of the same torture. They are not different tortures. All of them are the water torture. It isn't the drinking of water, but the suffocation that is the torture.
what is the difference in the below and what bush authorized?
Context of '1947: Japanese Soldier Who Waterboarded US Civilian Convicted of War Crime'
I've read the page that you linked and the description of waterboarding you posted sounds like what we are calling waterboarding. I'm fairly certain that doesn't cover the extent of "water torture" that he employed and according to his trial, he also beat POW's with a club and burned them with cigarettes.
Did I say anything about innocent? In neither case was innocent used. Just civilian, belong to no army. But we have tortured innocent people. That's a fact.
No! There's a huge difference between a first- and third-degree burn. That's what we have here. For you to say that the Japanese method posted here is the very same thing as we did at Gitmo is reeeedickalus.
Is this your way of ingnoring the rebuttal. I linked an overview for that says exactly what I'm saying. That is ahrdly putting my fingers in my ears. You simply have this wrong. Waterboarding is the water torture. All the differening methods do exactly the same thing.
The Geneva Convention protects people in uniform and innocent civilians. It does not protect terrorists. If you believe the people held at Gitmo are innocent, not terrorists, then argue that point.
As to having tortured innocent people, of course, we have. We've killed 'em, too. Women and children and all the rest. Such are the spoils of war. I'll say it again, because one can't say it too much:
There is no country in the history of the world that has done more in wartime to protect the innocents. We're not perfect. But we're as close to that as any nation has ever gotten.
You didn't post a rebuttal. I gave you specific details about a torture method employed by Japanese, for which they were tried and convicted, that obviously contrasts with the method we are debating. You then said there was no contrast.
La-la-la-la....
That's not true. Geneva Convention identiies combatants very specifically:
Suicide bombers don't qualify. People masquerading as civilians don't qualify. People in uniform qualify.
So would you argue that the solders who fought in our revolution weren't combatants? They wore plain clothes, and didn't identify themselves openly.
And to many of the others who quoted me, don't put words in my mouth. Don't say "liberals say XYZ" and then dismiss me. I'm talking about a specific transgression by a specific group of people. I'll form my own opinion on everything else. If you think you can prove me wrong, do it. But back it up.
Most of what I've heard in this thread is "screw them to save us", and weasel definitions to find loopholes permitting torture of people. I have yet to hear any of these torture proponents stand up and say "I am willing to torture people who MAY be guilty of a crime in order to extract information." News flash for you all. That's what happened. People who were not convicted of any crime in any court were being tortured. I try to avoid being all high and mighty about this, but do you idiots really not see that if it can happen to an accused terrorist with brown skin, it can happen to you, too? The only way to ensure that no innocent people are tortured is to torture no one.
Good find. We shouldn't have signed it without a clearer definition of what constitutes torture. Severe pain and suffering....does waterboarding fall under that category? Subjective definitions always suck. UNCAT's definition is:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?