tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post5788720630288801268..comments2023-10-25T14:20:11.408-05:00Comments on RHOBLOGY: Liberalism and waterboardingRhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-68969201866712444062008-03-13T21:27:00.000-05:002008-03-13T21:27:00.000-05:00But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. ...But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. (Matthew 5:39-41)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-43975025926681197952008-03-11T16:53:00.000-05:002008-03-11T16:53:00.000-05:00"In a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales ..."In a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales more than 100 United States law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and the use of the practice is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code."<BR/><BR/>http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/06/usdom13130.htmJohn Moraleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16354725997954085678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-24788613189043817402008-03-11T13:37:00.000-05:002008-03-11T13:37:00.000-05:00"Whence comes this definition? Do they reason out ..."Whence comes this definition? Do they reason out to whom it should apply and why?"<BR/><BR/>The definition comes from the experience of the lawyers that developed it and the states that have ratified it. In intent, it is proposed to apply to everybody, everywhere, at all times.<BR/><BR/>"Waterboarding induces a gag reflex and the sense of drowning. What's the argument for why duration should be irrelevant? Crushing fingers, OTOH, induces pain and perhaps-permanent disability. There's a diff there."<BR/><BR/>You will notice that the Convention definition includes mental suffering, not just physical suffering. That is because it is quite simple to torture somebody mentally without physically affecting them; mock executions, hurting their children, depriving them of sleep, and so on. <BR/><BR/>Duration is irrelevant because then one could argue that "briefly" harming somebody was not torture; so the "diff" is not there.<BR/><BR/>"And freezing someone's assets could certainly cause "severe mental suffering.""<BR/><BR/>That's a truly specious argument, which I will not dignify with a response.<BR/><BR/>"Taking someone on a tour of the gallows where they'll be hanged if they're found guilty (which might be in little doubt) could."<BR/><BR/>Indeed, although it's doubtful that you could prove it was torture unless it was part of a systematic campaign. Such an action would be considered unacceptable in our countries, as you probably know already.<BR/><BR/>"Feeding a jihadist pork chops could."<BR/><BR/>Indeed, although it's doubtful that you could prove it was torture unless it was part of a systematic campaign. This is why the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners states that "it is necessary to respect the religious beliefs and moral precepts of the group to which a prisoner belongs."<BR/><BR/>"Shoot, being in prison has been known to cause severe mental suffering."<BR/><BR/>Which is why the Convention explicitly excludes being in prison and other legal incidences.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-90955743072869515532008-03-11T13:23:00.000-05:002008-03-11T13:23:00.000-05:00Meh.Whence comes this definition? Do they reason ...Meh.<BR/>Whence comes this definition? Do they reason out to whom it should apply and why?<BR/>Waterboarding induces a gag reflex and the sense of drowning. What's the argument for why duration should be irrelevant?<BR/>Crushing fingers, OTOH, induces pain and perhaps-permanent disability. There's a diff there.<BR/><BR/>And freezing someone's assets could certainly cause "severe mental suffering." Maybe even emotional suffering. They might suffer a nervous breakdown b/c they base so much of their identity on their fortune.<BR/>Seeing one's comrades imprisoned could cause severe mental suffering. <BR/>Taking someone on a tour of the gallows where they'll be hanged if they're found guilty (which might be in little doubt) could.<BR/>Feeding a jihadist pork chops could. Since duration doesn't matter, even if it were in their cell for a few minutes could. I mean, the possibilities are endless. <BR/>Shoot, being in prison has been known to cause severe mental suffering. Maybe we should just send them back to their jihadist cave-clan with a check for backpay for all the time they were imprisoned.<BR/><BR/>merkur,<BR/><BR/>I'd be very interested in reading your blog. Could you email me the link? I promise never to reveal it, link to it, or provide any assistance to anyone in finding it.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-28449894692519813022008-03-11T13:02:00.000-05:002008-03-11T13:02:00.000-05:00Rhology: "I don't see an argument for why "painful...Rhology: "I don't see an argument for why "painful psychological experience" - which should be stated "experience that lasts about 30 seconds, leaves no physical aftereffect and can cause painful psychological experience later in life, including fear of rain and taking a shower" - that should be defined as "torture".<BR/><BR/>The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman<BR/>or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: "the term "torture" means 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"<BR/><BR/>Why don't you work from there? Duration is irrelevant; severity is relevant. Waterboarding causes severe mental suffering, as multiple testimonies have clearly estabished; indeed, the claims to its efficacy are based largely on the fact that it causes severe mental suffering.<BR/><BR/>Your best defense is to state that you support torture. It would be repugnant to me, but at least it would give you a more defensible position.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-29405153850831189252008-03-11T12:53:00.000-05:002008-03-11T12:53:00.000-05:00You've made one comment so far of more than 2 sent...You've made one comment so far of more than 2 sentences. Let the reader judge whether "Where?" is a reasonable question.<BR/><BR/>I'm right here - feel free to enlighten my deficient insight whenever you please.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-63732281532082651472008-03-11T12:49:00.000-05:002008-03-11T12:49:00.000-05:00As I said, don't blame me for your own lack of ins...As I said, don't blame me for your own lack of insight. If you want to do a head-to-head on this topic, I'm happy to oblige, subject to time constraints.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-86077699917267335462008-03-11T12:43:00.000-05:002008-03-11T12:43:00.000-05:00It does.Where?<I>It does.</I><BR/><BR/>Where?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-43794515508957163362008-03-11T12:39:00.000-05:002008-03-11T12:39:00.000-05:00I have no desire to share my blogging with any aud...I have no desire to share my blogging with any audience wider than my friends, thanks.<BR/><BR/>"One might generally expect that a greater understanding would thus bleed over into the arguments you make."<BR/><BR/>It does. Don't blame me for your own lack of insight.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-66589866683498778492008-03-11T10:39:00.000-05:002008-03-11T10:39:00.000-05:00I stand corrected. What's the link to it?Fine, you...I stand corrected. <BR/>What's the link to it?<BR/>Fine, you're closer to the issues. One might generally expect that a greater understanding would thus bleed over into the arguments you make.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-42076247841978405122008-03-11T10:35:00.000-05:002008-03-11T10:35:00.000-05:00"And you don't even have a blog. You just take pot..."And you don't even have a blog. You just take potshots at blog authors. What does that say about you then?"<BR/><BR/>You have no idea if I have a blog; in fact I do. You also have no idea what my day job is; since I've spent a considerable amount of time in conflict and post-conflict environments (including Afghanistan and Iraq), let's just say that I'm probably closer to these issues than you. You may also assume that this is part of the reason why your ignorance makes me angry; as far as I'm concerned, you're part of the problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-490331280750350672008-03-11T08:48:00.000-05:002008-03-11T08:48:00.000-05:00no one from Bush on down has come up with a single...<I>no one from Bush on down has come up with a single documented example of American lives saved thanks to torture.</I><BR/><BR/>Hmm. No one ever accused the Bush Admin of great competency, for one thing.<BR/>I guess that's too bad, but in theory I don't see what's wrong with the idea.<BR/>Besides, if it can get someone like Khalid S Mohammed to talk...<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>You're willing to write blog posts, which is quite a long way away from actually taking on tough questions.</I><BR/><BR/>And you don't even have a blog. You just take potshots at blog authors. What does that say about you then?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>but we apparently don't believe that the end justifies the means.</I><BR/><BR/>Who cares what you believe about morality? <BR/>You're an atheist, any moral code you could possibly have is not applicable to anyone besides you according to your own precepts.<BR/><BR/><I>you keep referring to "jihadists", where more properly you should be referring to terrorists.</I><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.answering-islam.org/Bailey/jihad.html" REL="nofollow">It's for a reason</A>.<BR/>I think I prefer the Qur'an to Wikipedia. That's just me, though.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Mujahideen are in fact monotheists who are acting out their beliefs - they are far closer to your worldview than to that of atheists.</I><BR/><BR/>Granted, but I don't see why that's relevant.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Strawman? Hardly!</I><BR/><BR/>It's a strawman b/c I wouldn't argue that this is permissible. I join with you in condemning it. Go press Dana Perino on that./<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>this implies that the US has never done anything to bring about the situation in the first place (eg invading Iraq for no good reason).</I><BR/><BR/>I wouldn't agree with that, but I do agree that it's part of my argument. <BR/><BR/><I>the US invaded a country and decided pretty much to have it run the way they wanted, killing a lot of innocent people in the process. Is that really any better than the behaviour of the jihadists?</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, American fighters are dressing up in civilian clothes, strapping bombs with shrapnel in them to their bodies, and blowing up women and children in marketplaces and buses? Can you point us to a few sources for such a claim?<BR/><BR/><I>is it not a slight possibility that people get tired of the US's often unjustified actions against them?</I><BR/><BR/>Looks like ONE atheist thinks it's defensible that the ends justify the means. Maybe you and John Morales should confer so as to get your stories straight. <BR/><BR/><I>who decides on the rightness of the cause exactly?</I><BR/><BR/>The argument. What else do I ever say?<BR/><BR/><I>If people from another country marched into the US </I><BR/><BR/>Like which one? What form of gov't would they set up? Are you creating an equality of forms of gov't? You think sharia law is just as good as a republican (little 'r') democracy? <BR/><BR/><I>i think waterboading has considerably more impact than that - suffocation can cause brain/lung tissue damage for example. that doesnt just last a few minutes.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, have there been some people who have suffocated from waterboarding? Drowned? <BR/>I thought this was just a minute or so that it took to break them usually.<BR/><BR/><BR/>And I don't base my arguments on what the President thinks or says, just FYI.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-33766000770995396302008-03-09T05:01:00.000-05:002008-03-09T05:01:00.000-05:00Well, Rhology, it seems you and your President are...Well, Rhology, it seems you and your President are in agreement on this matter.<BR/><BR/>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/08/bush.torture.ap/index.htmlJohn Moraleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16354725997954085678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-439991558455651162008-03-08T20:05:00.000-06:002008-03-08T20:05:00.000-06:00"Why? B/c it feels bad for a few minutes and makes..."Why? B/c it feels bad for a few minutes and makes you feel afraid?"<BR/><BR/>i think waterboading has considerably more impact than that - suffocation can cause brain/lung tissue damage for example. that doesnt just last a few minutes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-4900595995014099842008-03-08T20:02:00.000-06:002008-03-08T20:02:00.000-06:00"1) I never said anythg of the sort. Strawman.2) T..."1) <B>I never said anythg of the sort. Strawman.<BR/>2) That said, I do kinda think the US is the best country in the history of the world.<BR/>3) But there are TONS of problems with it.<BR/>4) And this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.</B><BR/><BR/>1) the general tone of the post was that because its the US doing it for 'justice'/morally sound reasons then its OK - this implies that the US has never done anything to bring about the situation in the first place (eg invading Iraq for no good reason).<BR/>2) in some regards yes, I'd agree<BR/>3) again, I agree<BR/>4) not purely with waterboarding, but with the general attitude of righteousness that comes with the 'right' to use it as an interrogation procedure<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>I am aware there are terrorists who want us dead - but then you have to look at the mirror image where the US invaded a country and decided pretty much to have it run the way they wanted, killing a lot of innocent people in the process. Is that really any better than the behaviour of the jihadists?<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Oh, they're not bad folk according to you? Sharia law forced on you sounds OK?" <BR/><BR/>again i agree they are not nice folk, and theocracy of any sort isn't a great idea - but my point was, ask why they (or at least some of them) are blowing people up. is it not a slight possibility that people get tired of the US's often unjustified actions against them?<BR/><BR/>"I've clearly stated a few times that part of my case is based on the rightness of the cause.<BR/>No, waterboarding a US soldier would be unjustifiable IN THIS CASE.<BR/>And of course I don't agree that the conflict in Iraq is a case of wanton aggression on the US' part, but I don't know if I've met very many people who can discuss that topic rationally, so I have little stomach for it."<BR/><BR/>And who decides on the rightness of the cause exactly? If people from another country marched into the US and decided to tell them how they should run their country, or sort out the aspects of the US and its laws and customs they didnt like you'd be a little miffed I'd bet. But the invaders would think they were perfectly justified no doubt.<BR/><BR/>As far as I'm aware there was no evidence to suggest Iraq had WMDs or an involvement in 9/11. I an't really see much justification for the invasion of that country, but if you have contradictory evidence I'm open to changing my view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-63479469818535674682008-03-08T17:38:00.000-06:002008-03-08T17:38:00.000-06:00Rhology grab the farmer, hold him incommunicado...<B>Rhology</B><BR/> grab the farmer, hold him incommunicado for years without access to a lawyer<BR/><BR/> <I>"Strawman - you're losing the argument already. Nowhere have I claimed nor would I claim this is permissible."</I><BR/>Strawman? Hardly! Do you have any idea how many of the people sequestered away in the prisons (both secret and used-to-be secret) are relatives of, neighbours of, from the same country as, phoned someone in..., as the many other suspects in the many other secret prisons? I'll give you a hint: most of the ones they've released so far. Some after years of imprisonment, none with much more compensation than a cheap suit and a plane ticket home, and all potentially having undergone torture. What do you say when your interrogator asks you a question, and you have no idea what he's talking about? You say whatever gets him to stop. That "intelligence" leads to more captured "terrorists", which leads to more...which leads to....<BR/><BR/>Waterboarding is just one small part of the fiasco called the War on Terror. It is, however, a part that is easy to fix.Modusoperandihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04213914791604385761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-2750470841371149242008-03-07T18:09:00.000-06:002008-03-07T18:09:00.000-06:00Are you guys who disagree seriously cool with jiha...<I>Are you guys who disagree seriously cool with jihadists blowing up American soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi civilians? That's what's happening.</I><BR/><BR/>No, but we apparently don't believe that the end justifies the means.<BR/><BR/>Also, you keep referring to "jihadists", where more properly you should be referring to terrorists.<BR/><BR/>If you really think the terror acts are theologically inspired, you should adjust your terminology - I refer you to Wikipedia, showing the term should be Mujahideen <I>(Arabic: مجاهدين, muǧāhidīn, literally "strugglers") is a term for Muslims fighting in a war or involved in any other struggle.[1] The word is the plural form of مجاهد, muǧāhid, which comes from the same Arabic root as jihad ("struggle"). In Islamic scripture, the status of mujahid is unequal to qaid, one who does not join the jihad.</I><BR/><BR/>Mujahideen are in fact monotheists who are acting out their beliefs - they are far closer to your worldview than to that of atheists.John Moraleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16354725997954085678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-19649112833452826992008-03-07T18:04:00.000-06:002008-03-07T18:04:00.000-06:00"I want to save lives with urgency, and am willing..."I want to save lives with urgency, and am willing to take on tough questions about what is morally permissible to that end."<BR/><BR/>No you're not. You're willing to write blog posts, which is quite a long way away from actually taking on tough questions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-50363889712735042592008-03-07T16:26:00.000-06:002008-03-07T16:26:00.000-06:00Well, it's certain that a working definition of to...<I>Well, it's certain that a working definition of torture is needed. Can you propose one?</I><BR/><BR/>It's been done - I refer you to <BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture<BR/><BR/>Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person [...]"<BR/><BR/><I>Especially when all you had to do was tell someone how to prevent a bunch of deaths?</I><BR/><BR/>From the Washington Post:<BR/>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/12/11/BL2007121101053.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns<BR/><BR/><I>Did Torture Work?<BR/><BR/>By Dan Froomkin<BR/>Special to washingtonpost.com <BR/>Tuesday, December 11, 2007; 1:13 PM <BR/>In interviews yesterday and this morning, a former CIA agent called waterboarding what it is. Not "enhanced interrogation" or "harsh tactics." Simply: torture. [...] But it all boils down to the fact that, so far, no one from Bush on down has come up with a single documented example of American lives saved thanks to torture. [...]</I>John Moraleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16354725997954085678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-24058514265155749102008-03-07T14:18:00.000-06:002008-03-07T14:18:00.000-06:00Modusoperandi,I don't have to try it. I don't thi...Modusoperandi,<BR/><BR/>I don't have to try it. I don't think it's fun. I want to save lives with urgency, and am willing to take on tough questions about what is morally permissible to that end.<BR/><BR/><I>grab the farmer, hold him incommunicado for years without access to a lawyer </I><BR/><BR/>Strawman - you're losing the argument already. Nowhere have I claimed nor would I claim this is permissible.<BR/><BR/><I>How much of our humanity are you willing to give up to defeat "them"?</I><BR/><BR/>Jihadists are. One thing that surprises me consistently about this question is that suddenly people forget how bad jihadists are. And waterboarding becomes the Ultimate Evil (that's hyperbole). <BR/>I don't think it's giving up any humanity. that's up to you to prove.<BR/><BR/><I>you have the transcripts from the open trials of most of those captured after Afghanistan?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't support immoral things performed by the US military, OK? Let's discuss the ACTUAL ISSUE.<BR/>If they're jihadists, if they're captured on a battlefield or sthg with arms, etc, it's pretty obvious. Especially if they're from out of the country (which most of the Iraq insurgents apparently are).<BR/><BR/><I>Which Gospel is that from, anyway?</I><BR/><BR/>Begging the question - prove I'm uncaring and unChristian.<BR/><BR/><I>Maybe it would help if we tried not being savage beasts first</I><BR/><BR/>1) So you grant that they ARE? Cool.<BR/>2) I don't grant that waterboarding makes someone a savage beast, if they are properly constrained as I've described.<BR/><BR/><I>We should lose the secret prisons and add some form of reasonable oversight while we're at it.</I><BR/><BR/>Secret prisons - half meh, but half I see what you're saying.<BR/>Reasonable oversight - I'm all for it. Now could we discuss <B>waterboarding</B>, please?<BR/><BR/><I>Japanese soldiers who were found guilty of the very same thing</I><BR/><BR/>Equivocation (again) on the morality of the cause. Japanese soldiers in WW2 were fighting an unjust war; American soldiers were not. They did not have the right to interrogate anyone even.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Rintintin,<BR/><BR/><I>you seem to have this bizarre view that the US is a beacon of shining light</I><BR/><BR/>1) I never said anythg of the sort. Strawman.<BR/>2) That said, I do kinda think the US is the best country in the history of the world.<BR/>3) But there are TONS of problems with it.<BR/>4) And this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>'jihadists' are out to get us all</I><BR/><BR/>You've got your head in the sand if you think this is just a matter of me THINKING they are out to get us all.<BR/><BR/><I>just as you think...and (they) are bad folk for doing so</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, they're not bad folk according to you? Sharia law forced on you sounds OK? <BR/><BR/><I>Presumably you have no objections to torture of American troops etc captured in these circumstances? </I><BR/><BR/>I've clearly stated a few times that part of my case is based on the rightness of the cause.<BR/>No, waterboarding a US soldier would be unjustifiable IN THIS CASE.<BR/>And of course I don't agree that the conflict in Iraq is a case of wanton aggression on the US' part, but I don't know if I've met very many people who can discuss that topic rationally, so I have little stomach for it.<BR/><BR/><I>But do you not think there might be a reason why they do these sorts of things?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes. Jihad.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>blow things up just for the sake of it regardless of the situation,</I><BR/><BR/>They don't do that, though. They blow stuff up for JIHAD's sake.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>John Morales,<BR/><BR/><I>Someone actually did it:</I><BR/><BR/>Man, I wouldn't've done it alone! What if he'd lost consciousness and drowned? So we automatically know he's not blessed with a chipmunk's common sense.<BR/>He says a few interesting things:<BR/><BR/><I>Instinct tells us we are dying.</I><BR/><BR/>But of course he wasn't. B/c in interrogations, the captors want info, not the death of the interrogatee.<BR/><BR/><I>I have never been more panicked in my whole life.</I><BR/><BR/>Good. Might put the fear of God more in the jihadist.<BR/>Oops, maybe that was the wrong way to put it.<BR/><BR/><I>where I was in total control and never in any danger.</I><BR/><BR/>Good deal. Now just tell me what you know about the attack we know is coming and we know you know about. And it'll all be over. Otherwise, splashy splashy.<BR/><BR/><I>If I had the choice of being waterboarded by a third party or having my fingers smashed one at a time by a sledgehammer, I'd take the fingers, no question.</I><BR/><BR/>I believe he might until the 1st finger were smashed.<BR/>Has he ever had his fingers smashed by a sledgehammer? Come on. <BR/>One wouldn't want that in real life b/c one would want to continue one's life and be able to support oneself. He'd want to be able to type up his account on the PC and not dictate the rest of his life.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>It's horrible, terrible, inhuman torture.</I><BR/><BR/>Why? B/c it feels bad for a few minutes and makes you feel afraid? <BR/>B/c someone might do it to a jihadist to get info that could save lives?<BR/><BR/><I>I'd prefer permanent damage and disability to experiencing it again.</I><BR/><BR/>It's easy to say NOW. <BR/>Of course, no one here is arguing we should be waterboarding for fun or anyone just for the heck of it. It's for a reason. No one is claiming it's pleasant. If it were pleasant, no one would give up the info.<BR/><BR/><I>It sure sounds like you don't think it's torture unless it also involves gross tissue damage - that the suffering isn't enough in itself.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, it's certain that a working definition of torture is needed. Can you propose one? <BR/>Tissue damage, disability, etc, yeah that would qualify I should think. 1 minute of discomfort and some phobias generated? Especially when all you had to do was tell someone how to prevent a bunch of deaths? Mmm, not so much. <BR/>Are you guys who disagree seriously cool with jihadists blowing up American soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi civilians? That's what's happening.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-6660199461641929052008-03-07T04:17:00.000-06:002008-03-07T04:17:00.000-06:00You write [...] the point in the article, who of c...You write <I>[...] the point in the article, who of course takes w-boarding as torture, though I don't.</I><BR/>then you admit<BR/><I>I wouldn't want, for example, my wife to be waterboarded.</I><BR/><BR/>Rhology, in your post you wrote <I>I don't see an argument for why "painful psychological experience" - which should be stated "experience that lasts about 30 seconds, leaves no physical aftereffect and can cause painful psychological experience later in life, including fear of rain and taking a shower" - that should be defined as "torture".</I><BR/><BR/>Why, if it's psychological, does it need the physical paraphernalia and process? Are you so sure there's no physiological component?<BR/><BR/>Someone actually did it:<BR/>http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448717<BR/><BR/>It sure sounds like you don't think it's torture unless it also involves gross tissue damage - that the suffering isn't enough in itself.John Moraleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16354725997954085678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-38902544765614292482008-03-07T04:07:00.000-06:002008-03-07T04:07:00.000-06:00Hidden One:I must admit that the day "the ends jus...Hidden One:<BR/><I>I must admit that the day "the ends justifies the means" ever becomes a declared Catholic dogma, whether that be in regards to torture or anything, I'm deciding that Luther had a good idea.</I><BR/><BR/>You might want to refer to the Catholic Encyclopedia's Inquisition article:<BR/>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm#IIAJohn Moraleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16354725997954085678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-78075922159040693482008-03-06T15:59:00.000-06:002008-03-06T15:59:00.000-06:00The gov't has decided the battlefield? No, the jih...<B>The gov't has decided the battlefield? No, the jihadists have by blowing up civilians and marketplaces indiscriminately.<BR/>Of course there are mistakes, but people make mistakes ALL THE TIME on ALL SORTS OF SUBJECTS. Just b/c you bought the wrong kind of milk a few weeks ago doesn't mean you don't buy any more milk, ever.</B><BR/><BR/>I'm not anti-American by any stretch (I thoroughly enjoy living over here and have found Americans to be nice folk), but you seem to have this bizarre view that the US is a beacon of shining light that the rest of the world should be thankful for coming in and deciding how they should govern their country and what they should do with their resources ("remember folks, it only counts as democracy if our guy wins and enforces the sort of rules we like. Access to vasts amount of oil wouldn't go amiss either..."), and therefore certain actions are competely justified. <BR/><BR/>As always there are two sides to every story - just as you think 'jihadists' are out to get us all and are bad folk for doing so , there are no shortage of people of a comparable level on the side of the US. America has often been the unwarranted aggressor both presently (Iraq if I recall had no WMD's despite 'intelligence' saying they did, and the 9/11 bombers were almost all from Saudi Arabia, none were from Iraq) and in the past (eg Vietnam), or supported various brutal governments (eg in South America) purely to support their own agenda. Presumably you have no objections to torture of American troops etc captured in these circumstances? <BR/><BR/><B>so they'll just live a normal life and stop plotting to blow people up.</B><BR/><BR/>i want them to live normal lives and stop blowing things up too. But do you not think there might be a reason why they do these sorts of things? Fair enough you might get a certain number of loons who would blow things up just for the sake of it regardless of the situation, there's not a lot anyone can do to stop every incident like that in a world of 6.5 bn people, but to put it bluntly there are probably a lot of people who do it because they're tired of being dictated to by a country several thousand miles away with an incompetent man-child in charge acting as the world's policeman.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-18560280475568084922008-03-06T02:49:00.000-06:002008-03-06T02:49:00.000-06:00Rhology "I don't see an argument for why "painful ...<B>Rhology</B> <I>"I don't see an argument for why "painful psychological experience" - which should be stated "experience that lasts about 30 seconds, leaves no physical aftereffect and can cause painful psychological experience later in life, including fear of rain and taking a shower" - that should be defined as "torture".</I><BR/>Really? Try it. Much like seeing if you're Superman, you'll find that it's not as fun as you think it is (as the psych reports of those who were "not" tortured attests).<BR/><BR/><I>"Just b/c you bought the wrong kind of milk a few weeks ago doesn't mean you don't buy any more milk, ever."</I><BR/>Nor do you dash out to the farm and grab the farmer, hold him incommunicado for years without access to a lawyer while waterboarding him in hopes that he will eventually give to the evidence to prove that you were right to do such things. Then you can move on to the secret trial...<BR/><BR/><I>"But I'm also pointing out the lack of thought on the other side's part about who's the bad guy here."</I><BR/>"They" are. How much of our humanity are you willing to give up to defeat "them"?<BR/><BR/><I>"But they're jihadists."</I><BR/>So, you have the transcripts from the open trials of most of those captured after Afghanistan?<BR/><BR/><I>"I kind of don't care much."</I><BR/>How christian of you. Which Gospel is that from, anyway? It sounds more OT, to me. From the book of Apathy, which follows <I>Meh</I>viticus, I believe.<BR/><BR/><I>"Maybe they could just stop being a savage beast, give the info they have, contribute to saving several/many lives, and be a decent human being. It's not that hard."</I><BR/>Maybe it would help if we tried not being savage beasts first...probably not, but it would be less hypocritical. We should lose the secret prisons and add some form of reasonable oversight while we're at it.<BR/><BR/><I>quote "to say that 30 seconds of waterboarding is torture trivializes the concept of torture. If that's torture, then torture is grossly overrated." unquote </I><BR/>Well, then we'd better hurry up and apologize to the Japanese soldiers who were found guilty of the very same thing. It could be difficult, as we shot them for that.<BR/><BR/>...Mat 5:39 & 5:44 just don't have the pop that they used to, I guess. Pity. That Jesus fellow was on to something.Modusoperandihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04213914791604385761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-4044757068294080662008-03-05T11:57:00.000-06:002008-03-05T11:57:00.000-06:00Nice attempt to evade the point that you're an inc...Nice attempt to evade the point that you're an incredibly poor witness to your faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com