Which one of you cared about the Constitution again?

SheikBen wrote: If there are better ways than waterboarding to save American lives, I'd like to hear them, and I am very open to their existence.

Now Michael, ...... the lefties don't give a damn about saving American lives so don't be clouding the issue of torture by even mentioning said. OK

GEEEZE, if torturing someone will save American lives, ........ then you have to give someone credit for saving those lives ........... and Bush Haters ain't about to do that nowhere, nohow, never.

.

SamCogar wrote:GEEEZE, if torturing someone will save American lives, ........ then you have to give someone credit for saving those lives ........... and Bush Haters ain't about to do that nowhere, nohow, never.

.

But Bush says that we don't torture prisoners. So what's your point?

TerryRC wrote:The problem with calling waterboarding or sleep deprivation "torture" is that you end up depriving torture of it's meaning.

Sleep deprivation can cause permanent insanity and death if taken to extremes. It is one of the WORST forms of torture.

Hunger doesn't cause extreme pain. Perhaps starving people shouldn't be considered torture, either.

Of course sleep deprivation should have it's limits, but the institution itself (not its extreme form) is what is in view here.

Of course sleep deprivation should have it's limits, but the institution itself (not its extreme form) is what is in view here.

Isn't a little torture like being a little pregnant? Is starving someone OK as long as we don't starve them "all the way"?

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

If the definition of torture is limited to those acts causing excruciating or extreme pain, then I would fully agree that the United States has no business doing those things. I also do not think these days that waterboarding causes excruciating or extreme pain. The problem with calling waterboarding or sleep deprivation "torture" is that you end up depriving torture of it's meaning.

And that's my point- that if we deny that waterboarding and / or sleep deprivation is torture, that we then have "deniability" that any act- no matter how tortuous- can being called "torture". But that's what liemongers do- deprive words of their generally understood and usual dictionary meanings.

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

If the definition of torture is limited to those acts causing excruciating or extreme pain, then I would fully agree that the United States has no business doing those things. I also do not think these days that waterboarding causes excruciating or extreme pain.

These days? How do you think that waterboarding done "these days" is any different than waterboardiong done in any other days?

By "these days" I mean to say that my opinion is somewhat malleable--frankly, while I don't consider it torture/extreme/excruciating right now, I could be convinced otherwise, and (I honestly don't remember), may have thought so in the past.

Waterbording is just 100,000th on my list of offenses against God and man. If this whole war is based on the false premise of an imminent threat proven not to be so, the question of techniques pales, particularly when it's waterboarding and not something more sinister.

I don't mean to sound uncaring, but in a world in which the most savage events have become all too common, I think it's wrong to equivalate waterboarding with such acts.

TerryRC wrote:Of course sleep deprivation should have it's limits, but the institution itself (not its extreme form) is what is in view here.

Isn't a little torture like being a little pregnant? Is starving someone OK as long as we don't starve them "all the way"?

I would say that the degree of an action makes it torturous. If my child throws a tantrum at a restaurant and so he is removed without eating, is it torture? Should the UN get involved?

SheikBen wrote:

TerryRC wrote:Of course sleep deprivation should have it's limits, but the institution itself (not its extreme form) is what is in view here.

Isn't a little torture like being a little pregnant? Is starving someone OK as long as we don't starve them "all the way"?

I would say that the degree of an action makes it torturous. If my child throws a tantrum at a restaurant and so he is removed without eating, is it torture? Should the UN get involved?

I have to say, I'm more than a little disappointed at the number of people who aren't opposed to our government torturing other human beings. Particularly when the people most likely to be tortured haven't had the benefit of a trial, or even an attorney. I'd say a "little" torture of a person who hasn't been convicted of any crime is pretty reprehensible.

At the risk of seriously offending a couple of people I truly am very fond of, I must point something out. TerryRC is an atheist and I am an apathist. I've never been quite clear exactly what Ziggy is......perhaps a universalist. I think it says something that it is the Christians who are defending torture, while we condemn it.

I can almost guarantee you .......... that under the right circumstances, ...... 99% of all "anti-torture persons" ......... would be demanding that torture be administered in any way, shape or form necessary.


.

I can almost guarantee you that if one of your loved ones were being held captive by some foreign power without access to an attorney or the courts or any of the other protections we demand of other nations on behalf of American citizens, you'd be demanding this nation take swift, decisive against that nation. We demand other nations treat America and Americans a certain way, but we can do anything to anyone else at anytime and any place.

Stephanie wrote:

SheikBen wrote:

TerryRC wrote:Of course sleep deprivation should have it's limits, but the institution itself (not its extreme form) is what is in view here.

Isn't a little torture like being a little pregnant? Is starving someone OK as long as we don't starve them "all the way"?

I would say that the degree of an action makes it torturous. If my child throws a tantrum at a restaurant and so he is removed without eating, is it torture? Should the UN get involved?

I have to say, I'm more than a little disappointed at the number of people who aren't opposed to our government torturing other human beings. Particularly when the people most likely to be tortured haven't had the benefit of a trial, or even an attorney. I'd say a "little" torture of a person who hasn't been convicted of any crime is pretty reprehensible.

At the risk of seriously offending a couple of people I truly am very fond of, I must point something out. TerryRC is an atheist and I am an apathist. I've never been quite clear exactly what Ziggy is......perhaps a universalist. I think it says something that it is the Christians who are defending torture, while we condemn it.

Read about the deeds of Joshua in the Old Testament, Stephanie. And then the words of Jesus in the New Testament books. Joshua, that ancient Hitler, provides the "example", while Jesus provides the "cover". With Joshua as mentor, but Jesus as judge, "Christians" can justify anything.

Steph, forget about a foreign power ........ and consider it is one of your loved ones that is being held captive by some pedophile in an underground bunker ...... and he won't tell you where your child is.

And you are going to find yourself a good Lawyer and haul his arse into Court and try to convince said pedophile to divulge the whereabouts of your child.


.

SamCogar wrote:Steph, forget about a foreign power ........ and consider it is one of your loved ones that is being held captive by some pedophile in an underground bunker ...... and he won't tell you where your child is.

And you are going to find yourself a good Lawyer and haul his arse into Court and try to convince said pedophile to divulge the whereabouts of your child.

So how does Stephanie know which suspected "pedophile" has her loved one held captive? Just sweeping the streets and considering everyone rounded up as the suspected kidnapping pedophile does little more than to drive the real perp back to his "underground bunker".

Stephanie wrote:

SheikBen wrote:

TerryRC wrote:Of course sleep deprivation should have it's limits, but the institution itself (not its extreme form) is what is in view here.

Isn't a little torture like being a little pregnant? Is starving someone OK as long as we don't starve them "all the way"?

I would say that the degree of an action makes it torturous. If my child throws a tantrum at a restaurant and so he is removed without eating, is it torture? Should the UN get involved?

I have to say, I'm more than a little disappointed at the number of people who aren't opposed to our government torturing other human beings. Particularly when the people most likely to be tortured haven't had the benefit of a trial, or even an attorney. I'd say a "little" torture of a person who hasn't been convicted of any crime is pretty reprehensible.

At the risk of seriously offending a couple of people I truly am very fond of, I must point something out. TerryRC is an atheist and I am an apathist. I've never been quite clear exactly what Ziggy is......perhaps a universalist. I think it says something that it is the Christians who are defending torture, while we condemn it.

I have to again say that I do not approve of the actual infliction of excruciating pain.

I do not think that waterboarding is the infliction of excruciating pain. Anyone who has been in excruciating pain will likely corroborate my belief.

As to the matter of my Christian faith; if I had information that would save lives that could be extracted through waterboarding, then I would want to be waterboarded.

SamCogar wrote:Steph, forget about a foreign power ........ and consider it is one of your loved ones that is being held captive by some pedophile in an underground bunker ...... and he won't tell you where your child is.

And you are going to find yourself a good Lawyer and haul his arse into Court and try to convince said pedophile to divulge the whereabouts of your child.

.

Oh yeah, now that's a real life scenario. That kind of freak doesn't come knocking on your door telling you they have little Johnny or Susie. So what are you proposing? Rounding up every known pedophile for a 100 mile radius and torturing them all? How do you know the pedophile that has my child has a rap sheet, or isn't from out of town?

Or is it that someone has confessed to this crime? How many freaks come out of the woodwork to confess to the most atrocious crimes simply because they want the attention and they are nuts.

Sorry, Sam.....I'm not buying into your scheme.

SheikBen wrote:

Stephanie wrote:

SheikBen wrote:

TerryRC wrote:Of course sleep deprivation should have it's limits, but the institution itself (not its extreme form) is what is in view here.

Isn't a little torture like being a little pregnant? Is starving someone OK as long as we don't starve them "all the way"?

I would say that the degree of an action makes it torturous. If my child throws a tantrum at a restaurant and so he is removed without eating, is it torture? Should the UN get involved?

I have to say, I'm more than a little disappointed at the number of people who aren't opposed to our government torturing other human beings. Particularly when the people most likely to be tortured haven't had the benefit of a trial, or even an attorney. I'd say a "little" torture of a person who hasn't been convicted of any crime is pretty reprehensible.

At the risk of seriously offending a couple of people I truly am very fond of, I must point something out. TerryRC is an atheist and I am an apathist. I've never been quite clear exactly what Ziggy is......perhaps a universalist. I think it says something that it is the Christians who are defending torture, while we condemn it.

I have to again say that I do not approve of the actual infliction of excruciating pain.

I do not think that waterboarding is the infliction of excruciating pain. Anyone who has been in excruciating pain will likely corroborate my belief.

As to the matter of my Christian faith; if I had information that would save lives that could be extracted through waterboarding, then I would want to be waterboarded.

OK, so excrutiating physical pain is a no-no, but excrutiating psychological pain is acceptable? I don't know that waterboarding isn't excrutiating, I haven't been waterboarded, thankfully. Have you?

If the people who are being tortured haven't been convicted of a crime, and they haven't been indicted, if the basis for their detention and torture is simply they were rounded up in some raid somewhere in a war zone, how do we know they have anything to divulge to begin with?

When did we start charging POW's with crimes?

And the Geneva convention covers torture.

So when the war is over, they'll be released? Has the President, or any member of his administration, or any US military leader called them POW's? I can't recall that.

What I have heard, repeatedly from the people listed above, is the GC don't apply to the "detainees" held at Gitmo. Now that I've heard a whole lot.

It's all word games, Stephanie. And we ll know how much both Aaron and Bush hate word games- although they play them all the time.

ziggy wrote:So how does Stephanie know which suspected "pedophile" has her loved one held captive?

Well "DUH", why the hell do ya think she hired a Lawyer.

Stephanie will find out just as soon as her Case gets into Court.

You sure do ask silly questions.

.

SheikBen wrote:I have to again say that I do not approve of the actual infliction of excruciating pain.

But Mikey, if you just fess up and tell your captive(s) the truth ........ you won't have to endure the actual infliction of excruciating pain.

Or better yet, don't get involved in any nefarious thingys and they won't be questioning you about them.

.

Stephanie wrote:
Sorry, Sam.....I'm not buying into your scheme.

Then I guess you won't be buying into this scheme either, to wit:

Bill Calling for Castration of Sex Offenders Passes Louisiana Senate
Tuesday, April 15, 2008

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351386,00.html

.

Stephanie wrote:So when the war is over, they'll be released? Has the President, or any member of his administration, or any US military leader called them POW's? I can't recall that.

What I have heard, repeatedly from the people listed above, is the GC don't apply to the "detainees" held at Gitmo. Now that I've heard a whole lot.

It they are not POW's as described by the Geneva Convention then they should be released. The Geneva Convention is pretty clear.

If the government has legitimate grounds to hold those 'detainees' then take them before a judge and charge them or release them. That's the way I see it.

ziggy wrote:It's all word games, Stephanie. And we ll know how much both Aaron and Bush hate word games- although they play them all the time.

I realize you have trouble with reading comprehension at times. What have I said here that is confusing to you. Perhaps I can clear it up if you let me know.