US said Waterboarding was a War Crime in 1947

[JustinM]

As I said earlier, there is not a precise line that defines what is torture and what isn't. Now with that said I do not consider those things to be torture, and I am assuming you don't either. Refer to my post on page 8 when I try to break down what I define torture as being if you want a bit more of my viewpoint. (its the one that is labeled 1,2,3 in response to Hr.Jr.)

As a spark notes version, the main difference between the police example and torture is that the police are trying to provide a safety to other citizens by enforcing laws in place. You violate the law, and they will most likely pull you over, and probably ticket you. But their intention is not to torture, nor is it to make you emotionally or physically distressed. That is a side effect that you experience. They do not pull you over to cause distress.

When you water-board someone, that is your main goal: cause them enough distress to make them divulge information to you.

So police example: indirect distress. Water-boarding: direct distress.

I disagree, the people that use the waterboarding interrogation technique are trying to provide a safety to the citizens they have sworn to protect. They did not swear to protect a homicidal islamic fanatic that has unilaterally declared war on the U.S. They are upholding the law, as waterboarding is not illegal. So, to me, depriving someone of food, sleep and comfort is the same as waterboarding someone, from a legal standpoint. All of those are coercive methods used to extract vital information that just may save the lives of many innocent people.

We all know waterboarding is not illegal, but torture is, that is why people like you hamburgers, that oppose the waterboarding interrogation technique, are trying to redefine torture.

That's why pursuit of happiness was redefined as a woman's right to choose. Or that the 1st Amendment has been redefined as separation of church and state, though that is not how it is worded in the U.S. Constitution. Separation of Church and State was coined by a Supreme Court judge that ruled in favor of allowing catholic school children to ride the same busses as public school children, but also sabotaged and corrupted the interpretation of the 1st Amendment, so that later on, when the U.S. became more morally bankrupt, activists could dig up his ruling and use it to abolish all public expressions of religion. Which we see happening today.

What else is being redefined. . .?

Illegal Aliens <-> Undocumented workers. . . Huh? How did that become the definition, they mean completely different things.

Pro-Abortion <-> Pro-Choice. . . because everyone loves to have choices. That is why there's dozens of brands of TV's, Cars and Furniture to choose from

Marriage <-> Civil Union. . . Secular legalistic term, forget about thousands of years of tradition and understanding, how the world defines marriage is completely different than how a lawyer defines it and guess who runs our country.

Right to bear arms <-> The State's right to create a reserve army. . . Huh? How did that become the definition? It was my understanding that the Bill of Rights was granted to all U.S. Citizens, not sovereign states.

Atheism <-> Religion. . . Huh? How can believing in no religion or God, be a religion? Oh, it's because how lawyers define the legal term for religion.

[JustinM]

If a point cannot be proven through reality then it is a point not worth making and wastes everyone's time that reads it.

If waterboarding is torture, prove it by submitting evidence of permanent physiological disorders.

I see your philosophical and theoretical arguments as obstructive, as well as many people here. That may not have been your intention, but that is how it is perceived nonetheless.

If you can come up with more realistic and physiological debates, I am certain we can find common ground there.

[hr.jr.]

I get sick and tired of the philosophical and theoretical debates, we could go on perpetually and come up with decriptions of anguish and agony, it ain't gonna change anyone's mind.

How about we have a debate on something more founded, such as a physiological debate? Hmh?

You are being willfully obstructive to this debate. We all know what pain is excruciating and what causes anguish.

A broken arm is torture, if done so in a manner to coerce information from someone. That is a major injury and could be disabling.

Scaring someone, regardless of method is not torture. No harm, no foul.

Mental harm, is not torture. Unless you are actually using objects to tamper with the physiological function of the brain. That could be permanent and disabling.

Your word games are childish at best. I don't believe in the freudian, mavlov type of theories on mental processes.

Besides, do I really care if a terrorist has nightmares of drowning every night for the rest of his life? No, I consider it preparation for eternity in Hell. How many nightmares have our children had since 9-11? Let's talk about their torture and the fear they now live with, that we never experienced growing up.

No where does it state that torture must be physical. I would argue that some of the most terrible forms of torture are ones that exist in our minds.

And no, I am not being willfully obstructive. It's easy to define the worst version of something that is excruciating (for example; torture racks from the dark ages), but it becomes impossible to define where the line ends between something excruciating and something "not-so excruciating".

I'm sorry if my philosophical debate style frustrates you, but when dealing with things like this, I really don't see a way around it to get my point across.

EDIT: That's it for now; I have class to get to. I'll try to follow-up with my interpretation of physiological torture etc sometime tonight or tomorrow.

To change the topic slightly. If I were in charge of the war on terror, and I captured a high up in the terrorist organization who I knew had direct knowledge of a WMD attack that would kill millions of innocent people; I would interrogate by any means necessary. If it meant dusting off some of the most brutal forms of torture known to man, they would be used to preserve innocent life of the masses.

[kat8585]

To change the topic slightly. If I were in charge of the war on terror, and I captured a high up in the terrorist organization who I knew had direct knowledge of a WMD attack that would kill millions of innocent people; I would interrogate by any means necessary. If it meant dusting off some of the most brutal forms of torture known to man, they would be used to preserve innocent life of the masses.

[JB Horn]

Put it another way, if I had the option of spending a year in prison or get punched in the stomach, I would choose the punch. I think most people would choose the punch. How does that invalidate punching as a form of torture? It doesn't, just like your example doesn't invalidate water-boarding as a form of torture.

So you are saying that prison incarceration is worst than water boarding. Good I'm glad you agree. Do you justify incarceration because it may save lives or is it a punishment as defined in torture? Or do you disagree with the use of prisons in modern society?

Ah, so now we are back to subjective morality. At what point does a sin stop being a sin when it is done to do good? Can I shoot someone to save 10 people and be justified in my actions by God? Why or why not, would you say?

Sin never stops being sin. Now what is your definition of sin?

It depends on the circumstances doesn't it? What are the circumstances of your shooting?

JB

I agree with you that sin never stops being sin. But isn't murder, by it's nature, a sin? So how can murder to save 100 people not be a sin?

As to prison being considered torture, I already addressed that in a similar response on page 8

The Bible tells us that murder by God's commandment is a sin but killing is not. Do you know the deference?

What are the circumstances of your shooting, did you murder the ten or kill the ten?

In your opinion is abortion murder or killing?

Can you tell the defrence between good and evil?

What is a sin?

JB

[JB Horn]

If you search for:

CODEPINK Shows Senator Feinstein Waterboarding

in google video you'll see water boarding actually being done as a demonstration.

Oh it's just terrible, so gory and outrages LOL

And no police there to stop it, outrages I tell you just outrages.

[Burning_Ember]

To change the topic slightly. If I were in charge of the war on terror, and I captured a high up in the terrorist organization who I knew had direct knowledge of a WMD attack that would kill millions of innocent people; I would interrogate by any means necessary. If it meant dusting off some of the most brutal forms of torture known to man, they would be used to preserve innocent life of the masses.

The problem is, thats most often not the case with torture. It gets used more indiscriminately and frequently with many subjects. Most, if not all know nothing like the situation of what you described. So what ends up happening is lots of people get tortured, most/all of which know nothing like that. They'll be glad to sing just as long as you stop, though. Doesn't have to be true, as long as its something they wanted to hear.

So now you have a bunch of false information from many tortured prisoners. The time you do get something useful, how do you know it will be true? Sort of like the boy who cried wolf.

[hr.jr.]

Put it another way, if I had the option of spending a year in prison or get punched in the stomach, I would choose the punch. I think most people would choose the punch. How does that invalidate punching as a form of torture? It doesn't, just like your example doesn't invalidate water-boarding as a form of torture.

So you are saying that prison incarceration is worst than water boarding. Good I'm glad you agree. Do you justify incarceration because it may save lives or is it a punishment as defined in torture? Or do you disagree with the use of prisons in modern society?

Ah, so now we are back to subjective morality. At what point does a sin stop being a sin when it is done to do good? Can I shoot someone to save 10 people and be justified in my actions by God? Why or why not, would you say?

Sin never stops being sin. Now what is your definition of sin?

It depends on the circumstances doesn't it? What are the circumstances of your shooting?

JB

I agree with you that sin never stops being sin. But isn't murder, by it's nature, a sin? So how can murder to save 100 people not be a sin?

As to prison being considered torture, I already addressed that in a similar response on page 8

Killing is not murder. Un-justified homicide is murder. Justified killing is simply that, Justified killing.

[hr.jr.]

To change the topic slightly. If I were in charge of the war on terror, and I captured a high up in the terrorist organization who I knew had direct knowledge of a WMD attack that would kill millions of innocent people; I would interrogate by any means necessary. If it meant dusting off some of the most brutal forms of torture known to man, they would be used to preserve innocent life of the masses.

The problem is, thats most often not the case with torture. It gets used more indiscriminately and frequently with many subjects. Most, if not all know nothing like the situation of what you described. So what ends up happening is lots of people get tortured, most/all of which know nothing like that. They'll be glad to sing just as long as you stop, though. Doesn't have to be true, as long as its something they wanted to hear.

So now you have a bunch of false information from many tortured prisoners. The time you do get something useful, how do you know it will be true? Sort of like the boy who cried wolf.

I have much formal training in Interrogation. A proper interrogation will decipher false from factual information. The safeguards should be in place to make sure your final result is obtaining accurate information.