a Candidate For Sensativity Training

They aren't criminal, they are combatants that don't follow the Geneva conventions. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Is there anything in the Geneva Conventions that says those rules only need to be followed against people/countries/organizations that follow the Geneva Conventions? If you capture a war criminal, can you commit war crimes against that individual?

But, you can't use information derived from torture under our legal system

So you admit it's torture. Torture is torture. But it's ok when we do it, eh PJ? Typical conservative line of thinking.

Is there anything in the Geneva Conventions that says those rules only need to be followed against people/countries/organizations that follow the Geneva Conventions? Originally Posted by Doove

Don't know. Not a lawyer, never read them. But why would one side follow a set of rules in war when the other side ignores them. That makes no sense. As ATL noted, rules are written by the winners.

So you admit it's torture.

No, actually my earlier post trying to explain this simple concept to my wooly thinking liberal friend WTF noted that it was debateable whether it was torture. I have a hard time classifying anything that doesn't leave any damage as torture.

But why would one side follow a set of rules in war when the other side ignores them. That makes no sense. Originally Posted by pjorourke

If we're talking "rules", you may have a point. I believe, however, we're talking about "laws". Laws are not to be followed only if the other side follows them too. I'll ask again, if a country catches a war criminal, should that country be allowed to commit war crimes against that war criminal?

No, actually my earlier post trying to explain this simple concept to my wooly thinking liberal friend WTF noted that it was debateable whether it was torture. I have a hard time classifying anything that doesn't leave any damage as torture.

Nice try. When you were pressed on why waterboarding can't be used as a standard law enforcement tool, you stated, and i'll quote: "But, you can't use information derived from torture under our legal system -- so WBing murderers would serve no purpose. I don't know why you want to change that."

Sounds pretty unequivocal. Flail, flail, flail away.

By the way, don't answer this, just be honest with yourself. Did you ever rely on the "ticking time bomb" defense as the rationale for torture?

Flail, flail, flail.

Edit: And given your propensity to weasel, i'll rephrase my question. If a country catches a war criminal, is it then legal to commit war crimes against that individual?

But, you can't use information derived from torture under our legal system -- so WBing murderers would serve no purpose. I don't know why you want to change that.

You seem more obtuse than normal today WTF. Why can't you understand that there is a difference between warfare and criminal proceedings? Originally Posted by pjorourke

Death is death. Would you not agree with that simple concept? Being murdered by a ragheaded terrorist or some crack head does not change a thing as far as being alive or not. So in that regard PJ, there is no difference. Why do you want to give our home grown criminals this huge break so they can continue to wreck havoc on us? Why not change the laws and water board them? After all you argue that it has no long term hazards.

What you pro waterboarders are arguing is that you cam be a little preggo. I do not agree with that foolish concept. Either it is ok and it works or it is not ok because it is torture or it does not work. I am less concerned about the torture part as I am about the effectiveness of it. Certain people with a low threshold for mental toughness would admit to anything. It is not effective and anybody that looks into it, knows it.

The best argument you waterboarders have is that we waterboarded one of these fucers and he lied to us about something and therefore waterboarding works. That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

How about we waterboard you into believing that spending more money than the government takes in is a good thing. That Obama is a great leader. How then would you think about waterboarding?

That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Originally Posted by WTF

Actually, i think the stupidest thing i have ever heard was the argument that being President on the occasion of the worst terrorist attack in history makes you the de-facto expert on preventing terrorist attacks. Notice they both come from the same crowd.

Flail, flail, flail.

Edit: And given your propensity to weasel, i'll rephrase my question. If a country catches a war criminal, is it then legal to commit war crimes against that individual? Originally Posted by Doove

Of course it is for the winner! That is wtf the waterboard crowd does not get. Both sides do it. Both sides do what they think will best help them win, even if it is not based in scientific facts. And maybe it is better that PJ and the rest want to run around with a certain nativity. If it makes them feel better about themselves , ok. Me i like the closest version to the truth I can find. I like scientific truths, not some gay ass belief, not rooted in facts. But as Marshal pointed out, some folks need that kinda shit. I'm just not one of them.

PJ, if it is effective, then use it in criminal proceedings. I do not want a killer to go free only to murder again. Waterboard him and find out the truth if waterboarding is so god damn effective. Same with a theif, I don't want the SOB theiving from me. Lets waterboard us some bankers and get to the bottom of this home mortage business, that is burning a whole in my pocket and sinking this country. The problem seemsv to be is we are pussy footing around with this effective waterboarding crap. Lets use it more not less. If it works , than use it. It has no long term effect, right?

What the hell is wrong with you people, we have way more deaths from murder in this country than terrorist attacks. Yet you only want to use this effective tool on three people so far. I have no problem using it if it is effective. Do ya'll? Who is the real vagina on this issue here?





Olivia, you are not even close to grasping the subject matter. Sorry. Don't you understand that in terrorism , YOU are the target. You are at war. As to PJ and the court system, change it if this method is so effective. I have no problem doing that, would you? So far from all the research I have been able to come up with this waterboarding crap is just that. Nothing you have posted has made me think for a second that you have grasped the subject matter. I am sorry if that is harsh, PJ is having trouble too.

Marshall thinks waterboarding works except on him. He has lost all credibility, if he ever had any. I am all ears if anyone can point me in a logical direction. Give me an article or book that puts some science to this waterboarding shit. I don't wanna hear no more crap about how so and so was waterboarded, therefore they are an authority. That is not the question. I have been shocked before but that does not make me an expert on electrical torture. Originally Posted by WTF

No WTF, I grasp the concept clearly. Yes, I am aware that I, just like all infidels and Americans, are targets of terrorism. That's why I don't travel to known hotbeds of terrorist activities. That even includes Mexico where I have a house. I get it.

I also get that I'm not in the armed forces or one of the alphabet soup agencies trying to wage a war on a virtually unseeable enemy that blends into well wherever they go. If I were, I'd use advanced interrogation techniques. I would NOT engage in extended or brutal torture for the sadistic sake. One is useful the other is cruel.

You are being overly argumentative. I already told you that we just don't agree. We don't. You'll never change my mind no matter how aggressive or condescending you get. War is war. It's different. It's not criminal behavior in a peaceful society. War is all out. Law enforcement isn't all out here in the US. It's restrained for a reason. Check out the Bill of Rights. It's different. You are way to smart to not see know the difference.

What you are talking about when you go on about waterboarding American citizens engaging in illegal but non-treasonous behavior is declaring war upon our own citizens. It's not an outlandish example to demonstrate how right you are. It appalling. You know it. I understand you are trying to draw a correlation, but it is not a quid pro quo example.

Frankly, I don't care if you agree with me. That's what makes this place and the world in general a great place. I enjoy debate, but I'm not going to have a circular and increasingly aggressive argument with you. We're not married! So please, leave me out of your, what I assume is a well meaning, diatribe.

So please, leave me out of your, what I assume is a well meaning, diatribe. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

HaHa, don't be coy or passive aggressive WTF only I, Olivia can be that way.

Does waterboarding work is the simple question?

If you think it does , could you at least provide some support as to why you think so.

You can believe in the Tooth Fairy Olivia, all I am trying to understand as to why you believe in the Tooth Fairy.

You do realize that the military do not run this country, civilians do, civilians that we elect. Therefore we are the ones that run this country and by 'we' being ignorant on subject matter , we do not run the damn thing very well. So please educate me on why you believe that waterboarding works!

That is not being overly aggresive, that is asking you to explain why you believe something. So far all you have stated is that if it is good enough for our leaders it is good enough for me. So yes, if that is all you know on the subject matter, it would be wise to exit the discussion.

HaHa, don't be coy or passive aggressive WTF only I, Olivia can be that way.

Does waterboarding work is the simple question?

If you think it does , could you at least provide some support as to why you think so.

You can believe in the Tooth Fairy Olivia, all I am trying to understand as to why you believe in the Tooth Fairy.

You do realize that the military do not run this country, civilians do, civilians that we elect. Therefore we are the ones that run this country and by 'we' being ignorant on subject matter , we do not run the damn thing very well. So please educate me on why you believe that waterboarding works!

That is not being overly aggresive, that is asking you to explain why you believe something. So far all you have stated is that if it is good enough for our leaders it is good enough for me. So yes, if that is all you know on the subject matter, it would be wise to exit the discussion. Originally Posted by WTF

Do not be naive. We the People do not run the the country. It is an oligarchy that is run by big business. Haven't you heard, corporations are now "people" and can give to their hearts content for politicians "Good Will".

After the mastermind of 9/11 was captured and waterboarded he sang like a canary. That's how they got the intel on Bin Laden. WTF, I have respect for you and your ideas, but Peace on this one. Like I said, we just do not agree.

After the mastermind of 9/11 was captured and waterboarded he sang like a canary. That's how they got the intel on Bin Laden. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Actually, he "sang like a canary" about 2 or 3 years after he was waterboarded. But let's not limit ourselves.

well meaning, diatribe. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Now that is an oxymoron!

Nice try. When you were pressed on why waterboarding can't be used as a standard law enforcement tool, you stated, and i'll quote: "But, you can't use information derived from torture under our legal system -- so WBing murderers would serve no purpose. I don't know why you want to change that." Originally Posted by Doove

WTF was the one that thought WBing was torture. I didn't want his simple head to explode by throwing too much information on his plate at once.

Let me recap for you.

1) I don't think WB is torture, but WTF and the ACLU crowd think it is. To each his own.

2) All is fair in love and war -- with the caveat that in the later, you must be the winner.

3) Law enforcement is different than defense -- different rules (call them laws if you want) different standards - always has been. While WB could be/should be/is reasonable for warfare, it may not fit the standards of our system of jurisprudence -- see previous -- different rules.

WTF was the one that thought WBing was torture. I didn't want his simple head to explode by throwing too much information on his plate at once. Originally Posted by pjorourke

pjorourke said: "But, you can't use information derived from torture under our legal system -- so WBing murderers would serve no purpose. I don't know why you want to change that."

Pathetic. Give it up PJ.

Let me recap for you.

1) I don't think WB is torture, but WTF and the ACLU crowd think it is. To each his own.

pjorourke said: But, you can't use information derived from torture under our legal system -- so WBing murderers would serve no purpose. I don't know why you want to change that.

Make up your mind. And beyond that, everyone thought it was torture until Conservative pin-heads (and to quote one of ATL's sigs, if you think i'm talking about you, then i'm probably talking about you) needed to justify Bush's using it. Everyone. That's EVERYONE.

2) All is fair in love and war -- with the caveat that in the later, you must be the winner.

Please answer the question - you contorting yourself like this is getting painful to watch. If a war criminal is captured, is it legal to commit war crimes against that person? Your previous posts suggest you believe it is, but you seem afraid to come out and say yes to the question. Come on, man up!

3) Law enforcement is different than defense -- different rules (call them laws if you want) different standards - always has been. While WB could be/should be/is reasonable for warfare, it may not fit the standards of our system of jurisprudence -- see previous -- different rules.

Blah blah blah. If it's not torture, then it's not torture. Period. So why not use it? This "war is different" canard is is just another dodge. The rules are pretty clear. You don't torture, in war or otherwise. So if WB is allowed in war, then it's not torture (according to you). If it's not torture, then there should be no regulations against it for any other purposes.

This "war is different" canard is is just another dodge. . Originally Posted by Doove

But war is different. I don't know how much more plainly it can be said. The objective is to win the war. We authorize our soldiers to kill people. It is different.

If you don't see that, I'm not going to be able to help you with this. You have to go into this discussion recognizing we aren't talking about a convenience store robbery gone wrong in the rough streets of Buffalo.

+1 @ ATL

Let me make it simple for you Doove. I do NOT consider waterboarding torture. Anything that doesn't leave any marks is not torture. It may be unpleasent for the waterboardee, but it is not IMO torture.

Now are you happy?