Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Except the two situations were not "just like" each other.> They were regarding the Constitution. <The only one I've seen doing that on this thread is you, Doug.> What you see and what you don't see is not indicative of what has happened. Willful obtuseness and disingenuous arguments have occurred on this thread, but not by me.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Except the two situations were not "just like" each other.>> <They were regarding the Constitution.> We are also bound by the treaties we sign, including the Geneva Conventions. <<The only one I've seen doing that on this thread is you, Doug.>> <What you see and what you don't see is not indicative of what has happened.> I've shown why they are. Your mindless naysaying does not change that. <Willful obtuseness and disingenuous arguments have occurred on this thread, but not by me.> Yes, by you. (DVC_dad): <^^^ Uh... you might want to stick your tongue out too. ;-) LOL> No kidding.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <We are also bound by the treaties we sign, including the Geneva Conventions.> Yes. And according to Geneva Conventions, unlawful comabatants could be shot. Kind of like pirates. <Your mindless naysaying does not change that.> Repeating a mindless assertion does not make it so.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<We are also bound by the treaties we sign, including the Geneva Conventions.>> <Yes. And according to Geneva Conventions, unlawful comabatants could be shot. Kind of like pirates.. Are you really that obtuse, or is it willful? You can also shoot soldiers on the battlefield, but once they are taken prisoner, you can't. Surely you know this. And surely you know that Geneva says you can't torture prisoners. Which, as the Red Cross has confirmed, we did. <<Your mindless naysaying does not change that.>> <Repeating a mindless assertion does not make it so.. My assertion was not mindless, it was true. And you have not shown otherwise, nor can you.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Are you really that obtuse, or is it willful?> I'm not the one being obtuse. <You can also shoot soldiers on the battlefield, but once they are taken prisoner, you can't.> I'm not talking about soldiers. I'm talking about pirates and terrorists. Or spies and saboteurs. During WWII we shot them. <Which, as the Red Cross has confirmed, we did.> All the Red Cross confirmed was that we have been accused of it. Again, repeating a mindless assertion does not make it so.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Are you really that obtuse, or is it willful?>> <I'm not the one being obtuse.> Of course you are. <<You can also shoot soldiers on the battlefield, but once they are taken prisoner, you can't.>> <I'm not talking about soldiers. I'm talking about pirates and terrorists. Or spies and saboteurs. During WWII we shot them.> Stop moving the goalposts. We are signatory to the Geneva conventions. We agreed not to torture prisoners. We did. <<Which, as the Red Cross has confirmed, we did.>> <All the Red Cross confirmed was that we have been accused of it.> You really need to get out more. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/15/AR2009031502724.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...724.html</a> 'The International Committee of the Red Cross concluded in a secret report that the Bush administration's treatment of al-Qaeda captives "constituted torture," a finding that strongly implied that CIA interrogation methods violated international law, according to newly published excerpts from the long-concealed 2007 document. The report, an account alleging physical and psychological brutality inside CIA "black site" prisons, also states that some U.S. practices amounted to "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." Such maltreatment of detainees is expressly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. " Also, we have released as innocent a number of people who were tortured. This is just one: <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/28/60minutes/main3976928.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...28.shtml</a> 'At the age of 19, Murat Kurnaz vanished into America's shadow prison system in the war on terror. He was from Germany, traveling in Pakistan, and was picked up three months after 9/11. But there seemed to be ample evidence that Kurnaz was an innocent man with no connection to terrorism. The FBI thought so, U.S. intelligence thought so, and German intelligence agreed. But once he was picked up, Kurnaz found himself in a prison system that required no evidence and answered to no one." (snip) "And Kurnaz claims his interrogations at Kandahar turned to torture. He told 60 Minutes that American troops held his head underwater. "They used to beat me when my head is underwater. They beat me into my stomach and everything," he says. "They were hitting you in the stomach while you're head was underwater so that you'd have to take a breath?" Pelley asks, "Right. I had to drink. I had to…how you say it?" Kurnaz replies. "Inhale. Inhale the water," Pelley says. "I had to inhale the water. Right," Kurnaz says. Kurnaz says the Americans used a device to shock him with electricity that made his body go numb. And he says he was hoisted up on chains suspended by his arms from the ceiling of an aircraft hangar for five days. "Every five or six hours they came and pulled me back down. And the doctor came to watch if I can still survive to not. He looked into my eyes. He checked my heart. And when he said okay, then they pulled me back up," Kurnaz says. "The point of the doctor's visit was not to treat you. It was to see if you could take another six hours hanging from the ceiling?" Pelley asks. "Right," Kurnaz says." <Again, repeating a mindless assertion does not make it so.> Again, unlike you, I have not said anything I could not back up.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Stop moving the goalposts.> I'm not; my point has been the same. The laws of war do not apply to pirates and terrorists. At least they didn't use to. <I have not said anything I could not back up.> With other people's assertions.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Stop moving the goalposts.>> <I'm not; my point has been the same. The laws of war do not apply to pirates and terrorists. At least they didn't use to.> Sorry. You did move the goalposts. The question was: did we torture? And did we agree not to? <<I have not said anything I could not back up.>> <With other people's assertions.> The Red Cross is the recognized authority on what constitutes torture. So they're not just another person's assertions. The other guy in question actually had it HAPPEN to him. Try to keep up.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I forgot and I don't feel like checking. Is this the thread where Doug was going to tell us the difference between torture and "harsh interrogation"?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The question was: did we torture? And did we agree not to?> That was never my question. <So they're not just another person's assertions.> They're based on assertions, not evidence. Try to keep up.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Is this the thread where Doug was going to tell us the difference between torture and "harsh interrogation"?> No. This is the thread where you refused to stop confusing the two.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Is this the thread where Doug was going to tell us the difference between torture and "harsh interrogation"?<< Sigh. I'll do it for him. If we did it under W's administration, it's harsh interrogation. If we do it under Obama's administration, it's not only torture, but also satanic socialist tax-and-spend pedophile liberal homosexual baby-murdering wussy wickedness.
Originally Posted By Mr X It certainly is possible to confuse the two, nobody has a hard and fast definition of where the "line" is...if they did, we wouldn't be having a debate about it. Of course, there are the obvious things, the ones where acute *pain* is caused are almost always "by definition" considered torture...although I'm forced to wonder whether I'd rather have a finger broken or be waterboarded...one is considered a "no brainer" while the other is subject to debate by some. Personally, beyond the simple "brute force" methods of torture, I'd say the line is somewhere around the point where the procedure becomes potentially life threatening. In other words, keeping someone in a cold room without a sweater can be uncomfortable and unpleasant, but not particularly dangerous. Thus..harsh interrogation technique. Throwing someone naked into an ice covered cell for days? Torture. And thus in my opinion simulated drowning certainly does rise to the level of torture, for the simple fact that it can be reasonably considered life threatening (nevermind the mental aspects, I'm not even commenting on those as they cloud the issue even further). ON the issue of "mental torture", it's an even finer line but if you look at some of the most severe methods, such as a "mock execution", you'll find very few people who are willing to claim that is simply a harsh interrogation technique. If you think so, ask someone who went through it. So there ya go, Doug. I spelled out my own personal "general guidelines". What are yours?
Originally Posted By dshyates What about when the CIA gave the guy a vigorous teasing and sea salt and crystal ice spa treatment that resulted in him succumbing to hypothermia?
Originally Posted By Mr X Thus..."the line". I would say it's better for the authorities to err on the side of caution, for the reason that Yates cites above.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "No. This is the thread where you refused to stop confusing the two." You offered to explain if I would stop "conflating" the two, but I haven't even really participated in this thread other than to ask you to explain the difference. It's obvious you don't know, and enjoy getting ripped on by people here. Need any more paper towels?
Originally Posted By Mr X You've been involved in law enforcement Passholder (iirc), what do you think of my take on the difference? How would you define the difference between "harsh interrogation" and "torture"?
Originally Posted By dshyates "How would you define the difference between "harsh interrogation" and "torture"?" "Harsh Interrogation" has a LOT more letters.
