I had thought better of you than to try the old Southern Man obfuscation. You know I did no such thing and its beyond me why you're intent on holding that position.
waterboarding is waterboarding. It doesn't matter what extras were thrown in by the japanese because jumping on someone elses stomach isn't the issue, waterboarding is.
you said it was authorized and legal, I asked you by who and how was it done so.
you are seriously confused. YOU are the one who compared differences by clinging to salt water and position as well as stomach jumping. I stuck to waterboarding alone and said all the rest was irrelevant.
but still had the same mental and emotional effects, therefore torture.
so congress and the president have the authority to override legal precedents and the constitution?
if yes, then it goes back to my question of what happens if a liberal congress decides to include right wing militia types as terrorists and can waterboard us?
You said "Originally Posted by SmarterThanYou
and
when the liberal government gets around to calling people like myself terrorists, is it ok to carefully controlled waterboard me then?"
I asked if that meant you were either going to kill civilians for political reasons or if you were saying Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri were not terrorists. I asked because I don't accept your unfounded premise that the government is going to arbitrarily call you a terrorist...you failed to answer my question.
The extras absolutely matter because the extras are what caused it to be called torture...the extras are what led to death and permanent damage...so yeah the extras matter! Waterboarding as used by CIA operatives was not the same as the outlawed water torture and water cure practiced by the Japanese.
I know what you asked and I said, that for someone wishing to debate the issue, you should not need to be schooled on the who and the when. But I answered the question.
Again, the differences between the Japanese techniques and CIA techniques is not irrelevant, and you saying it is, does not make it so. You may feel that the difference is unimportant or not relevant, but legally, physically, and mentally the differences are ABSOLUTELY relevant.
They do not have the same effects and THAT has been proven. That they are both used as a form of coercion is not doubted; numerous techniques are used to that end...that's why it is called interrogation...
If right wing militia groups, with premeditation, decide to murder civilians for political motives then they are terrorists. Now if they declare war against our army, wear a uniform and form a military, then you would be a soldier and possibly tried for treason...but you would no be a terrorist, though you would be subject to military interrogations.
