Torture

maineman said:
"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

again...DIXIE...

if someone strapped you upside down on a board and poured water down your mouth and nose and made you believe that you were about to drown, would that fit that definition?
Click to expand...

IF I were an alQaeda operative, who had vowed to my God to kill all Americans, and I was willing to die for my cause, that technique might encourage me to tell what I knew. It would certainly come closer to getting information from me, than giving me an ACLU attorney and some warm milk and cookies.

As I said, I am not concerned in the least, with what the UN says is torture, or what you personally define as torture. Let me reiterate... I DON'T FUCKING CARE!

Let me pose a hypothetical for you... If your wife and son were kidnapped, and somehow you managed to get your hands on one of the kidnappers, and he knew where they were being held, would you abide strictly by the UN guidelines in your treatment of the captured kidnapper? Would you consider it unacceptable to coerce information from the person, knowing the fate of your family was at stake? My guess is, you wouldn't. My guess is, you would literally do anything short of killing the guy, to find out where your family members were. But, maybe I am wrong, maybe you are a man of principles, and it would just be beneath you to try and force the kidnapper to divulge any information.
 
maineman said:
how the UN defines torture in a treaty that we are signatories of matters a great deal. Aren't you the guy who is an "originalist" when it comes to the constitution??? Go read article VI...and then go read the UN Convention against torture which, according to Article VI is the SUPREME LAW OF THE FREAKING LAND and then man up and answer the freaking question.
Click to expand...
Are you still on this lie? It's truly amazing how much you lie.
 
Dixie said:
Is that the same memorandum the Obama Administration's Justice Department is arguing in favor of now?

Just to be completely clear on this, I don't trust what you have interpreted the memorandum to say, you have demonstrated incompetence in your ability to read and comprehend the English language. But thanks for interjecting your totally worthless opinion.
Click to expand...

1) No, it isn't.

2) Here:

We find that the use of the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death. As you have explained the waterboard procedure to us, it creates in the subject the uncontrollable physiological sensation that the subject is drowning. Although the procedure will be monitored by personnel with medical training and extensive SERE school experience with this procedure who will ensure the subject's mental and physical safety, the subject is not aware of any of these precautions. From the vantage point of any reasonable person undergoing this procedure in such circumstances,he would feel as if he is drowning at very moment of the procedure due to the
uncontrollable physiological sensation he is experiencing. Thus, this procedure cannot be viewed as too uncertain to satisfy the imminence requirement. Accordingly, it constitutes a threat of imminent death and fulfills the predicate act requirement under the statute.
Click to expand...


By your very own standards waterboarding is torture.



http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/olc_08012002_bybee.pdf
 
Dixie said:
IF I were an alQaeda operative, who had vowed to my God to kill all Americans, and I was willing to die for my cause, that technique might encourage me to tell what I knew. It would certainly come closer to getting information from me, than giving me an ACLU attorney and some warm milk and cookies.

As I said, I am not concerned in the least, with what the UN says is torture, or what you personally define as torture. Let me reiterate... I DON'T FUCKING CARE!

Let me pose a hypothetical for you... If your wife and son were kidnapped, and somehow you managed to get your hands on one of the kidnappers, and he knew where they were being held, would you abide strictly by the UN guidelines in your treatment of the captured kidnapper? Would you consider it unacceptable to coerce information from the person, knowing the fate of your family was at stake? My guess is, you wouldn't. My guess is, you would literally do anything short of killing the guy, to find out where your family members were. But, maybe I am wrong, maybe you are a man of principles, and it would just be beneath you to try and force the kidnapper to divulge any information.
Click to expand...

why would you think that obeying the supreme law of the land... adhering to article VI of the constitution...was not something you cared about?

that doesn't make any sense to me. either you believe in the principles upon which our nation was founded, or you don't. either you believe in supporting and defending the constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic, or you don't.
 
Southern Man said:
Are you still on this lie? It's truly amazing how much you lie.
Click to expand...


where is the lie? the UN Convention against torture is unambiguous. It is the supreme law of the land. YOU, therefore, by willingly disregarding it, are a domestic enemy of the constitution. bang bang.
 
Dungheap said:
1) No, it isn't.

2) Here:




By your very own standards waterboarding is torture.



http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/olc_08012002_bybee.pdf
Click to expand...

Sorry, but as I said, your interpretation of the English language is most inadequate. There is a difference between "threat of death" and "risk of death" and you apparently don't know what that difference is, even when it is spelled out for you in black and white.

I can threaten to come blow your head off... the "threat" is very real, no question... but what is the actual "risk" of me doing that? Do you see the difference? Because someone is threatened, does not mean they are at risk. There is currently the very real threat of severe weather in my area, but the risk of a tornado blowing me away is very slim.

So, no, not by my "very own standards" is waterboarding torture... by your misinterpretation of the English language and out of context usage of ACLU documents, it could be seen as torture. Just as I predicted was the case.

And OH BY THE FUCKING WAY.... You presented some bullshit document (probably forged) posted by the ACLU, not an official memorandum from the Bush Administration, I am still waiting for that.
 
Dixie said:
Sorry, but as I said, your interpretation of the English language is most inadequate. There is a difference between "threat of death" and "risk of death" and you apparently don't know what that difference is, even when it is spelled out for you in black and white.

I can threaten to come blow your head off... the "threat" is very real, no question... but what is the actual "risk" of me doing that? Do you see the difference? Because someone is threatened, does not mean they are at risk. There is currently the very real threat of severe weather in my area, but the risk of a tornado blowing me away is very slim.

So, no, not by my "very own standards" is waterboarding torture... by your misinterpretation of the English language and out of context usage of ACLU documents, it could be seen as torture. Just as I predicted was the case.

And OH BY THE FUCKING WAY.... You presented some bullshit document (probably forged) posted by the ACLU, not an official memorandum from the Bush Administration, I am still waiting for that.
Click to expand...



Um, you're really questioning the provenance of the memorandum I posted? Seriously? Do you read the news at all? I mean, at all? Even just a little bit? I'm guessing no.

And the idea that waterboarding poses the threat of imminent death without posing the risk of imminent death is just plain stupid. As such, I expect such horseshit from you.
 
more lies....

I would ask YOUR forgiveness for my insulting comments about your profession. As you know, it is a profession I hold in high regard and it has been wrong for me, of all people, to denigrate a lawyer.
Click to expand...

I give you what I get from you. I do not, however, insult your profession, yet you continue to insult mine. let's both try harder.
Click to expand...

when are you going to get tired of lying?
 
maineman said:
why would you think that obeying the supreme law of the land... adhering to article VI of the constitution...was not something you cared about?

that doesn't make any sense to me. either you believe in the principles upon which our nation was founded, or you don't. either you believe in supporting and defending the constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic, or you don't.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the supreme law of the land that says coercive interrogation is torture, or that we can't use it to gain intelligence information. Article VI doesn't mean what you have liberally interpreted it to mean, and I can use the very same misinterpretations to proclaim you are a domestic enemy, but then, maybe it would be that great a misinterpretation in your case, you pretty much subvert the Constitution at the drop of a hat when it suits you to do so.

I notice you failed to answer my hypothetical... what's the matter, Mainey, chicken shit?
 
Dungheap said:
Um, you're really questioning the provenance of the memorandum I posted? Seriously? Do you read the news at all? I mean, at all? Even just a little bit? I'm guessing no.

And the idea that waterboarding poses the threat of imminent death without posing the risk of imminent death is just plain stupid. As such, I expect such horseshit from you.
Click to expand...

Well, it's like I said, you are apparently too profoundly stupid and retarded to understand... two distinct words... two distinct meanings! THREAT doesn't mean RISK!

There is, (by your own posted bullshit), no RISK of death! There is the THREAT of death.... which is the whole idea... without that THREAT, there would be absolutely NO motivation for the subject to divulge information.
 
Dixie said:
Well, it's like I said, you are apparently too profoundly stupid and retarded to understand... two distinct words... two distinct meanings! THREAT doesn't mean RISK!

There is, (by your own posted bullshit), no RISK of death! There is the THREAT of death.... which is the whole idea... without that THREAT, there would be absolutely NO motivation for the subject to divulge information.
Click to expand...


So by your standard of the differention between "threat" and "risk" of death, as long as there are medical personnel on hand to evaluate whether whatever it is we are doing there is no "risk" of death and no torture?

That's pretty fucked up and leaves the door wide open for all sorts of crazy ass sadistic practices.

In short, you're a sick fuck.
 
Dixie said:
There is nothing in the supreme law of the land that says coercive interrogation is torture, or that we can't use it to gain intelligence information. Article VI doesn't mean what you have liberally interpreted it to mean, and I can use the very same misinterpretations to proclaim you are a domestic enemy, but then, maybe it would be that great a misinterpretation in your case, you pretty much subvert the Constitution at the drop of a hat when it suits you to do so.

I notice you failed to answer my hypothetical... what's the matter, Mainey, chicken shit?
Click to expand...

the supreme law of the land clearly defines torture. did you fail to read it?

And why are you so afraid of answering a simple question? I'll answer YOUR hypothetical when you answer MINE which I posed first. mmmmkay? good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top