Obama In Dresden

No thanks. Think I’ll just trust Steve Benen’s judgement on this.

Michael-Hope you are having a great trip and thanks for the reports. As and aside is there some rule that re reporters to report on critics complaints just because they complain? If so it should be recinded.

Having visited Dresden in 1995 when the Frauenkirche consisted of numbered, cataloged, piles of rubble in a vacant lot next to the church’s foundation, it is nothing short of miraculous that the church is, once again, whole.
.
The power of hope, faith, and perseverance. Not a bad message for an American to share with the world.

I think I heard that something like 20% (or maybe more) of Yale’s recent graduates didn’t know what caused the seasons to change on the Earth. Somehow I think the historic significance of Dresden will have less impact than a power tie in the general political balance.
-
If you believe in the high ideals of torture and if you believe Obama is actually apologizing rather than simply lamenting the waste of war (and trying to tighten up his flight schedule) then you didn’t vote for him and you wouldn’t vote for him and your opinions change nothing.

Here is one case where I will say Scherer did a good thing. When there is misinformation floating out there our media SHOULD push back with the truth. Thats one thing I have consistently called for and whether its Mike Scherer that does it or Steve Benen they should be praised for doing so. So thanks Scherer for correcting the record over yet another round of bullsh*t from the wingnuts.

centfan-

I’m not trying to be combative, however, most people (conservatives included) do not ‘believe in high ordeals of torture.’ Instead, we disagree as to what constitutes torture. For example, the fact that so many activists have waterboarded one another in front of the Supreme Court and other federal buildings sort of takes the credibility out of the argument that it is actually torture. While it may be a hellish and terrifying ordeal, it is not torture. Whether it is effective or not is another matter entirely. And I am sorry, but putting a non-poisonous insect in a cell with a detainee is similarly not torture, by any stretch of the imagination.
.
While I respect the opinion that these heightened interrogation tactics may be ineffective, the left’s attempts to frame the debate around ‘torture’ and label conservative as defenders of torture is patently disingenuous.

neorational
.
Have you been waterboarded? If not the STFU until you do. Every person that has been waterboarded has said its torture. So maybe you need to experience it for yourself before you have any standing to say it isn’t.
.
That’s besides the historical legal precedents.

Oh pipe down, take a Xanax and chill. Activists are not torturing one another on the steps of federal court houses to make a point. Get a grip of reality, lose the silly infantile diatribes, and accept that world is a messy and often painful place.

For example, the fact that so many activists have waterboarded one another in front of the Supreme Court and other federal buildings sort of takes the credibility out of the argument that it is actually torture.
.
First I’ve heard about this. Links? Photos? Other evidence?
.
accept that world is a messy and often painful place.
.
I don’t “accept” that the world is a messy and often painful place, I do things in an effort to make it less so. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, that sort of thing. “Silly infantile diatribes” indeed.
.
Are you a responsible grown-up, or just pretending? Get your ass in gear, tiger.

Last line should read
.
Are you a responsible grown-up, or just pretending? Get your ass in gear, tiger.

Oddly enough, neo, I didn’t say you believed in torture. I didn’t even define torture. If someone (not necessarily you) personally believes that waterboarding or hooking up somebody to a car battery IS torture but IS good for America because whatever an American does to a towel head is AOkay then you believe in the “high ideals of torture” and I’m talking about you. Defining the limits of torture or when the line is crossed is entirely different.
-
I am willing to acknowledge how some people might consider any physical distress that doesn’t cause permanent PHYSICAL damage as “non-torture”. Some people call killing an abortion doctor “non-murder”. We can only depend on the legal definition to protect and save us all.
-
So anyway, if I drag someone’s child out of a room while holding a knife, close the door behind me so the parent can’t see, make the child scream in fear (with no physical contact), and then throw a piece of someone’s dead body (that died naturally) out in front of the parent and call it the remains of their child is that torture? I have physically damaged no one.
-
If I stalk someone day and night and verbally threaten them is that illegal? Why?

Friar-

Here is a link to a Photoessay on activists proesting waterboarding…
http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1901024_1890786,00.html
.
What I meant by the ‘messy and painful place’ was not to suggest we should ignore suffering, but that there are much more important battles to fight than to belligerently assault waterboarding as torture. Its a pointless argument and a distraction from real issues.
.
“silly infantile diatribes” in that I was told to shut the f*ck up because I do not necessarily think that waterboarding, which the pictures in the link illustrate have been carried out by activists, constitutes torture.

neorationalist
.
Are you going to get waterboarded to prove it isn’t torture?
.
Thought not.

As an example, here’s a link to Operation Inasmuch, a cooperative effort between South Carolina Baptists and Lutherans for an all-out day of service across the state this past month:
.
http://www.sclutheran.org/inasmuch.htm
.
It was a smashing success and is going into the regular schedule the SC Synod of the ELCA (This body includes the vast majority of Lutherans not in the Missouri or Wisconsin Synods). The Baptists have been had this kind of thing on their calendar for a while.
.
Obviously, you don’t need to be a Christian (even in the South) to refuse to “accept” that [the] world is a messy and often painful place. You just need Google – or, if you’re old-school, a telephone book. Somebody out there is worse off than you are.

Clarification: The ELCA includes the vast majority, not the South Carolina Synod!

centfan-

I will concede that there is physical AND psychological torture. I will further state my views that what IS considered torture is NOT acceptable, regardless of who it is inflicted upon and regardless of for what motives.
.
However, I will also note that anything that causes psychological duress does not necessarily equal psychological torture. You mention several extreme circumstances, which I would be in agreement with you on. However, there are numerous instances that would clearly not be torture. Putting an insect in a detainee’s cell because he has a fear of insects is NOT torture. Its is psychological pressure to lessen resistance. We could go back and forth all day with extreme circumstances, but that will get us nowhere. I am mostly in agreement with you. I just believe that the GITMO allegations of torture have been blown wildly out of proportion.

sgwhiteinfal…

While there is no way to prove to you that I would be willing to go through as much, I am honestly unopposed to the notion. I don’t see how it is possible via an internet discussion for me to illustrate this, though, and thus your challenge is really quite unrealistic and irrelevant.

Would you be willing to be waterboarded to prove that it IS torture?

Come on, now, don’t be silly….

For the purposes of legal liability, the defintion of torture is here:
.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
.
It’s pretty difficult to declare that what we euphemistically refer to as ‘simulated drowning’ is not a threat of imminent death.
.
It’s because the law is so succinct and clear, that the OLC was tasked with writing extensive prose in order to circumvent the it.
.
Waterboading is clearly torture under the law as drafted.
Nothing else matters.

sgw, gotta go with neo on this one. Remember the old phrase, “on the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog?”
.
As an example, there’s a pastor out in southern Colorado who has “friartuck” as part of the name of his website, and he’s not even approximately me! This didn’t cause a problem until our church’s Sunday School coordinator linked to something at his site, which woefully confused folks who think I “am” Friar Tuck (nickname comes from my roundish body, beard, and love for teh brandy).

And by the way, systematic sleep deprivation is clearly a procedure calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personalityand is as powerful as any phychoactive drug.
.
These questions are not within the realm of debate or “reasonable people disagreeing”
.
Which is precisely why they will never find their way into a courtroom and why Obama is following in GWB’s footstep to protect the CIA.

neorationalist86 says-
“For example, the fact that so many activists have waterboarded one another in front of the Supreme Court and other federal buildings sort of takes the credibility out of the argument that it is actually torture.”
.
As evidence neorationalist86 links to this story.
“An activist group calling itself World Can’t Wait enlists actors to carry out a *mock* waterboarding in the heart of Manhattan.”
.
Honestly.

Michael;
Care to enlighten us about why you chose to call out an extremist zero-cred blog instead of Mitt Romney on the “Apology Tour” terminology? Please tell us you’re not worrying about an invite to the ’12 barbecue.

Oopsie. That first colon shouldn’t have been semi. I blame presbyopia. Or José Cuervo.

Friar Tuck
.
Notice I only asked him if he is WILLING or if he HAD been waterboarded to prove his contention. There is no way of knowing if he would actually follow through, but how telling is it that he won’t even, on the intertubes, commit to being waterboarded?
.
See this is key because if you go all the way back up and look at his argument he says that because activists have staged mock waterboardings in front of the WH then that “proves” that it isn’t torture. He holds that up as proof that his position is right. He doesn’t argue on a legal basis so there is no need to argue him there, where he would invariably lose. So if he is basing his whole argument over his perception of what happens when activists do it, then why would he be unwilling to commit to having it done to himself. Especially when he and you rightly point out that even if he said he would do it but declined to there would be no way for us to know.
.
Its because he know he is afraid of having it done to him and that fear is so strong as to prevent him from even lying about it to a stranger on a blog. And if he fears being waterboarded that much then that in and of itself puts lie to the notion that its not torture.
.
I don’t really give a sh*t if he gets waterboarded or not, but I am not going to let him come here and just insult our intelligence.

Hold up, Paul, Not that One.

These demonstrations were mot ‘mock.’ They fully conducted the waterboarding, carrying the procedure as it is often described. Furthermore, this was not one group, this has been done by multiple groups not just in the heart of Manhattan, but at federal courts, the Supreme Court in DC, and Congressional offices. To dismiss these as merely ‘mock’ simulations not bearing the full resemblance to actual waterbaording is a farce.
.
sgwhite…
“how telling is it that he won’t even, on the intertubes, commit to being waterboarded?” I said I would be willing to go through the procedure, my words being “I am honestly unopposed” to going through the ordeal myself. But, again, this is irrelevant and moot, in that whether or not I would allow myself to be waterboarded is in no way linked to whether or not it is torture.
.
Paul. Would threat of the death penalty if convicted count as “threat of imminent death?” Is that torture?
.
Just because someone thinks they may die, does not make it torture.

Sgwhite…

Yes, I am trembling in terrified fear. Where do you get off making such baseless accusations? First you say that I would not commit to waterborading myself. When I counter that my interest in being waterboarded is irrelevant and utterly impossoble to proof over the internet, you state that I am afradi, thus proof that waterboarding is torture. Insane reasoning.

If you want a legal based argument than here it is…
.
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
.
Waterboarding does not inflict pain. Legal by this clause.
.
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
.
No administratation of any mind-altering substance, no profound disruption of sense. Legal by this clause.
.
(C) the threat of imminent death;
.
This is more open to debate, but in my opinion, there are too many actions that could be ‘construed’ by the detainee as leading to imminent death that would be ruled as torture simply because of the detainee’s assessment of the situation. If there is no communicated and verbal threat of death, than I believe this clause is adhered to. For example, a detainee could reasonably assume that his placement in a cell block with other violent criminals will lead to his imminent death, but this does not constitute torture. Waterbaording does not aim to result in death, it it counter intuitive to think that a measure aimed at gaining information would be taken so far as to kill an inmate. Thus, I believe this clause also upholds waterboarding.
.
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering
.
Irrelevant to waterboarding.
.
I am confident that waterboarding does not fall under the spectrum of any of the above torture guidelines. While the notion of threat of imminent death is open to debate, I am of the opinion that once you allow waterboarding to constitute torture, because the detainee may believe he is under threat of death, than you open a pandora’s box of allegations. If there is no verbal communication of threat than the action should be legitimate.

neorationalist86-I didn’t say they were *mock* the link you provided did.
.
But don’t stop defending waterboarding, it’s not like that argument hasn’t been made here before by your compatriots like Rustydog. Making a case for waterboarding here is the opposite of provocative.

I dind’t come with the intent to make a case for waterboarding. What I am pissed off about is that because our concepts of torture are clearly different, you on the left characterize us as defenders of torture. An your darling press eats it up.
.
I could say that those on the left are defenders of immorality. That would be absurd, though. Our view of what is moral and not simply differs. I have a different set of values than you. Big deal. Not justification for slander and malicious propaganda against the right as exhorting the virtues of torture.

@neo,
.
If your going to continue to argue that two plus two equals one, at least take your lessons from the professionals:
.
http://72.3.233.244/pdfs/safefree/olc_08012002_bybee.pdf

Paul Dirk.

By your account earlier it is the ‘fear of imminent death clause’ that suggests waterboarding is torture. According to the Justice Department:
“In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual’s feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it
covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air now is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth. This causes an increase in carbon dioxide level in the individual’s blood. This increase in the carbon dioxide level stimulates increased effort to breathe. This effort plus the cloth produces the
perception of “suffocation and incipient panic,” i.e.,the perception of drowning. The individual does NOT breathe any water into his lungs. During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously
applied from a height of twelve to twenty~four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four ful1 breaths. The sensation of
drowning is immediately relieved by the removal of the cloth. The procedure may then be repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with an SlJout. The procedure triggers an automatic physiological sensation of
drowning that the individual cannot control even THOUGH he may be aware that he is in fact not drowning…it is likely that this procedure would not last more than 20 minutes in any one application.”
.
I find that description, which certainly sounds unpleasant, as in no way conforming to a “threat of of imminent death.”

By the way, I don’t think we should be waterboarding anyone. I find it to be ineffective, if not counter-productive, as well as a technique that is in the blurred territory, so it would be more prudent to be on the safe side of the law and not engage in questionable interrogation tactics.
.
With that said, I think it was legal procedure at the time, as the law was written. It is absurd to go through lengthy investigations, pursue indictments of public officials, drag careers through the mud, and accuse the GOP of advocating torture. This technique is simply not worth all of that. It may shock the conscience or offend, but it is not torture in the way that people should be punished for carrying it out. We are not talking about bamboo shoots under the finger nails or shock treatment; waterboarding is certainly not torture in the traditional sense of the term. We should ban it nonetheless, but not seek retroactive punishment.

Riddle me this Neo:
-
If waterboarding is not torture, why did we prosecute North Viet Namese for doing it to our soldiers as torure? If waterboarding is not torture, why did we convict and execute Japanese officers for committing it on American troops during WWII? If we have labeled it torture under our own legal precedents in the past AND HAVE DONE NOTHING TO OVERTURN THAT PRECEDENT IN THE MEANTIME, how can you POSSIBLY argue that waterboarding is not torture? You are either disngenuous in the extreme or we only did it to brown people so therefore it’s okay. Take your pick, because there is no other rationalization you can come up with. Oh and it’s still wrong period.

As always, IOKIYAR.

“What I am pissed off about is that because our concepts of torture are clearly different, you on the left characterize us as defenders of torture”
.
Yes, those of us on the left.
.
So you agree that the US wrong in trying, convicting, and executing Japanese who waterboarded US soldiers in WW2.

Ooops I should have read yutsano’s post. It was better put.
.
Although I am curious for your response about whether the US was wrong to try, convict, and execute practitioners of waterboardering. I can’t imagine how you wouldn’t think the US was wrong.

“you on the left”
.
Otherwise known as the reality-based community.

Bingo FT. I say gay people shouldn’t be treated equally, you say they should–I guess the maybe position is the best, so we’re both 1/2 right. Some nutters OUAT said blacks should be able to sit anywhere on the bus, other said, nope, only the back–again, magically, the median ideological locus was the best, and presto, again both parties were really right. These are just Joey-air-quotes “different sets of values, different definitions.” No one person can be completely right or wrong, of course.

It isn’t up to neorationalist to define what torture is any more than he should get to define what robbery is, or what mail fraud is. “Waterboarding”, or suffocation by water, is torture and is illegal. He or any rightwinger doesn’t get to define or redefine that.
.
The International Red Cross, who is LEGALLY CHARGED with overseeing the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and uses the terms “torture” and “cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment” (also illegal) in a strictly legal sense concluded that the following acts were committed:
1.3.1 Suffocation by water
1.3.2 Prolonged Stress Standing
1.3.3 Beatings by use of a collar
1.3.4 Beating and kicking
1.3.5 Confinement in a box
1.3.6 Prolonged nudity
1.3.7 Sleep deprivation and use of loud music
1.3.8 Exposure to cold temperature/cold water
1.3.9 Prolonged use of handcuffs and shackles
1.3.10 Threats
1.3.11 Forced shaving
1.3.12 Deprivation/restricted provision of solid food
.
and further that:
“The allegations of ill-treatment of the detainees indicate that, in many cases, the ill-treatment to which they were subjected while held in the CIA program, either singly or in combination, constituted torture. In addition, many other elements of the ill-treatment, either singly or in combination, constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”
.
Listening to Hannity and O’Reilly every day makes people stupid.

J,LA (in my best patronizing tone of voice) – “Real Americans don’t let a bunch of European eunuchs tell us what we can and cannot do.”
.
Listening to Serious People can make you almost as stupid as listening to Faux Noise.

So true, so true, Friar Tuck. But debating with a Fox-fried Limbaugh lover about what constitutes torture is futile. It is defined in law. His opinion is irrelevant and ignorant of the facts.

His opinion is irrelevant and ignorant of the facts.
-
FACTS? HAH! Who needs facts when they have truthiness JLA?

Well, I’m just saying that the facts aren’t debatable. And it’s a waste of time time to try to debate someone who denies facts, such as what the law is and who gets to make the finding of fact. These rightwingers don’t get to make the finding of fact, the ICRC does. Going round and round debating what has already been established as fact with a person who rejects the actual facts is futile. You can’t even start a conversation with someone like that.

Oh yes, because all us right-wingers must watch O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh and Fox. Just like all you left wingers must watch Colmes, Maher, and Oprah. Spot on analysis!
.
Actually I prefer the likes of William F. Buckley, Irving Kristol, and, believe it or not, Noam Chomsky.
.
For your information, no I do not support executing Japanese and North Korean military personnel for attempting to procure information from our soldiers in a non lethal, non pain inflicting manner. But, like I have said, waterboarding does not work, and as such, it should be banned. Its not worth the fight. I am of the opinion that any members of the administration, intelligence community, or military who engaged in such techniques, though, should not be indicted or reprimanded in any other manner for what they considered to be in keeping with the law. If they had been chopping off fingers, pulling nails, or actually drowning detainees it would have been an entirely different case.
.
Furthermore, I take issue with your characterization of me as a ring-wing extremist ignorant of ‘the facts’ and otherwise blissfully out of touch with reality. I have not rejected any facts as put to me, I have, however, drawn different conclusions based on such. Facts do not equal one precise result; two very different conclusions may be drawn from the same set of facts. It all stems from your moral and philosophical analysis of those facts.
.
I don’t know what else to say to you people, I have attempted to have a rational and civil discussion, yet you would resort to insults and characterization. Ah, the Hypocrisy of the American Left. Oh so tolerating and accepting, so long as you agree with them. Otherwise you are a bigoted, ignorant racist fool who would condone torture so long as its perpetrated against ‘brown people’ (compliments of yutsano). Well, thats all I have to say about that.

Petulance and victimization on your part isn’t going to change the fact that your opinion about what is and isn’t torture is irrelevant. That is typical of you rightwingers, you can’t even start a debate by stipulating reality, then when that gets pointed out, you start clutching your pearls and playing victim. Poor little you! Someone called bullsh!t on you and hurt your widdle feelings! It isn’t a “rational” and “civil” discussion when you, to start with, refuse to stipulate facts. Normal people stipulate facts, then start the debate from there.

“For your information, no I do not support executing Japanese and North Korean (sic) military personnel for attempting to procure information from our soldiers in a non lethal, non pain inflicting manner”
.
Then the US is guilty of war crimes? And your current position is that waterboarding is “non pain inflicting”? That’s novel.

P.S. this stopped working a while ago. “Oh so tolerating and accepting, so long as you agree with them.”

Damn right America is guilty of war crimes. We have been in every conflict we have ever entered. Its pretty much our M.O.

Whether you believe it or not, on this issue I am mostly in agreement with you. I do not advocate or support torture. I also do not support waterboarding. I DO think waterboarding should be banned.
.
What I oppose is the definition of torture applying to waterboarding, because I see that as a slippery slope that ultimately will render most anything uncomfortable as torture based on the perceived threat, whether realistic or not. I am hesitant to define waterboarding as torture solely on the legal implications of doing such, and not on any moral premise whatsoever.

Though his stance on waterboarding clearly leaves him open to such attacks, I’d have to say N-R doesn’t strike me as your run of the mill rightist. His views on Palestine are reasonable and certainly informed. His above Chomsky reference is not the first time I’ve seen him agree with that estimable giant. Perhaps his admiration is akin to progressives who like certain (god, not all) of Ron Paul’s ideas.
~
However, N-R, here’s some constructive criticism if you choose to accept it. Announcing that you just got your BA & have an almost missionary-like calling to spread the conservative gospel abroad doesn’t exactly endear you to folks twice your age and a little less wet behind the ears (not to mention a bunch of liberals). Everyone at 22 feels as if the world is theirs for the conquering, that only they’ve been able to grapple with the great texts, distilled into an overly confident and singular ideology. What happens to most of us, decades later, is we become v. wary and v. cynical.
~
Additionally, you’re commenting at a political blog–what did you expect, tea in the English countryside? Condescend to people you disagree with online and brutality awaits you.
~
Finally, as an American who sounds like he’s drawn to a life abroad, you may want to read Graham Greene’s The Quiet American, if you’ve not already. Doubtless you’ll draw different conclusions from the novel, but being aware of that trenchant criticism of American true-believers abroad will do you good. For the world that awaits you is bound to often disagree with your message, or any indication that hubris guides your mission.

Well, I must say this comes as quite the surprise. I was almost starting to believe I was part of the grand neo-con conspiracy.
.
You are right, I am not a run of the mill rightist. I lean right on social/fiscal issues, while taking a more centrist view of foreign policy. Having traveled extensively and with Lebanese relatives in my family I have ensured that I do not blind myself to the truth under the avalanche of Israeli propaganda; I admire Carter and Kennedy, yet am appalled at the Bush administration; I have not seen a Fox news broadcast since I was 15; and I voted for Bob Barr. Not quite the neo-con credentials Paul, James, and others were hoping for.
.
I appreciate your tempered advice. I was merely attempting to be a pragmatist on the water board issue. I do not want to unleash the whirlwind of lawsuits and indictments for something that, in all honesty, is not all that important in the grand scheme of American transgressions. Waterboarding should be tossed, nothing more, nothing less. This discussion, both here and in the real world, has gone on for far too long.

Thank you for the tempered advice, jcapan. Much to the chagrin of the likes of Paul, James and others here, I’m not confident my alleged neo-con credentials will hold up under scrutiny. Being an avid reader of Chomsky, an admirer of Carter and Kennedy, and a recent vote caster for Bob Barr, I believe eliminates me from the Bush-Cheney club.
.
Nevertheless, my rightist fiscal/social views will undoubtedly lead me into conflict with the majority here; this is a simple fact, and one I will not shy from. My view on this topic thread has been especially non-combative, however, hence my surprise at the specific degree of hostility displayed towards my rather pragmatic position. On the grand scheme of American transgressions, water boarding ranks near the bottom, and as such, considering the relatively benign nature of it in comparison to torture at large, I find it to be an objectionable technique that should be banned; nothing more, nothing less.

I apologize for the redundancy. My initial post did not appear to go through, thus I paraphrased and re-posted.

Well, guess what. I don’t find driving 70 miles an hour in a school zone after drinking bourbon all day is speeding. Plenty of people have done it, government officials have done it, and a lot of people do it and I don’t consider it a crime. It’s objectionable, sure, but I don’t think it is a crime. It may occasionally result in death of innocent people, but hey! I just find the practice relatively benign, certainly not a crime. I find it to be an objectionable form of driving, nothing more, nothing less.
.
And MY opinion is the most important opinion on the planet, y’see? Because *I* read Chomsky and Weekly Standard, I am soooooooo much more informed than the rest of you ignorant older people. After all, *I* just got my degree, so that means that *I* know all about everything. So we don’t even need to debate! Forget facts! I make up my own facts –because you’re dumb and I’m smart! I pronounce your opinions less worthy than *my* opinions!
.
Ah. To be a 22-year-old arrogant know-it-all again, eh, my fellow Swamplanders? New grad. heh heh.

Yes, James, that is precisely what I said. Thank you so much for summing it up so neatly! Bravo!
.
I haven’t mentioned my degree, nor have I claimed to be of any superior intellect than anyone here, I do not claim to be more informed. I simply am illustrating that your narrow characterization of me as some simpleton neo-con radical is way off base. Good day to you sir!

On the grand scheme of American transgressions, water boarding ranks near the bottom, and as such, considering the relatively benign nature of it in comparison to torture at large, I find it to be an objectionable technique that should be banned; nothing more, nothing less.
-
I think I am seeing the issue Neo. You find it objectionable but your definition of waterboarding as merely objectionable defies US and international laws that declare it torture and illegal. It’s a back door to saying that it COULD be done if we wanted but we shouldn’t want it. It shouldn’t even be a consideration. These laws don’t come out of vacuums and are not arbitrary decisions by high muckety mucks. Waterboarding may not cause any actual physical scarring, but it does cause major psychological trauma. Christopher Hitchens agreed to have himself waterboarded. Not only did he declare it torture he also still suffers psychological effects from the experience. If we are now realzing that post-traumatic stress disorder is affecting our soldiers negatively, then we must also recognize what we have done to those we have captured on the battlefield and treated horribly. Your casual dismissal of what has been labeled over and over again as torture is either willful ignorance or disingenuity of the highest order.

yutsano: Hitchens briefly experienced waterboarding and suffered psychological effects. Think about having it done everyday when combined with beatings, sleep deprivation, forced nudity/humilation, constant loud sounds, cold water hosings, liquid diet, forced standing for long periods, confinement in cramped boxes and the rest of the “enhanced” interrogation techniques. It’s torture and against everything our country stands for. Trials are essential.

The horrific things that have been done in my name, as an American citizen (I should clarify that in case there were any doubts, like Obama I was born in Hawai’i) make me sick to my stomach. All to find a non-existent connection to justify a war of convenience. It makes me ill. It also just makes me so glad we dodged the major bullet that was Grandpa McCain. Lord knows where we would be right now.

“I do not want to unleash the whirlwind of lawsuits and indictments for something that, in all honesty, is not all that important in the grand scheme of American transgressions. Waterboarding should be tossed, nothing more, nothing less. This discussion, both here and in the real world, has gone on for far too long.”
.
I can only imagine how you must have felt about the lawsuits that more or less defined America in the late ’90s – a celebrity murder trial, and the impeachment of a president based on his having some tawdry sex and then lying about it.
.
However you personally feel about waterboarding, do you not agree that the whole idea behind jury trial was that 12 random people could, at the end of the day, do a better job of deciding whether crimes had been committed, than entire armies of politicians, academics, and “informed” citizens on either side of an issue?
.
Just because waterboarders are prosecuted doesn’t prove that a crime has committed. That should be decided by a jury, just like everything else in America that’s identified as a potential crime. I think that’s all most of us who support prosecutions want — to know the truth, and to have those suspected of wrongdoing treated like everyone else suspected of wrongdoing.

James,
A crime, by definition, is an action that violates a statute or law. Therefore, it is beyond my discretion to distinguish what does or does not constitute a crime. I have no latitude in passing judgment on whether driving drunk through a school zone constitutes a crime because there are statutory regulations which enunciate it as such.
.
Torture, however, is a much broader concept than crime. The argument that torture is simply torture when it is deemed to be torture is an overly tautological argument, which leaves no room for rational interpretation. Therefore, I reject the argument that I must accept water boarding to be torture simply because it is defined as much by the Red Cross.

Commenter,
I agree that prosecution does not equate with wrongdoing. I am not concerned about opening the door to prosecution because I worry that those who carried out water boardings may be held unjustly accountable. My concern is that by defining water boarding as torture based on the ‘threat of imminent death’ clause, than a pandora’s box of litigious and criminal proceedings can be pursued for any number of situations in which an inmate or detainee PERCEIVES threat of imminent death, regardless of whether said threats actually occurred.
.
I find it a stretch to suggest that such a regulated and monitored procedure with medical staff available could be construed as a threat of death.

Torture, however, is a much broader concept than crime. The argument that torture is simply torture when it is deemed to be torture is an overly tautological argument, which leaves no room for rational interpretation. Therefore, I reject the argument that I must accept water boarding to be torture simply because it is defined as much by the Red Cross.M
-
Wrong, and this is why: precedent. There are already precedents in both US and international laws describing exactly what torture is. And torture by those definitions (including waterboarding) have been defined as criminal acts. You’re trying to muddy up what is in fact a clear issue: waterboarding is defined as torture, torture is a crime, therefore waterboarding is a crime.

[...] Obama In Dresden [...]

[...] Obama In Dresden [...]

[...] Obama In Dresden [...]

[...]  Obama In Dresden [...]

[...]  Obama In Dresden [...]