Zookeeper wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

let me think... My step father had 3 of those done, plus having his lower spine smashed with rifle butts, fingernails jammed with slivers of bamboo etc, etc.   I seem to recall all of these are against the Geneva conventions.  If they all are listed within the conventions, why are you so quick to dismiss the standing rules of law, or to bend the law?

Point to the post where I "dismissed the standing rules of law".  I am against waterboarding.  I've said it a couple times.  That having been said I can see a marked difference between it and the other practices you just named.  Why can't you? 

Dmtdust wrote:

I am not thick but just trying to light that small flame of humanity that might be lurking inside of you.

I'm just trying to light that small flame of objectivity and rationality that might be lurking inside you.  But no bother.  Clearly my question was just too hard for you to deal with.  Crushed spine, bamboo slivers, waterboarding: it's all the same to you.  If your step-dad is still around I'd be interested to know if he agrees with that assessment.

I stated what I did because to my step father it was all and the same, he didn't have a preference.  You never have sat and talked to anyone that had any of these acts done to them have you?  You have no idea at all about this, and yet you sit there jerking off about objectivity.  I have always considered you intelligent, and you are on many levels.  On the human side and on suffering, not so much.

Zookeeper wrote:

[What's the matter?  Is the world just to black-and-white for you to deal with such a simple concept?

Where the concept accepts inhuman behavior, then black is the color. Remember that when the wet towel is on YOUR face.

George Orr wrote:

...but now I'd like to add, "and a glowstick up the pooper."

Why would you want to ruin a perfectly good glowstick?

Dmtdust wrote:

I'm more than a little livid at this juncture in time.....

Right now I'm mad enough to change my opinion of torture.  They did these things in my name.  Line Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld and the rest of those suit-and-tie chicken-hawk fuckers up in front of me and hand me a Taser.

Decadence wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

The use of torture could be argued to have worked the same in Iraq as Vietnam, we were ultimately successful in both conflicts . . .

Mommy, please, make the delusional man go a-way.

A rather bold assertion - Care to clarify, Dude?

Success is measured by achieving defined goals; Vietnam definitely did and as much as I'm vehemently against the Iraqi occupation we are slowly but surely achieving our goals there.  Torture, which invariably occurs on the ground in any conflict had no measurable impact on the over-all outcome.

The strategies employed by Gen. Prateus in Iraq have helped considerably; that and the fact that we simply out-lasted them.  This will be the eventual outcome in Afganistan also, the favorable factor is the power of the individual tribes and warlords.  These warlords see their power being attrited through doomed attacks against superiour forces and their control of their area's threatened by the unrest generated by the increasing civilian casulties.

Eventually they get tired of the mess and side with us to end it and hopefully resume the previous status quo.


History is facts not delusion;  the idea that we lost the Vietnam war belongs on Snopes.com not coming out of intelligent peoples mouths.  Next you're going to tell me that we never went to war against China...

Last edited by Emmeran (2009-05-28 14:20:46)

Dmtdust wrote:

I don't understand your whitewashing of Vietnam.   Last time I recalled, we left with our tails between our legs, and had to evacuate people off of rooftops whilst the Viet Minh were rolling up the street.  If you measure that as a success, fucksakes, I hate to see what you call a defeat.

Ahh, the mass media's take on the withdrawal; glamorizing how inept we are and why we should buy their product to know what to worry about.

Please name one battle lost or territory lost during that conflict.  Just one. 

You can't, because there weren't any.

We withdrew after 12 years('61~'73), at our own pace and because we wanted to.  The footage you speak of was the evacuation of the embassy in 1975 after we had pulled all of our troops and turned over control of the conflict to the South Vietnamese as per plan in 1973. 

The Paris Peace Accord was signed in 1973 and mandated a cease fire between the ARVN and NVA. The South Vietnamese managed to, within the guidlines of the Paris Peace Accord, roll back the communist guerilla's after our military pulled out.  The North broke the guidelines of the peace accord to stop the rollback of guerilla's attacking the ARVN with the NVA they were able to successfully invade and conquer the South, but only after congress refused to provide any additional military aid to the south.  At which point we evacuated our embassy, the footage of which has somehow been taken to be the whole story when it wasn't truthfully a part of that story.

Those are the facts, what many people seem to want to hang on to is the Rambo myth's.  So contrary to popular belief we have only lost one war (1812 vs Canada) and tied one* (1953 China); the rest we won - honestly or deceiptfully, we won.  (*some would argue that the Banana wars were a wash also).

It infuriates me to no end to watch people after all of these years, still reach out to try and twist the knives in the backs of the vietnam vets just a little bit more...for old times sake I guess.

Last edited by Emmeran (2009-05-28 21:20:00)

I happen to agree with most of what my more liberal friends here have said.  We should be above torturing our captives.  However, there is no way that waterboarding should be placed in the same category with those tortures designed to punish and maim.  Defining it at torture ex post facto was done primarily for political reasons.  Can we leave the politics aside for a moment and look at the facts?  Sometimes you need information and this is quick and efficient method of extracting it that does not cause long term physical harm.  It can't even be that intimidating if old Sheik Khalid held out for 183 sessions before he spilled his guts.

The point dear Phred isn't waterboarding, it is Torture as a National Policy.

We are all adults and understand that on the ground during combat some ad hoc torture will occur.  But torture as a policy means many things and not a single one of them is good.

We also understand that a prisoner being tortured will talk, in fact he will say anything you want him to say.  Results are not the question, once again it is the method that is the problem.

Dmtdust wrote:

Phreddy... We Hung people for doing this after WW2.  Do you really think the Sheik actually held out that long?  Don't you think a goodly amount of these waterboardings were for the entertainment of the staff?

No we didn't.  Waterboarding was listed among the crimes, but they weren't the ones that brought the death penalty.  The cops write you up for running stop signs while they are chasing you for bank robbery, but it's not the traffic violations that get you prison time.

phreddy wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

The point dear Phred isn't waterboarding, it is Torture as a National Policy.

Yes torture is not a good national policy, but waterboarding is only torture because some people are calling it so.  And their reasons for defining it as torture are suspect.

United Nations Convention Against Torture wrote:

...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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

We are signatories of this convention and it was ratified by our congress.

phreddy wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

Phreddy... We Hung people for doing this after WW2.  Do you really think the Sheik actually held out that long?  Don't you think a goodly amount of these waterboardings were for the entertainment of the staff?

No we didn't.  Waterboarding was listed among the crimes, but they weren't the ones that brought the death penalty.  The cops write you up for running stop signs while they are chasing you for bank robbery, but it's not the traffic violations that get you prison time.

It all makes sense now.  Phreddy is...  LIZ CHENEY.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz … 08187.html

Emmeran wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

The point dear Phred isn't waterboarding, it is Torture as a National Policy.

Yes torture is not a good national policy, but waterboarding is only torture because some people are calling it so.  And their reasons for defining it as torture are suspect.

United Nations Convention Against Torture wrote:

...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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

We are signatories of this convention and it was ratified by our congress.

The key words here Em are "any act by which severe pain or suffering.." 

Everyone give me a break here.  The only reason you are all whining about this is because you can use it to whip George Bush.  Waterboarding doesn't even qualify as an act worthy of Cruel.com.  I suppose the fact that your fearsome leader Nancy Pelosi not only knew about it, but suggested that it didn't go far enough, has no standing.

phreddy wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Yes torture is not a good national policy, but waterboarding is only torture because some people are calling it so.  And their reasons for defining it as torture are suspect.

United Nations Convention Against Torture wrote:

...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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

We are signatories of this convention and it was ratified by our congress.

The key words here Em are "any act by which severe pain or suffering.." 

Everyone give me a break here.  The only reason you are all whining about this is because you can use it to whip George Bush.  Waterboarding doesn't even qualify as an act worthy of Cruel.com.  I suppose the fact that your fearsome leader Nancy Pelosi not only knew about it, but suggested that it didn't go far enough, has no standing.

Your lack of attention to the details provided you once more paints you as a complete fucktard.   Let me put it to you this way: "If Obama and crew goes the same route, I want their asses to be waterboarded as well", and don't give me this lame BS about degrees; I already cited from someone who went through it.  I will gladly come south when Choad moves here and he can come along to demonstrate it on your lame ass.  Are you willing to step up?  I will bring the car battery and clips as well for your cherished "degrees".

Excerpted from http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/sho … p?t=448717

Easy enough to duplicate. I have an inclined weight bench and a watering can. No problem. I lie on this and tilt the watercan to pour water on my mouth and nose. Water goes up my nose causing me to gag and choke and splutter, but after a try or two I'm able to suppress my reflex, relax breathe in shallowly and then expel rapidly (shooting out the water) and maintain my composure. This is not too bad. with my diving experience, you would never break me this way. I can't beleive those AL Zarqawi guys were such pussies.

Back to researching the advanced techniques:

The first of these is wet rag in mouth. I try it. Ok, I can handle this too. It makes it a little bit more difficult to maintain control. I didn't realize it, but the first time around I was selectively breathing through either mouth or nose, to help maintain control. The wet rag eliminates the mouth as an option. You have to really concentrate to maintain control, breathing very shallowly on the inhale and not allowing yourself to exhale until you have a good lungfull with which to expel the water in you nose throat and sinuses. Then, you have to inhale slowly but fast enough to pull in a lungful of air before your nose throat and sinuses fill up. Difficult, but doable with some self-control. I can see where this would get very unpleasant if you lost control, but still, not terrible, not torture, per se in my book. It wasn't as bad as my vasectomy or last root canal, and not nearly so bad as the last OP I read by Liberal.


Next up is saran wrap. The idea is that you wrap saran wrap around the mouth in several layers, and poke a hole in the mouth area, and then waterboard away. I didn't reall see how this was an improvement on the rag technique, and so far I would categorize waterboarding as simply unpleasant rather than torture, but I've come this far so I might as well go on.

Now, those of you who know me will know that I am both enamored of my own toughness and prone to hyperbole. The former, I feel that I am justifiably proud of. The latter may be a truth in many cases, but this is the simple fact:

It took me ten minutes to recover my senses once I tried this. I was shuddering in a corner, convinced I narrowly escaped killing myself.

Here's what happened:

The water fills the hole in the saran wrap so that there is either water or vaccum in your mouth. The water pours into your sinuses and throat. You struggle to expel water periodically by building enough pressure in your lungs. With the saran wrap though each time I expelled water, I was able to draw in less air. Finally the lungs can no longer expel water and you begin to draw it up into your respiratory tract.

It seems that there is a point that is hardwired in us. When we draw water into our respiratory tract to this point we are no longer in control. All hell breaks loose. Instinct tells us we are dying.

I have never been more panicked in my whole life. Once your lungs are empty and collapsed and they start to draw fluid it is simply all over. You [b]know[b] you are dead and it's too late. Involuntary and total panic.

There is absolutely nothing you can do about it. It would be like telling you not to blink while I stuck a hot needle in your eye.

At the time my lungs emptied and I began to draw water, I would have sold my children to escape. There was no choice, or chance, and willpower was not involved.

I never felt anything like it, and this was self-inflicted with a watering can, where I was in total control and never in any danger.

And I understood.

Okay Phred... You're the Uber-Macho Right Wingading, will you do this, with complete honesty?  Video Tape it?

jesusluvspegging wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Sounds like we have a deal Dusty.  You bring the waterboard stuff to "torture" me and when you're done, I'll snip off all of your fingertips while we boil your balls to a nice medium rare so you can easily choke them down while we discuss "degrees of torture" over a couple of beers.

So you admit that it's torture.

Jesus,
When someone places a word in quotes it often signifies they don't really mean it.

Last edited by phreddy (2009-05-28 19:17:25)

phreddy wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

Okay Phred... You're the Uber-Macho Right Wingading, will you do this, with complete honesty?  Video Tape it?

I would rather not be the one to cut off your fingers and balls, but if you want to bring them down in a bag, we can video tape my waterboard experience.

Do I smell reaction?  Do I smell some sense of capitulation to innate reasoning?  Do I smell someone considering his stance Jackassery at it's most un-defendable?  I do.  I do indeed.

You know it's wrong.  You are just afraid to admit it.

George Orr wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/the-rush-and-cheney-show_b_208187.html

How'd you miss this:  Former Interrogator Rebukes Cheney For Torture Speech

I think that was sourced already, but it works for me.

Surely.... if they get it... why don't you?  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … l?ITO=1490

phreddy wrote:

United Nations Convention Against Torture wrote:

...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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

The key words here Em are "any act by which severe pain or suffering.." 

Everyone give me a break here.  The only reason you are all whining about this is because you can use it to whip George Bush.  Waterboarding doesn't even qualify as an act worthy of Cruel.com.  I suppose the fact that your fearsome leader Nancy Pelosi not only knew about it, but suggested that it didn't go far enough, has no standing.

Now that is what I call selectivity.  Let me help you with the complete key phrase:

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person"

Waterboarding is mental torture - and is banned under the convention cited above.

Stop hugging Cheney's balls - He and Bush aren't going on trial at the Hague - but they should; and Pelosi ought to be right there with them.

Dmtdust wrote:

This is where all the partisan bs needs to stop.  I am willing to hang Pelosi out to dry with these guys, and if this shit continues under the current admin, then screw them as well.  Get over it Phred, move past the partisan bs.  You in your heart of hearts knows any torture is wrong.

Ditto: I'm with the left wing tree hugging nut job on this one.

Besides - Politicians by definition are liars and thieves; hell they won't even stay bought like a good cop does.

War is a dirty, nasty, brutal time when seemingly rational humans morph into focused predators who will commit acts of unbelievable savagery and cause death, pain and humiliation to other humans for nothing more than a single yard of soil or notch on the rifle stock. That is an immutable truth and has been so for all time. Once you have "cried Havoc and unleashed the dogs of war", you really cannot expect to control or limit the actions of the warrior. There is no such thing as a "moral war".

Our countries founders understood this. They made it very difficult to declare war. They also warned against foreign entanglements that would cause us to be tempted to be the middleman in many of these ancient conflicts.

But once war is declared, the objective of the warrior should only be swift and overwhelming victory by every available means. Anything less is a disservice to the warrior and diminishing to his enemy. Handicapping is for the golf course, not the battlefield. Police actions are a legal fiction and a logical fallacy. "Warfare light" is just a way to put soldiers in harms way without the option of winning.

So, think long and hard before you make the decision to let slip the leash on the dogs of war. For once free, they will eat their fill before returning to the kennel.

Last edited by GooberMcNutly (2009-05-29 09:28:27)

phreddy wrote:

The line between coersion and torture is a matter of definition, and the line can move based upon politics as well as justification.  And then we get into the justification for taking enhanced interrogation to the legal limit.  To deny there is justification in certain cases and categorically state that we should never force someone to talk is polyanna.

What happened to having to prove someone's guilt before punishing them? 

Then there's the whole simulated-execution angle, which we haven't even touched on.  It is illegal to make a prisoner think you're going to kill him.  You cannot blindfold him, put him in a helicopter, fly the helicopter around a little, then kick him out three feet off the ground.  The same should hold true for making him think he's drowning.

jesusluvspegging wrote:

You cannot blindfold him, put him in a helicopter, fly the helicopter around a little, then kick him out three feet off the ground.

In Vietnam that job was left to the ROKs.

Last edited by MSG Tripps (2009-05-29 13:52:51)