Waterboarding Hyprocrisy

[SadisticNature]

I think we would get a lot more accomplished in this thread if we would stop talking about each other and start discussing the actual topic...It's fine to ask for sources and question points made, but this is absolutely ridiculous.

Completely agree, unfortunately, people have started doing this in multiple threads, and if they held themselves to the same standards as they require of those who disagree with them they'd never get anything done.

[TantricSoul]

Why is it that whenever I have little or no time to be online here the fun starts happening?

I swear the thought process must be something like "Tantric hasn't been online... lets whip out our dicks and measure them (dildos for the ladies involved.)"

Ok folks... time to put them away and return to discussing the OP.
(whatever the topic of the OP is.)

Yes I moved the thread, I find little News here but LOTS of philosophy.

No I am not going to go back and issue warnings for flaming ... just KNOCK IT OFF.

My opinion about citing sources: This is an opinion forum, on a BDSM site, not an academic journal or paper. Citing sources is a great way to prove your not talking out of your ass, but even if you are, who really cares? (For Ace Ventura fans you might even find it amusing.) Yes it is polite to provide sources if someone requests. If you do , please provide enough info so that your source is easy to find. However, I did not notice any mandate to use MLA format for quotations or source citing in the forums guidelines, nor would I expect posters HERE to go through the trouble to do so.

(That said, if you have a source explaining how to waterboard your sub safely, I would love to see that cited!)

Anyway its true Im not here as often as I'd like, please feel free to PM me with any moderator issues (in the editorial section that is) including editing needs of your own posts, I get emails when I receive PMs and you will get a much faster response that way.

Respectfully,
TS

[DuncanONeil]

I believe that as "waterboarding" is designed is actually intended to be safe. Scary but safe.

Why is it that whenever I have little or no time to be online here the fun starts happening?

I swear the thought process must be something like "Tantric hasn't been online... lets whip out our dicks and measure them (dildos for the ladies involved.)"

Ok folks... time to put them away and return to discussing the OP.
(whatever the topic of the OP is.)

Yes I moved the thread, I find little News here but LOTS of philosophy.

No I am not going to go back and issue warnings for flaming ... just KNOCK IT OFF.

My opinion about citing sources: This is an opinion forum, on a BDSM site, not an academic journal or paper. Citing sources is a great way to prove your not talking out of your ass, but even if you are, who really cares? (For Ace Ventura fans you might even find it amusing.) Yes it is polite to provide sources if someone requests. If you do , please provide enough info so that your source is easy to find. However, I did not notice any mandate to use MLA format for quotations or source citing in the forums guidelines, nor would I expect posters HERE to go through the trouble to do so.

(That said, if you have a source explaining how to waterboard your sub safely, I would love to see that cited!)

Anyway its true Im not here as often as I'd like, please feel free to PM me with any moderator issues (in the editorial section that is) including editing needs of your own posts, I get emails when I receive PMs and you will get a much faster response that way.

Respectfully,
TS

[TantricSoul]

Thanks Duncan, I agree with you, in truth I was only attempting to add some levity into that message.

[DuncanONeil]

Oh I caught that!

Thanks Duncan, I agree with you, in truth I was only attempting to add some levity into that message.

[denuseri]

I believe that it would be a good idea to actually examine the actual topic of a thread for a change as opposed to side stepping it over classifications of descriptive racial morphography.

Does the USA employ a double standard when it comes to the use of torture?

In paticular the use of water boarding which btw was historically not questioned to be anything but a form of torture right up until it was discovered that the cia was using it with frequencey and then all the sudden it became an enhanced iterogation technique overnight for political convience.

Hardely a new topic, but perhaps a new perspective on the reasons why its considered ok by some.



http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...Water+boarding


Is the op sugesting that if the "enemy" combatants were cuacasians there would be no torture conducted?

[DuncanONeil]

Much of the enemy in the terrorist camp is Caucasian.
Perhaps the issue is that waterboarding does not do harm! And is quickly effective.

I believe that it would be a good idea to actually examine the actual topic of a thread for a change as opposed to side stepping it over classifications of descriptive racial morphography.

Does the USA employ a double standard when it comes to the use of torture?

In paticular the use of water boarding which btw was historically not questioned to be anything but a form of torture right up until it was discovered that the cia was using it with frequencey and then all the sudden it became an enhanced iterogation technique overnight for political convience.

Hardely a new topic, but perhaps a new perspective on the reasons why its considered ok by some.



http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...Water+boarding


Is the op sugesting that if the "enemy" combatants were cuacasians there would be no torture conducted?

[SadisticNature]

I believe that it would be a good idea to actually examine the actual topic of a thread for a change as opposed to side stepping it over classifications of descriptive racial morphography.

Does the USA employ a double standard when it comes to the use of torture?

In paticular the use of water boarding which btw was historically not questioned to be anything but a form of torture right up until it was discovered that the cia was using it with frequencey and then all the sudden it became an enhanced iterogation technique overnight for political convience.

Hardely a new topic, but perhaps a new perspective on the reasons why its considered ok by some.



http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...Water+boarding


Is the op sugesting that if the "enemy" combatants were cuacasians there would be no torture conducted?

I certainly think there is a distinct possibility. It may just be coincidence that the use of waterboarding is widespread in wars with non-whites and largely absent from wars with whites, but this appears to be the case over the history of the US. Of course attitudes on race vary hugely over that time period so its hard to get an objective standard given limited data points. This of course means people interpret the data however they want.

As for the justification "if the president does it its ok", this is highly problematic. In fact, it seems to be true only when the president happens to do something the individual agrees with (judging from all the hate against the current US president). So this is obviously circular reasoning and doesn't justify anything.

[DuncanONeil]

You mean unlike the hate against the previous President?

I certainly think there is a distinct possibility. It may just be coincidence that the use of waterboarding is widespread in wars with non-whites and largely absent from wars with whites, but this appears to be the case over the history of the US. Of course attitudes on race vary hugely over that time period so its hard to get an objective standard given limited data points. This of course means people interpret the data however they want.

As for the justification "if the president does it its ok", this is highly problematic. In fact, it seems to be true only when the president happens to do something the individual agrees with (judging from all the hate against the current US president). So this is obviously circular reasoning and doesn't justify anything.

[SadisticNature]

Definitions are a complicated awkward thing.

I think for torture in the modern era one has to use the Geneva convention as interpreted by a court of law, which is still somewhat fuzzy as it involves a question as to whom (International War Crimes Tribunal, Supreme Court of the U.S., Supreme Court of the country whose citizens are subject to the crime?)

In an era prior to the Geneva convention, definitions are far more complicated.

As for the sanity of Glenn Beck I think that he is an opportunist who exploits conspiracy theories of the radical right to generate media success and personal profit. I think he's probably far more sane than a good portion of his viewers. The fact is this is more entertainment than news, and his character is likely a media personality much the way Stephen Colbert is.

The argument that he's "insane" is largely based in the fact that he buys in to all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories, on little to no evidence. Often retracting them at a later date in the face of overwhelming evidence, and then only reluctantly. People who believe something is true solely because they want it to be, even in the face of evidence to the contrary are by some definitions insane. Then there is the whole "fool me once, shame on you", "fool me twice, shame on me" argument. Glenn Beck uses sources that have a history of inaccuracy without qualms. Intentionally using bad sources to present the picture you want to believe as news, seems problematic to me. But I guess its nothing new for a station that won a verdict in a whistleblower case on the basis of "Falsifying the news is not a crime."

[DuncanONeil]

Neither Beck nor Colbert present a news show. Have you spent much time watching either?
I have seen Beck attack the right with as much fervor as the left!

Even the Geneva Convention definitions are problematic. Kind of makes the definition of torture like that of harrassment.

Definitions are a complicated awkward thing.

I think for torture in the modern era one has to use the Geneva convention as interpreted by a court of law, which is still somewhat fuzzy as it involves a question as to whom (International War Crimes Tribunal, Supreme Court of the U.S., Supreme Court of the country whose citizens are subject to the crime?)

In an era prior to the Geneva convention, definitions are far more complicated.

As for the sanity of Glenn Beck I think that he is an opportunist who exploits conspiracy theories of the radical right to generate media success and personal profit. I think he's probably far more sane than a good portion of his viewers. The fact is this is more entertainment than news, and his character is likely a media personality much the way Stephen Colbert is.

The argument that he's "insane" is largely based in the fact that he buys in to all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories, on little to no evidence. Often retracting them at a later date in the face of overwhelming evidence, and then only reluctantly. People who believe something is true solely because they want it to be, even in the face of evidence to the contrary are by some definitions insane. Then there is the whole "fool me once, shame on you", "fool me twice, shame on me" argument. Glenn Beck uses sources that have a history of inaccuracy without qualms. Intentionally using bad sources to present the picture you want to believe as news, seems problematic to me. But I guess its nothing new for a station that won a verdict in a whistleblower case on the basis of "Falsifying the news is not a crime."

[denuseri]

Actually:

I should have just said white instead of cuacasian shouldnt I, guess I couldnt keep you from trying to dance around it yet again the way I worded it orginally.

The question is do we in the USA think its ok to use on other than "white" people.

Many interogators, former cia members and those who train our military to resist such means of torture have said that water boarding does not in fact produce good inteligence, in fact the victums of it have a tendency to say anything you want them too to simpley make it stop and that there are far far better ways to get real information without resorting to such criminal methods.

And water boarding can and does harm, even permamently, in fact it can kill a person.

People have suffered everything from long term phcological disorders from it (including PTSD) to in some cases broken bones (as they thrashed uncontrolabely trying to get free during the torture sesssion), and heart attacks and yes even sometimes death.

[damyanti]

In the time it took me to prepare this page for response the language has been controlled.
However, the claim you make below it totally with out either substance or merit.
It is liberals that have driven the creation of the need for virtually every venue have signage in multiple languages, not the conservative. Such signage does nothing to bring people into the mainstream of the community in which they live, it merely serves to allow the separateness to become entrenched. Conservative position is to have all of the people that desire to come here to become a part of a homogenous whole. Such a whole is much stronger than the sum of its parts. To constantly make effort to display differences prevents the parts from melding into the unique entity it could be.
People are not label Socialist because they disagree, but because they advocate taking from those that produce and giving it to those that do not! Un-American is reserved for those seeking to tear the country down.

What are you...Borg? LOL

Two things, 1) Conservatives do not have the monopoly on being American and 2) Un-American is reserved for those seeking to tear the country down? Can you possibly make a more incorrect statement about the History of how U.S. came to be?

The first residents of what is now the United States immigrated from Asia prior to 15,000 years ago by crossing Beringia into Alaska. So, by your own standards, that means you are not a real American, lol.

Then came the handsome Norse fellow by the name Leif Ericson, followed by that pesky Italian working for the Spanish crown. Then came the The Thirteen British and settlements by Spain, France and Russia. Then came the steady steady flows of immigrants from Europe as well as slaves from the West Indies....etc etc.

And as any first grader knows...most of those people were rejects, independent spirits, criminals, religious folks looking for a safe way to worship...and so bent of never having to live in a country where anyone tries to homogenize them again, that they created a pesky little document called The Constitution.

But good luck with your homogeneous whole politics.....as we know historically that tends to end well.

[DuncanONeil]

[B][COLOR="Magenta"]
What are you...Borg? LOL

I don't believe so!

[B][COLOR="Magenta"]Two things, 1) Conservatives do not have the monopoly on being American and 2) Un-American is reserved for those seeking to tear the country down? Can you possibly make a more incorrect statement about the History of how U.S. came to be?

I did not see anything in the quote of mine that was in your message about history. And I actually said myself that; "Un-American is reserved for those seeking to tear the country down?"

I have never made assertions as to who is American or un-American. As to the history comment I will have to come back to that.

[B][COLOR="Magenta"]The first residents of what is now the United States immigrated from Asia prior to 15,000 years ago by crossing Beringia into Alaska. So, by your own standards, that means you are not a real American, lol.

Really!? How do you define a real American?

[B][COLOR="Magenta"]Then came the handsome Norse fellow by the name Leif Ericson, followed by that pesky Italian working for the Spanish crown. Then came the The Thirteen British and settlements by Spain, France and Russia. Then came the steady steady flows of immigrants from Europe as well as slaves from the West Indies....etc etc.

You forgot Vespuccia. BTW Chris did not make the mainland.

[B][COLOR="Magenta"]And as any first grader knows...most of those people were rejects, independent spirits, criminals, religious folks looking for a safe way to worship...and so bent of never having to live in a country where anyone tries to homogenize them again, that they created a pesky little document called The Constitution.

Pesky little document?? Why would yo say that?

But good luck with your homogeneous whole politics.....as we know historically that tends to end well.

Not sure I suggested that, but we also know how the current direction of the current administration goes as well.
I said nothing about "homogeneous whole politics".

[DuncanONeil]

The issue is that save for Blacks and Asian it can be very hard to tell who is white and and something "else".
I do not believe that it is a "white" "non-white" issue.
As for the comment about waterboarding producing bad info. Reports about 'boarding are that it was used to initiate talking. The actionable intelligence was determined after by other means.

The original comment is based in the believe that "torture" produces no actionable intell. It may it may not. But to make such a claim also presupposes that anything gleaned by the so-called "enhanced" techniques is accepted by and of itself.

Actually:

I should have just said white instead of cuacasian shouldnt I, guess I couldnt keep you from trying to dance around it yet again the way I worded it orginally.

The question is do we in the USA think its ok to use on other than "white" people.out waterboarding

Many interogators, former cia members and those who train our military to resist such means of torture have said that water boarding does not in fact produce good inteligence, in fact the victums of it have a tendency to say anything you want them too to simpley make it stop and that there are far far better ways to get real information without resorting to such criminal methods.

And water boarding can and does harm, even permamently, in fact it can kill a person.

People have suffered everything from long term phcological disorders from it (including PTSD) to in some cases broken bones (as they thrashed uncontrolabely trying to get free during the torture sesssion), and heart attacks and yes even sometimes death.

[denuseri]

I think what I am saying is:

That water boarding is in fact torture. Just as its been defined as such by not only our own military for the longest time, but the world and that ones skin color shouldn't matter a hill of beans weather its ok to do or not. Its wrong, plain and simple.

And when it comes to "intel" and water boarding or any other form of torture even those types of torture most recently re-classified as "enhanced interogation" : the ends of its use most certianly do not justify the means under ANY circumstances.

It goes against everything our country stands for.

What are you who support it saying?

That is ok to torture people so long as one redefines what torture is?

That the ends justify the means?

That its not wrong?

What?

[DuncanONeil]

[QUOTE=denuseri;852796]I think what I am saying is:

That water boarding is in fact torture. Just as its been defined as such by not only our own military for the longest time, but the world and that ones skin color shouldn't matter a hill of beans weather its ok to do or not. Its wrong, plain and simple.

And when it comes to "intel" and water boarding or any other form of torture even those types of torture most recently re-classified as "enhanced interogation" : the ends of its use most certianly do not justify the means under ANY circumstances.

It goes against everything our country stands for.

That the ends justify the means?

NO!

That is ok to torture people so long as one redefines what torture is?

Not "redefine" but "define"

What are you who support it saying?

For me at least it is wrong to presume I support torture. I do not!

That its not wrong?

Torture is, but then again we still have the problem of the definition.

What?

Basically the discussion here is not really about torture vs no torture. But a discussion of what the h*** qualifies as torture. Therein lies the rub. Some say that putting a prisoner in sack cloth and blindfold on a raised platform holding some weight outstretched is torture. Some would call it Basic Training.

Help at all?

[TantricSoul]

Just want to say, as a mod, that this type of post ^ is exactly what I personally would like to see more of.

A thoughtful restating/clarification of position, without any attacks, and then some questions that seek to challenge (perhaps even understand?) the other viewpoint.

My sincere gratitude to those posting in this thread, and really all threads, that are on topic and off each others cases!

And I'd answer those questions if I could, but I don't support water boarding or any form of torture that is non consensual

Respectfully,
TS

[DuncanONeil]

The problem is that, being individuals, we can not agree on what torture actually is.
If you can not have a common definition you can not have a reasoned discussion.

Just want to say, as a mod, that this type of post ^ is exactly what I personally would like to see more of.

A thoughtful restating/clarification of position, without any attacks, and then some questions that seek to challenge (perhaps even understand?) the other viewpoint.

My sincere gratitude to those posting in this thread, and really all threads, that are on topic and off each others cases!

And I'd answer those questions if I could, but I don't support water boarding or any form of torture that is non consensual

Respectfully,
TS

[TantricSoul]

If you can not have a common definition you can not have a reasoned discussion.

Following this line of reasoning, to me, equates to saying there is no such thing as a reasoned discussion.

Language is relatively agreed symbolism, fact is even simple symbols such as "red" or "hot" or "good" are defined uniquely by all of us, based on our perception, genetics, experiences and conditioning.

What is a human to do?

Respectfully,
TS

[DuncanONeil]

The best we can!

Following this line of reasoning, to me, equates to saying there is no such thing as a reasoned discussion.

Language is relatively agreed symbolism, fact is even simple symbols such as "red" or "hot" or "good" are defined uniquely by all of us, based on our perception, genetics, experiences and conditioning.

What is a human to do?

Respectfully,
TS

[TantricSoul]

Now as to the topic...

Seems like simple math to me...

Charging others who have used waterboarding, with war crimes + using waterboarding ourselves, while claiming its not a war crime = hypocrisy.

Yep if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... its a duck, even if the president declares it an elephant, its still a duck!

Respectfully,
TS

[DuncanONeil]

I can't resist "Viaduct"?

Who have we charged with "war crimes" for waterboarding?

http://www.marx-brothers.org/whyaduck/info/movies/scenes/whyaduck.htm

Now as to the topic...

Seems like simple math to me...

Charging others who have used waterboarding, with war crimes + using waterboarding ourselves, while claiming its not a war crime = hypocrisy.

Yep if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... its a duck, even if the president declares it an elephant, its still a duck!

Respectfully,
TS

[TantricSoul]

I can't resist "Viaduct"?

Who have we charged with "war crimes" for waterboarding?

http://www.marx-brothers.org/whyaduck/info/movies/scenes/whyaduck.htm

According to Wiki ... this guy.

In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese civilian who had served in World War II as an interpreter for the Japanese military, Yukio Asano, for "Violation of the Laws and Customs of War," asserting that he "did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for" prisoners, but, far worse, that he also "did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture" prisoners of war. Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor.[109] The charges against Asano included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward."[172] The specifications in the charges with regard to "water torture" consisted of "pouring water up [the] nostrils" of one prisoner, "forcing water into [the] mouths and noses" of two other prisoners, and "forcing water into [the] nose" of a fourth prisoner.[173]

Pasted from this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterbo...ernational_law
which also has wonderful definition of water-boarding as torture higher up the page.

Respectfully,
TS

[TantricSoul]

One last thought

Basic Training = consensual
Torture = not consensual

Consent defines the difference.

Respectfully,
TS

[DuncanONeil]

I admit that one consents to Basic, but not what happens after you get there.

One last thought

Basic Training = consensual
Torture = not consensual

Consent defines the difference.

Respectfully,
TS

[denuseri]

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

It is what it is.

"Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the subject on his back with the head inclined downwards; water is then poured over the face into breathing passages, causing the captive to experience the sensations of drowning."

"Dating back to the Spanish Inquisition, the suffocation of bound prisoners with water has been favored because, unlike most other torture techniques, it produces no marks on the body."

"Malcolm Nance, an advisor on terrorism to the US departments of Homeland Security, Special Operations and Intelligence, publicly denounced the practice. He revealed that waterboarding is used in training at the US Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School in San Diego, and claimed to have witnessed and supervised "hundreds" of waterboarding exercises. Although these last only a few minutes and take place under medical supervision, he concluded that "waterboarding is a torture technique – period".

"While US media reports typically state that waterboarding involves "simulated drowning", Mr Nance explained that "since the lungs are actually filling with water", there is nothing simulated about it. "Waterboarding," he said, "is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration. When done right, it is controlled death."

"Henri Alleg, a journalist, was tortured in 1957 by French forces in Algeria. He described the ordeal of water torture in his book The Question. Soldiers strapped him over a plank, wrapped his head in cloth and positioned it beneath a running tap. He recalled: "The rag was soaked rapidly. Water flowed everywhere: in my mouth, in my nose, all over my face. But for a while I could still breathe in some small gulps of air. I tried, by contracting my throat, to take in as little water as possible and to resist suffocation by keeping air in my lungs for as long as I could. But I couldn't hold on for more than a few moments. I had the impression of drowning, and a terrible agony, that of death itself, took possession of me. In spite of myself, all the muscles of my body struggled uselessly to save me from suffocation. In spite of myself, the fingers of both my hands shook uncontrollably. 'That's it! He's going to talk,' said a voice.

The water stopped running and they took away the rag. I was able to breathe. In the gloom, I saw the lieutenants and the captain, who, with a cigarette between his lips, was hitting my stomach with his fist to make me throw out the water I had swallowed."

"A Bush administration memo from 2005, intended to establish a legal basis for aggressive interrogation techniques, contains a footnote that actually describes waterboarding as falling within the administration's definition of torture."



Bravo to Nance and others who are in the know, and are finally stepping forward and calling waterboarding what it is...TORTURE.