SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TimF who wrote (49341)2/16/2008 2:30:37 AM
From: Cogito  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 543165
 
>>If you use a very narrow definition, than he would be correct.<<

Tim -

That's kind of like saying it's OK for him to use certain words but to mean whatever he wants by them. Just as people aren't entitled to their own facts, I don't think they're entitled to their own definitions of common words.

Water boarding has been defined as torture in this country for a long time. Here's a quote from a Washington Post story about how we felt about its use on American prisoners during WWII.

"After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding."

I personally think that the whole issue of waterboarding masks the probability that we have used many other interrogation techniques that would also be classified as torture, and that we have extradited prisoners to places where we knew they would be tortured. As long as we can stick to a ridiculous question like whether or not one specific method of torture actually is torture, we don't have people asking harder questions.

- Allen