Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (441537)	12/19/2008 4:19:28 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577019

>> Why is that not torture? Well, first of all, since torture would be a crime, the burden is not to show that something ISN'T torture; the burden is to show that it is. However, I'll gladly explain why it isn't. But I'd also like for you to explain why you believe it IS. The definition of "torture" requires it to involve "severe pain or suffering" which waterboarding does not involve. There is no particular pain involved (according to those who have experienced it) and the fact that it lasts, at most, a few minutes (and normally on seconds) shows that there is no "suffering". I'm not sure it is possible to have "torture" that lasts only seconds or a few minutes. I suppose it might be but I cannot think of anything. Moreover, this is the reason that Abu Ghraib didn't involve torture as well. People, mostly liberals, have totally conflated the concepts of torture with what is or is not permitted under the Geneva Conventions. While torture is prohibited, so other things that aren't torture, which may include humiliation, etc. I'm not aware of anything that happened at Abu Ghraib that logically could be considered as torture. Yet, the media has constantly claimed otherwise, as have those on the Left. To be sure, I would have no problem with using torture if it were a "Jack Bauer" moment or against any known terrorist. None, whatsoever, and in fact, I would be pleased to perform the torture myself. I think it should be used against such individuals freely and without hesitation. OTOH, I understand the political issues that require it to be handled in the background. The argument that use of torture subjects our captureds to the potential for torture is nonsense. ANY Middle Eastern terrorist who captures one of our guys will thoughtlessly use torture without regard for what we do or do not do. You can't fight a war on terror and take off the table techniques which the enemy leaves on the table.

To: tejek who wrote (441537)	12/19/2008 4:41:42 PM
From: HPilot	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577019

I understand that waterboarding is effective in getting info because it re creates the feeling of drowning/dying. Why is that not torture? Because its NOT drowning/dying. Torture would be actual drowning, then saving them. Waterboarding does not have the same pain as actual drowning but very close. That is why it is so close to the line, you can argue which side of the line its on, but it is obviously very close to that line.