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 : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doren who wrote (7634)	3/12/2009 6:10:53 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 13062

If one believes that waterboarding is not torture I'm not saying it isn't, but I'd disagree on the idea that those arguing it isn't aren't worth debating. I probably disagree with their thought here, but I don't think its a crazy one. In any case we supposedly only water boarded three people (and yes I know it could have happened on more occasions, but tons of things could have happened, perhaps someone was broken on the rack or subject to hot pokers..., we have to consider what we actually know happened, making up could have's is pointless in a debate over what actually was done) Most of the torture debate isn't about waterboarding but things like sleep deprivation or "stress positions". Also your definition is so broad that it would include a lot of things almost no one would consider torture (at least not the type banned by any law or international agreement). If someone breaks up with you or fires you from a job that might cause anguish. I'm not going to debate the meaning of definitions. That cuts out an essential part of the debate, since the exact limits as to what would legally be considered torture are not defined.