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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (475420)	4/27/2009 4:16:05 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1574097

"Why can't we call a spade a spade? Waterboarding is indeed torture." But, TEN! That means that when Bush told us repeatedly that "We don't torture", he was LYING. Just like Bill Clinton was LYING when he wagged his finger at us and told us "I did not have sex with that woman!" Only, Clinton was lying about a consensual private sexual affair between two adults, and W was lying about torturing people in our name.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (475420)	4/27/2009 4:41:49 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574097

>> Waterboarding is indeed torture. When conducted the way CIA did it it is nothing more than a harmless trick.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (475420)	4/27/2009 4:57:50 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574097

"I don't get the whole controversy over torture. Why can't we call a spade a spade? Waterboarding is indeed torture." The controversy isn't over torture. People either condone it under extenuating circumstances or they don't. That isn't controversial. The controversy is whether or not Bush authorized the use of torture and then lied about it. I doubt the issue would get any traction at all if it weren't an avenue to go after Bush. Extraordinary Rendition was approved under Clinton, the same people did not care about that at the time...hypocrites. It ought to be meaningful that the sources of this complaint (on this thread) are also the most immoral, lying, hypocrits on SI. Consider the sources. Torture has a context both legally and subjectively. At the time waterboarding was being considered for use by interrogators it was not considered torture. It was considered under several jurisdictions and approved for use, while torture was and still is against the law. The DOJ, the military commanders, the Administration, and the Congressional oversight committee did not consider waterboarding to be a violation of the law which forbids torture. Being dunked underwater until you feel enough discomfort to cooperate isn't by itself torture. If it were, most of the big brothers and summer camp counselors would belong in prison. We can go back and reconsider, after the fact, whether or not waterboarding seems to walk like a duck and recategorize it as torture. That is fine with me but Bush's conduct is based on the law underwhich he served at the time. He was entitled to authorize waterboarding as an enhanced interrogation technique and he was not lying by doing that and stating at the same time 'We don't torture'. Apparently the current DOJ feels strongly enough about it to reclassify it as illegal. We live in a constitutional nation of laws where an action is lawful or unlawful if the entity with jurisdiction over the action judges it that way. The definition of torture came under that guideline during the Bush administration. If the Administration, or someone in the Administration breaks the laws of the land they should be held accountable for it. If they do something unconscionable, they suffer accordingly. I've never endorsed any thing less. There are lots of things I wont do, which are lawful but I've no basis to bring legal claims against others who would merely because I personally think it is wrong, including the Bush administration for using waterboarding. Neither does bentway, you, or anyone else.