Torture: Still doesn't work

[ChumpDumper]

Explain how you were waterboarded, yoni.

[Yonivore]

You never explained what those differences were. You only posted a memo.

Well, I did, in fact draw a distinction between the Japanese practice that often resulted in death and the practice, defined by the CIA, both called waterboarding.

I also said the Japanese practice would cons ute torture. That doesn't mean everything called waterboarding cons utes torture. I then asserted the Bush administration did due diligence in supporting their case it did not.

All their detractors have done is 1) lump the enhanced interrogation technique in with all same-named practices and declared it torture, and 2) vilified anyone who made a reasonable case that it wasn't.

None of the detractors have challenged it in court and actually had the judiciary apply the law to the practice to determine if Yoo was wrong or not.

[Blake]

Explain how you were waterboarded, yoni.

[ElNono]

Well, I did, in fact draw a distinction between the Japanese practice that often resulted in death and the practice, defined by the CIA, both called waterboarding.

Are you saying that what the japanese did was not torture, death or not?

Oh, wait, you said you thought it was torture.

Maybe if we get your definition of torture then we'll understand why you don't think waterboarding is torture. What's your definition, yoni? Does it at least meet the Geneva convention standards on torture?

[ChumpDumper]

Yoni still doesn't know that the military deems the fun waterboarding illegal.

[ElNono]

Yoni still doesn't know that the military deems the fun waterboarding illegal.

[Yonivore]

Are you saying that what the japanese did was not torture, death or not?

Oh, wait, you said you thought it was torture.

Maybe if we get your definition of torture then we'll understand why you don't think waterboarding is torture. What's your definition, yoni? Does it at least meet the Geneva convention standards on torture?

Well, once again, I'm not a lawyer so, I've relied on the only legal products of this question. The 2002 memorandum that studied the issue and determined it would not be torture as defined in any body of law having jurisdiction over the application of this technique by the U.S. against detainees. And, the 2004 revision of that conclusion that said the same thing.

I would also point to the fact there is no subsequent court ruling on the specific question of whether or not the technique, as applied by the Bush administration, violated any laws.

A reasonable people could conclude that, although there are a bunch of pissed off people that didn't like the fact we were waterboarding terrorists and tried their best to have it prosecuted as a crime, no one was confident enough in that proposition to actually try the case in a court.

[Blake]

Describe your waterboarding experience, yoni.

[ElNono]

Well, once again, I'm not a lawyer so, I've relied on the only legal products of this question. The 2002 memorandum that studied the issue and determined it would not be torture as defined in any body of law having jurisdiction over the application of this technique by the U.S. against detainees. And, the 2004 revision of that conclusion that said the same thing.

I would also point to the fact there is no subsequent court ruling on the specific question of whether or not the technique, as applied by the Bush administration, violated any laws.

A reasonable people could conclude that, although there are a bunch of pissed off people that didn't like the fact we were waterboarding terrorists and tried their best to have it prosecuted as a crime, no one was confident enough in that proposition to actually try the case in a court.

That is your definition of torture?

Reasonable people know that Bybee, Yoo and the Alberto Gonzalez's DOJ did a disservice to the US's credibility and moral standing in the world. And what they did is illegal under a number of laws, both military and civil.

I would find it reasonable that you supported it back then because you didn't know better. But at this point, it's simply unreasonable to keep on that position.

[Yonivore]

That is your definition of torture?

Reasonable people know that Bybee, Yoo and the Alberto Gonzalez's DOJ did a disservice to the US's credibility and moral standing in the world. And what they did is illegal under a number of laws, both military and civil.

And reasonable people disagree with that characterization.

I would find it reasonable that you supported it back then because you didn't know better. But at this point, it's simply unreasonable to keep on that position.

Why? The Duelfer report stated there were precursors and the ability to ramp up production very quickly.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. The quan ies of WMD's we are talking about would have been as easy to hide in Iraq as it was for whoever killed Jimmy Hoffa to dispose of his body.

I think it's reasonable to still believe Iraq had WMD's back in 2003. I don't think it's reasonable to assert they still exist there. Big difference.

[ElNono]

And reasonable people disagree with that characterization.

Not that I know of. People like who?

Certainly not you.

Why? The Duelfer report stated there were precursors and the ability to ramp up production very quickly.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. The quan ies of WMD's we are talking about would have been as easy to hide in Iraq as it was for whoever killed Jimmy Hoffa to dispose of his body.

I think it's reasonable to still believe Iraq had WMD's back in 2003. I don't think it's reasonable to assert they still exist there. Big difference.

Wrong thread.

Where's your definition of torture?

[LnGrrrR]

I don't see the difference for the afflicted.

Obviously, there's a difference. Do we have the same punishment for those who commit murder and those who commit manslaughter, even if the result is the same?

Let's stop with the stupidity.

Obviously, there's disagreement with your position.

Noted.

Again, you're lumping the enhanced interrogation technique, called waterboarding, with other practices -- some of which, I agree, were torture -- also called waterboarding, throughout history.

Feel free to describe the great difference between the two then.

[LnGrrrR]

If your point is that the Japanese happened to kill a few people when they waterboarded, that's a pretty poor argument. The US happened to kill a few detainees during interrogations too, ya know. Does that mean we tortured those people?

[ChumpDumper]

The only one lumping here is yoni in a lame attempt to dodge describing his own waterboarding experience.

Everyone knows which waterboarding we are talking about so he needs to shut the up about the remix versions and talk about the time he got waterboarded.

[Yonivore]

If your point is that the Japanese happened to kill a few people when they waterboarded, that's a pretty poor argument.

No, my point is the Japanese technique was indifferent to the effect it had on the interrogated's health.

The U.S. version was designed to not inflict any injury. It was so safe, the exact same technique was used on soldiers and intelligence officers as training.

The US happened to kill a few detainees during interrogations too, ya know. Does that mean we tortured those people?

I'm not sure I know which cases you're talking about. I do know there were detainees, already injured during combat, that were being treated while detained (I don't know if they were interrogated) and died of their combat injuries.

If a detainee died as a result of injuries inflicted during interrogation, that's not necessarily torture but, I would argue it is murder.

But, no one has claimed a detainee died while being waterboarded.

[ChumpDumper]

"It's not torture if you don't kill him!"

[ChumpDumper]

"Holding a gun to a person's head isn't torture because it doesn't inflict any injury!

I do it to my kids all the time!"

[LnGrrrR]

No, my point is the Japanese technique was indifferent to the effect it had on the interrogated's health.

The U.S. version was designed to not inflict any PHYSICAL injury. It was so safe, the exact same technique was used on soldiers and intelligence officers as training.

So it's not torture as long as the possibility of death is minimal. Is that your contention?

Edit: Does this mean that other means of getting information, such as extreme isolation, disorientation through heat/cold/sleeplessness, etc etc aren't torture either?

[ChumpDumper]

You can anally rape a detainee if you use a lot of lube!

Not torture!

[Yonivore]

So it's not torture as long as the possibility of death is minimal. Is that your contention?

Nope. We were differentiating between the Japanese version and the U.S. Version.

Edit: Does this mean that other means of getting information, such as extreme isolation, disorientation through heat/cold/sleeplessness, etc etc aren't torture either?

I don't know if they are or not; I've never looked at the issue.

[ChumpDumper]

nope. We were differentiating between the japanese version and the u.s. Version.

No one cares about this.

You are the only one talking about it.

We have always been talking about the waterboarding the US did.

Nothing else.

Quit stalling.

[LnGrrrR]

Nope. We were differentiating between the Japanese version and the U.S. Version.

So what is the dividing line between "torture" and "not torture"? Is it a clear thing for you, or do you have to go by feel?

[Yonivore]

So what is the dividing line between "torture" and "not torture"? Is it a clear thing for you, or do you have to go by feel?

That's not my measure.

I've already stated, I believe the enhanced interrogation technique -- known as waterboarding -- did not cons ute torture because the administration made a case that it didn't and, other than a bunch of caterwauling by Bush haters, that opinion has not been adjudicated in any court to be wrong.

All you have is a bunch of people saying it's torture because they don't like President Bush.

[LnGrrrR]

That's not my measure.

I've already stated, I believe the enhanced interrogation technique -- known as waterboarding -- did not cons ute torture because the administration made a case that it didn't and, other than a bunch of caterwauling by Bush haters, that opinion has not been adjudicated in any court to be wrong.

So you don't have any opinion on torture yourself? You just think it's not torture because the Bush administration said it wasn't?

[Yonivore]

So you don't have any opinion on torture yourself? You just think it's not torture because the Bush administration said it wasn't?

Oh, I have an opinion but, my position here is based on whether or not the Bush administration successfully determined waterboarding wasn't and used the technique with successful results. They did.

No court has found otherwise.

Whether or not I believe the technique cons uted torture (which I don't believe it did -- but, based less on my personal knowledge than the legal record and the assertions of those who I believe are more intelligent than any of us, in here, on the matter) is irrelevant.

I believe the administration did due diligence to satisfy themselves the technique did not violate any laws.

I believe in directing the Justice Department to undertake a painstaking review of the technique to determine if it violated any laws was more than any other administration had done, to that point, in trying to make sure they were acting within the law.

I believe the 2004 revision of Yoo's memorandum was an effort to clear the record on the matter and, in finding Yoo's conclusions would not have been affected by the current information, it did so.

I believe the use off the enhanced interrogation technique, described as waterboarding, was justified in the cir stances in which it was used.

I believe the practice produced actionable intelligence that prevented the loss of American lives.

I believe the administrations actions are vindicated by both the absence of actual court challenges to the practice and the fact the current administration's CIA director asserted the practice produced results.

That's what I believe and I don't think any of that is unreasonable.