Republicans

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Everyone has a pain/discomfort threshold. Most people's definition of "torture" would be anything that hurts their feelings or causes them any kind of discomfort.

Do you honestly think that all those Gitmo detainees that complain of "torture" are somehow champions of humanity and liberty? No. They are just trying to abuse the system so that they can get back to their job of blowing up people or gunning them down.

A "mental breakdown"? Haha! More like "low discomfort threshold". Was there any lasting damage resulting from that?

TREAD:

FACT 1: Waterboarding is not torture.

PROOF 1: Poking your eye out with a knife is torture, and since waterboarding isn't that extreme that proves it is not torture.

ANGRY:

A Conse 'Pub--like YOU--talker wanted to prove that waterboarding is not torture, but after doing it on film and on air he said it was torture.

He said that despite his conversation with Hannity, and despite his Conse 'Pub audience he said it was TORTURE!!

He also said regarding his fellow Conse 'Pubs: What about the truth no longer meaning anything?

Why don't you slime him??? Call him what he is!!!


TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

TREAD:

FACT 1: Waterboarding is not torture.

PROOF 1: Poking your eye out with a knife is torture, and since waterboarding isn't that extreme that proves it is not torture.

ANGRY:

A Conse 'Pub--like YOU--talker wanted to prove that waterboarding is not torture, but after doing it on film and on air he said it was torture.

He said that despite his conversation with Hannity, and despite his Conse 'Pub audience he said it was TORTURE!!

He also said regarding his fellow Conse 'Pubs: What about the truth no longer meaning anything?

Why don't you slime him??? Call him what he is!!!


TAL

I'm a libertarian TAL. Don't call me a "Conse 'Pub".

Christopher Hitchens is just another talking head like Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow and saying that he speaks on my behalf is just absurd.

Your arguements as to what defines "torture" and what falls into that category has not risen above "It's torture because it makes the person uncomfortable". There are thousands of things that make someone uncomfortable and yet they aren't defined as torture. Why not?

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I'm a libertarian TAL. Don't call me a "Conse 'Pub".

Christopher Hitchens is just another talking head like Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow and saying that he speaks on my behalf is just absurd.

Your arguements as to what defines "torture" and what falls into that category has not risen above "It's torture because it makes the person uncomfortable". There are thousands of things that make someone uncomfortable and yet they aren't defined as torture. Why not?

ANGRY:

So, you're a Lib. LOL and then some.

Mancow Muller on WLS in Chicago and a friend of Sean Hannity, felt it would be like splashing water on his face, and 60 seconds would be easy.

The water goes down your nose and throat, causes a near blackout condition, and begins a mental breakdown. That's after SEVEN SECONDS.

So, your opinion is that he is a wussy, and the above description is only him and only a little uncomfortable?



TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

So, you're a Lib. LOL and then some.

Mancow Muller on WLS in Chicago and a friend of Sean Hannity, felt it would be like splashing water on his face, and 60 seconds would be easy.

The water goes down your nose and throat, causes a near blackout condition, and begins a mental breakdown. That's after SEVEN SECONDS.

So, your opinion is that he is a wussy, and the above description is only him and only a little uncomfortable?



TAL

I identify as a conservative Libertarian because their views are closest to what I believe. Why is that so funny?

The one I remember was with Christopher Hitchens getting waterboarded. I never said he was a wuss. I just said he had a low tolerance towards discomfort. I don't think "mental breakdown" is the same as personal disposition.

People's opinion as to what constitutes torture greatly varies and is subjective. The actual definition of torture (as I previously posted) clearly defines torture. Interrogation techniques are not the same as "cruel and unusual punishment" or "excessive use of force", however "harsh" they may seem to be to some people.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I identify as a conservative Libertarian because their views are closest to what I believe. Why is that so funny?

The one I remember was with Christopher Hitchens getting waterboarded. I never said he was a wuss. I just said he had a low tolerance towards discomfort. I don't think "mental breakdown" is the same as personal disposition.

People's opinion as to what constitutes torture greatly varies and is subjective. The actual definition of torture (as I previously posted) clearly defines torture. Interrogation techniques are not the same as "cruel and unusual punishment" or "excessive use of force", however "harsh" they may seem to be to some people.

ANGRY:

Lib is short for liberal, and not libertarian. You highlight Conse 'Pub, but you're not a Conse 'Pub. You are more right of them: the extreme right.



If YOUR definition of torture is correct, why does international law & The Geneva Convention outlaw waterboarding? Why has America prosecuted people over this?


In other words, waterboarding violates The Geneva Convention, but--in your opinion--is not torture when applied to enemy combatants.

TAL

[Tread]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

There is now way to simulate death; you either are or you aren't. Simulating drowning is not the same as dying.

I said dieing not death, the last feeling before death.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Reread the definition of torture again; specifically the second line in the definition.

Reread the definitions of torture again; specifically the first line of the definitions. It is not a figurative meaning.
If there is more than 1 definition they are all valid.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

The US doesn't allow torture. But there is nothing about uncomfortable interrogation techniques. Waterboarding does not leave any lasting physical or mental damage to a subject like Chinese Water Torture or beatings do.

This you call uncomfortable interrogation without leaving any lasting physical or mental damage?:

Originally Posted by Allen S. Keller, M.D. Associate Professor of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine

Water-boarding

Water-boarding or mock drowning, where a prisoner is bound to an inclined board and water is poured over their face, inducing a terrifying fear of drowning clearly can result in immediate and long-term health consequences. As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia, rapid heart beat and gasping for breath. There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water. Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD. I remind you of the patient I described earlier who would panic and gasp for breath whenever it rained even years after his abuse.

Full Link: http://intelligence.senate.gov/07092...ler.pdf#page=6

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

The people who work alongside known terrorist organizations are guilty by association. The people who are waterboarded are usually found planting IED's and EFP's along a roadside and will most likely have had interaction with a high value target.

What is if they work for unknown terrorist organizations?
And who makes the conviction and decides who is in witch degree guilty?
Punishment without proper conviction is highly susceptible for abusiveness.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

Lib is short for liberal, and not libertarian. You highlight Conse 'Pub, but you're not a Conse 'Pub. You are more right of them: the extreme right.



If YOUR definition of torture is correct, why does international law & The Geneva Convention outlaw waterboarding? Why has America prosecuted people over this?


In other words, waterboarding violates The Geneva Convention, but--in your opinion--is not torture when applied to enemy combatants.

TAL

You said I was one of these "Conse 'Pubs. Then I said I was a Libertarian. Then you said that I was a "Lib" and implied that there was something humurous about my party affiliation and just now implied that I am a radical of sorts by saying that I am to "the extreme right".

Quit twisting my words around.

And Tal, The Geneva Conventions specifically states what the defining marks of an enemy combatant are and who may be covered by the Geneva Convention.

As I stated in my earlier post, that as terrorists and not soldiers, they are not afforded Geneva Convention Rights. No uniforms, no insignia, no overt state endorsement, and no differentiation between civilian & military targets.

If they were identified as soldiers with the Iraqi Republican Guard or something, it would be entirely different.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

You said I was one of these "Conse 'Pubs. Then I said I was a Libertarian. Then you said that I was a "Lib" and implied that there was something humurous about my party affiliation and just now implied that I am a radical of sorts by saying that I am to "the extreme right".

Quit twisting my words around.

And Tal, The Geneva Conventions specifically states what the defining marks of an enemy combatant are and who may be covered by the Geneva Convention.

As I stated in my earlier post, that as terrorists and not soldiers, they are not afforded Geneva Convention Rights. No uniforms, no insignia, no overt state endorsement, and no differentiation between civilian & military targets.

If they were identified as soldiers with the Iraqi Republican Guard or something, it would be entirely different.

ANGRY:

Nice evasiveness!! You did everything except demand a public apology.

Firstly, calling you a Lib wasn't an insult or making fun of your party affiliation, as there are Lib 'Pubs too--albeit only a few are left. I was making a light-hearted comment with the LOL to indicate that, and not the way it was taken. Sorry, I gave you something to savage.

Conse 'Pub is my abbreviation for conservative republican, and I worked hard on that abbreviation to NOT be insultive. I couldn't use Con and Repub due to insultiveness, and Rep due to other meanings for that shorthand. I use Dem, Lib, Mod, Indy, etc.

Libertarian is the most far right of center you can be, or at least that's what I take it to mean. So, that means extreme right as far as I can tell.

What words did I twist?

How about an answer to these 2 questions which you glossed over with an I-covered-this-with-you smack-down.

If YOUR definition of torture is correct, why does international law & The Geneva Convention outlaw waterboarding?

Why has America prosecuted people over this?


TAL

[Tread]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

And Tal, The Geneva Conventions specifically states what the defining marks of an enemy combatant are and who may be covered by the Geneva Convention.

As I stated in my earlier post, that as terrorists and not soldiers, they are not afforded Geneva Convention Rights. No uniforms, no insignia, no overt state endorsement, and no differentiation between civilian & military targets.

If they were identified as soldiers with the Iraqi Republican Guard or something, it would be entirely different.

The Geneva Convention

The US is involved in a conflict that they call War on Terrorism. Prisoners of that war are prisoners of war.

One party of the conflict are the imprisoned Terrorists (if someone confirms the element of terrorism on them). The Terrorists are armed.

Originally Posted by The Geneva Convention Article 4 regarding status of who may be protected under The Geneva Convention as a POW(prisoner of war)

Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

Point (1) to become POW under the Geneva Convention is achieved. No need to have uniforms, insignia, or overt state endorsement. There are no conditions to lose this status by violate law and making no differentiation between civilian & military targets.

The legal position is not difficult. No matter what we personal might think what should happen to them.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

Lib is short for liberal, and not libertarian.

Actually traditional liberals were basically libertarians. The liberals of today were hijacked by the progressives. The traditional liberal is somebody who believes in personal responsibility and 'natural rights'. And they believe in small government and conservative economics. They differ from republicans in that they are socially liberal.

Hillary Clinton openly calls herself a Progressive. Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR and LBJ were all progressives. Many, if not all of the people on this forum who support Obama are progressives.