Torture

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1497716' date='Apr 12 2008, 01:59 AM']Yes the CCC definition was given but it is obscure I want something more exact, but it also needs to be broad. for example a definition that would include spanking children as torture is to narrow yet a definition which permitted cutting someones hand off is too broad.

And i want to know what enhanced interrogation techniques you are talking about. we dont want to be protestant about defining this term. another words we need to create the definition objectively and not say "well i want this to be included as torture so i am going to define torture this way" or the opposite "I don't want this to be included so we will define it this way". its loading the question[/quote]

If there's any doubt whatsoever that a specific action could be considered torturous, the action shouldn't be done. When in doubt, don't do it. The Golden Rule is a good rule of thumb as well. How would you feel if you were arrested, and police officers, believing you to be guilty of a crime you hadn't been convicted of, decided to waterboard you to find out more about your alleged crime? How would you feel to have water poured down your throat by people you clearly didn't trust? Would you feel safe, or would you panic? Chances are, you wouldn't want this done to you. If you wouldn't want this done to you, you shouldn't support it being done to other people.

Also, if you insist that it's not torture, would you do it to your child as a form of punishment?

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' post='1498263' date='Apr 12 2008, 06:50 PM']If there's any doubt whatsoever that a specific action could be considered torturous, the action shouldn't be done. When in doubt, don't do it. The Golden Rule is a good rule of thumb as well. How would you feel if you were arrested, and police officers, believing you to be guilty of a crime you hadn't been convicted of, decided to waterboard you to find out more about your alleged crime? How would you feel to have water poured down your throat by people you clearly didn't trust? Would you feel safe, or would you panic? Chances are, you wouldn't want this done to you. If you wouldn't want this done to you, you shouldn't support it being done to other people.

Also, if you insist that it's not torture, would you do it to your child as a form of punishment?[/quote]
You obviously dont understand what interrogation is. in fact your idea of interrogation is a joke. and no the golden rule is not a good rule of thumb, the problem you are running into is that you seem to think that the same rules that apply to individuals applies to the state and it doesnt. How i would feel about having that done is not important either. you seem to somehow think that I have not considered the possibility, I have. Would i want it done to me, absolutely not. which is one reason I i think its a good idea. What you think holding their hands and making them feel safe, maybe they will see we arn't really that bad and they will give us the information. Come on wake up and smell the coffee. You make the enemy uncomfortable, you make them as uncomfortable as you can, you break their will to fight you. you crush them mentally until they tell you everything you need. you disrupt their sleeping habits, and distort their reality. If they are muslim you give them only meals that have been cooked with pork, you give them the minimum amount of food but you do it irregularly so as to distort their sense of time. you put them in a windowless room so the sun cant tell them when its day or when its night. and you have white noise playing all the time loudly.

here is an example.
wake them up at 3 AM
feed them breakfast at 4AM
feed them lunch at 6 AM.
feed them dinner at 2 PM turn off the lights.
wake them up at 2 pm
feed them breakfast
turn off the lights
wake them up at 8pm feed them lunch
feed them dinner at 10pm turn out the lights
wake them up at 12 pm feed them breakfast.

put pork in everything in EVERYTHING everything that does not have pork meet comes from pork and you tell them so. you make it look and smell bad. when they begin to give you information you begin to improve the conditions. not right away but gradually creating a system of rewards and punishment. for example the first thing you do is you take the pork out of the food. you improve the quality of the food. then you give them more regularity.


I will post those links later other than that you will have to look them up i just did a quick Google and they are not hard to find but we have not gotten that far. I still want a working definition of what Torture is.

if we work by your premise then spanking a child is torture. i dont want to be spanked but i look back now and I see it was good for me. as a matter of fact if we go by your definition of torture then we cant punish children at all. In fact we cant punish hardly anyone because only the Just want to be punished and so punishing someone becomes torture.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1498281' date='Apr 12 2008, 09:29 PM']You obviously dont understand what interrogation is. in fact your idea of interrogation is a joke. and no the golden rule is not a good rule of thumb, the problem you are running into is that you seem to think that the same rules that apply to individuals applies to the state and it doesnt.[/quote]

In all due respect, I know what interrogation is. Christian teaching is universally applicable, by the way, and the state is not above it. Are you saying that you think it's okay to cause [b]significant[/b] pain/discomfort to someone who (1) is a [b]suspect[/b], and who (2) may or may not actually be guilty? Potentially [b]innocent[/b] people were made to suffer. I just don't see how that's morally justifiable.

[quote]How i would feel about having that done is not important either. you seem to somehow think that I have not considered the possibility, I have. Would i want it done to me, absolutely not. which is one reason I i think its a good idea. What you think holding their hands and making them feel safe, maybe they will see we arn't really that bad and they will give us the information.[/quote]

There is a huge difference between making someone uncomfortable and actually torturing them. Hypothetically speaking, if we assume that your definition of torture is correct, waterboarding is torture because it can cause intense pain/discomfort and lasting damage.

Here's what Allen S. Keller, M.D., director of the Bellevue Hospital Center/New York University Program for Survivors of Torture [url="http://mediamatters.org/items/200711050006"]said[/url] in written testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

[quote]"To think that abusive methods, including the enhanced interrogation techniques [in which Keller included waterboarding], are harmless psychological ploys is contradictory to well established medical knowledge and clinical experience. These methods are intended to break the prisoners down, to terrify them and cause harm to their psyche, and in so doing [b]result in lasting harmful health consequences[/b]." He said of waterboarding specifically, "[b]Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD [post traumatic stress disorder]," and said it poses a "real risk of death." I remind you of the patient I described earlier who would panic and gasp for breath whenever it rained even years after his abuse.[/b][/quote]

Also, Paul Hill, a psychologist, [url="http://www.pww.org/article/articleprint/12154/"]wrote[/url]:

[quote]As a psychologist, I find the quibbling over whether waterboarding produces lasting harm in the recipient to be absurd. The psychological malady called post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is defined by the American Psychiatric Association in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM IV) as “the development of characteristic symptoms following exposure to an extreme traumatic stressor involving direct personal experience of … actual or threatened death or serious injury, or other threat to one’s personal integrity; or witnessing an event that involves death, injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of another person; or learning about unexpected or violent death, serious harm, or threat of death or injury experienced by a family member or other close relative.”

The definition says the characteristic symptoms “include persistent re-experiencing of the traumatic event, persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma and numbing of general responsiveness, and persistent symptoms of increased arousal.” The condition is characterized by “clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.”

[b]Physical attacks, terrorist attacks and torture are some of the traumatic events which can bring on PTSD. Waterboarding would certainly meet the criterion of a violent physical assault with a threat of death to the individual.[/b]

The disorder came to be widely recognized in the experiences of Vietnam veterans, many of whom have been classified by the Department of Veterans Affairs as permanently disabled and unable to work as a result of PTSD. PTSD is generally considered to be a chronic condition and can last to some extent for the rest of a person’s life.

[b]Certainly any reasonable person would consider this to be lasting harm.[/b][/quote]

A former SERE student, who was waterboarded as part of training, a situation slightly different from the added tension of prisoner interrogations, suffered from this "interrogation technique." Take a look at [url="http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2008/01/29/veterans-waterboarding-story-rings-true-says-survivor-school-ex-teacher/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.al.com%2Fnews%2Fmobileregister%2Findex.ssf%3F%2Fbase%2Fnews%2F1201515395268370.xml%26coll%3D3&frame=true"]this[/url]:

[quote]McCants said that he was waterboarded during his SERE training at San Diego in April 1975. He said he has [b]struggled with suicidal thoughts and been haunted by images of drowning[/b]. He said he also has problems with alcohol and drugs.[/quote]

Furthermore, 100 professors [url="http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/06/usdom13130.htm"]wrote[/url] to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, claiming that waterboarding is nothing other than torture. In fact, using [b]your[/b] definition of torture, waterboarding would and should be considered torture. It causes intense discomfort, and it has the potential to cause long-term effects.

My question to you is this: Would you still approve of waterboarding if you believe it's torture? Keep in mind that the Catholic Church is against torture.

[quote]I still want a working definition of what Torture is.[/quote]

I'm willing to use your definition for the time being.

[quote]if we work by your premise then spanking a child is torture. i dont want to be spanked but i look back now and I see it was good for me. as a matter of fact if we go by your definition of torture then we cant punish children at all.[/quote]

Well, that wasn't what I was getting at. I asked you if you would use waterboarding to punish your child. My question still stands.

Edited April 13, 2008 by BeenaBobba

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' post='1498314' date='Apr 12 2008, 08:30 PM']In all due respect, I know what interrogation is. Christian teaching is universally applicable, by the way, and the state is not above it. Are you saying that you think it's okay to cause [b]significant[/b] pain/discomfort to someone who (1) is a [b]suspect[/b], and who (2) may or may not actually be guilty? Potentially [b]innocent[/b] people were made to suffer. I just don't see how that's morally justifiable.
There is a huge difference between making someone uncomfortable and actually torturing them. Hypothetically speaking, if we assume that your definition of torture is correct, waterboarding is torture because it can cause intense pain/discomfort and lasting damage.[/quote]

a few things 1 you are jumping too far ahead
2. The Church holds and teaches that Legitimate states Share in the authority of God (City of God St. Augustine), its for this reason that the state also has the authority to sentence people to death, while individuals cannot. The Legitimate state does not get its authority from the People but from God.
3. Define significant i dont know what that means.
4. We are not talking about American Citizens, nor are we even talking about a standing regulated Army(though i support interrogation here too but you would at least have a foot hold here). What you are talking about is people who fight in no uniform and under no flag. This changes the rules rather drastically.
5. Yes the person may be potentially innocent(in other cases but) but it should be recognized that these are people who have been seized during combat. or who have [b]strong[/b] known terrorist connections. (again this changes the rules as well). lets use the Death penalty as a point of reference. Potentially someone who is innocent may be sentenced to death does that invalidate the death penalty? no. or lets use something less drastic potentially innocent people may be sentenced to jail does this mean we should not use jails?
5b. Also consider that the US has only water boarded 3 terrorist one of which was the mastermind of 9/11 and the other two were known terrorist. In the cases where the US has used water boarding these are not people who Might be innocent these are people we KNOW are terrorist which (yet again) changes the rules. so dont try to use the "we might do it to innocents...
6. you have only tried to use it as a quick dagger against me which you are failing to succeed at.
7. The burden of proof does not actually lay on me, you are the one who is asserting and asserted first that it does cause.
8. Define intense

[quote]Here's what Allen S. Keller, M.D., director of the Bellevue Hospital Center/New York University Program for Survivors of Torture [url="http://mediamatters.org/items/200711050006"]said[/url] in written testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:
Also, Paul Hill, a psychologist, [url="http://www.pww.org/article/articleprint/12154/"]wrote[/url]:
A former SERE student, who was waterboarded as part of training, a situation slightly different from the added tension of prisoner interrogations, suffered from this "interrogation technique." Take a look at [url="http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2008/01/29/veterans-waterboarding-story-rings-true-says-survivor-school-ex-teacher/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.al.com%2Fnews%2Fmobileregister%2Findex.ssf%3F%2Fbase%2Fnews%2F1201515395268370.xml%26coll%3D3&frame=true"]this[/url]:
Furthermore, 100 professors [url="http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/06/usdom13130.htm"]wrote[/url] to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, claiming that waterboarding is nothing other than torture. In fact, using [b]your[/b] definition of torture, waterboarding would and should be considered torture. It causes intense discomfort, and it has the potential to cause long-term effects.[/quote]

Forgive me for my skepticism of these individuals however the professions you mentioned (especially professors) ttend to be leftists who would do anything to undermine the president. remember these people want to bring the terrorists here so that they have the same constitutional rights as us (which is absurd). and they also argue that the Geneva Convention applies to these people (which it does not). I do not believe that water boarding is torture. I am currently looking for a rather in depth study i found a few months ago on the subject. If done with medical supervision there are no long term health affects.

Also as a side note i know a few Namn vets who say they got water boarded and while it was extremely terrifying and could cause sever physical discomfort for a short period of time(shortness of breath difficulty breathing) they are not opposed to water boarding and do not consider it torture as i have defined it above.


[quote]My question to you is this: Would you still approve of waterboarding if you believe it's torture? Keep in mind that the Catholic Church is against torture.
I'm willing to use your definition for the time being.
Well, that wasn't what I was getting at. I asked you if you would use waterboarding to punish your child. My question still stands.[/quote]

no i would not approve of it if i thought it were torture, and to be honest it wouldn't matter to me if the Church were against torture or not (though by her nature she must be) I would still think torture is wrong. If my child was a known terrorist yes i would. I would be EXTREMELY saddened and i would not want it done, however that does not mean that i do not understand it is needed for the protection of the community of individuals.

And i know that is not what you were getting at, however that is exactly what your line of definition leads too. I will Narrow my previous definition even further to include the following.

Torture: inflicting intense physical or psychological pain which has long term negative effects on an individual. This however only applies as a rule, this is to say if the action does not as a rule cause sever psychological or physical pain but it is experienced by a low number of individuals whos constitutions are below average.

Intense:existing in an extreme degree

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm not sure of the detials of the specific situation taht saved lives.
i'd bet it's classified.
but with that said, why does it matter if i know the details?
the point is that he said waterboarding has saved lives, as i said. i concede that the man who said it is against it now, and that doesn't help my cause, but if the man who is against it has conceded that it saves lives.... what more do you want? at least as far as the point being that it saves lives, that shouldn't be a question anymore.

how much it saves lives is a decent question.
when to do it, is an even better question. (there are time when they admit they have the info, and an attack is imminent etc, and the president could be the arbiter of when it's done etc etc)

[BeenaBobba]

[quote]a few things 1 you are jumping too far ahead[/quote]

How so?

[quote]2. The Church holds and teaches that Legitimate states Share in the authority of God (City of God St. Augustine), its for this reason that the state also has the authority to sentence people to death, while individuals cannot. The Legitimate state does not get its authority from the People but from God.[/quote]

I agree with that, but that's not what I was arguing against. If a certain action is inherently wrong, then the state does not have the authority to commit it. As you know, I believe that waterboarding is torture; therefore, I believe that the state does not have the legitimate authority to use it as an interrogation technique.

[quote]3. Define significant i dont know what that means.[/quote]

Here is how Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines significant:

[quote]1: having meaning; especially : suggestive <a significant glance>2 a: having or likely to have influence or effect : important <a significant piece of legislation>; also : of a noticeably or measurably large amount <a significant number of layoffs> <producing significant profits> b: probably caused by something other than mere chance <statistically significant correlation between vitamin deficiency and disease>[/quote]

When I used it, I meant that waterboarding can cause "a noticeably or measurably large amount" of pain/discomfort and terror (e.g., enough to cause PTSD).

[quote]4. We are not talking about American Citizens, nor are we even talking about a standing regulated Army(though i support interrogation here too but you would at least have a foot hold here). What you are talking about is people who fight in no uniform and under no flag. This changes the rules rather drastically.[/quote]

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I'm sure you know that if an action is inherently wrong, it's wrong under all circumstances.

[quote]5. Yes the person may be potentially innocent(in other cases but) but it should be recognized that these are people who have been seized during combat. or who have strong known terrorist connections. (again this changes the rules as well).[/quote]

If waterboarding isn't inherently wrong, as you argue, then why not use it against suspects here in the United States? Let's say you were pulled over because you were [b]suspected[/b] of being a drug dealer. The police officer took you to the station, where he proceeded to pour water down your throat until you gave him some answers. Does this sound like something that's morally legitimate to you? Since you argue that waterboarding is (1) safe, (2) not incredibly painful or damaging, (3) unlikely to cause long-term effects, and (4) not torture, would you oppose waterboarding becoming a regular suspect or witness interrogation technique here in the United States? If not, please explain your reasoning. You may want to keep in mind that the Church [url="http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/criminal.shtml#introduction"]teaches[/url] that [b]all[/b] prisoners deserve to be treated humanely, regardless of whether they're American citizens, prisoners of war, or suspected terrorists.

[quote]lets use the Death penalty as a point of reference. Potentially someone who is innocent may be sentenced to death does that invalidate the death penalty? no. or lets use something less drastic potentially innocent people may be sentenced to jail does this mean we should not use jails?[/quote]

Unlike torture, neither penitentiaries nor the death penalty are inherently wrong, so your examples aren't completely comparable. Regarding the death penalty, however, the very real possibility that innocent people may be put to death is one of the reasons I don't support it here in the United States. Besides, the CCC [url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm"]states[/url] that the death penalty simply isn't necessary if there are other means of protecting society from violent criminals.

[quote]5b. Also consider that the US has only water boarded 3 terrorist one of which was the mastermind of 9/11 and the other two were known terrorist. In the cases where the US has used water boarding these are not people who Might be innocent these are people we KNOW are terrorist which (yet again) changes the rules. so dont try to use the "we might do it to innocents..[/quote]

The use of waterboarding as an interrogation technique has not been confined to the War on Terror, and in all the instances it's been used throughout history, it is quite possible that innocent people were made to suffer (which makes it all the more horrible). All the same, that's besides the point. Like I pointed out in a previous post, if waterboarding is torture, then it's wrong to do to the guilty as well.

As a side note, [url="http://waterboarding.org/success_story"]this website[/url] claims that Khalid Shaikh Mohammad was captured "after the plot was discovered, after the plot was 'derailed,' after the pilot of the plane was captured. Khaled Sheikh Mohammed could not have 'provided valuable information and saved lives' when all aspects of the plot were well-known and the attack had been foiled prior to his capture."

Edited April 14, 2008 by BeenaBobba

[BeenaBobba]

[quote]6. you have only tried to use it as a quick dagger against me which you are failing to succeed at.[/quote]

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

[quote]7. The burden of proof does not actually lay on me, you are the one who is asserting and asserted first that it does cause.[/quote]

No, the burden of proof is on the both of us. I've provided sources. I've yet to see any sources from you, but I'm eagerly awaiting them.

[quote]8. Define intense[/quote]

Merriam-Webster [url="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intense"]defines intense[/url] as "existing in an extreme degree." Of course, people who were waterboarded have described the intense panic, terror, and discomfort they experienced.

[quote]Forgive me for my skepticism of these individuals however the professions you mentioned (especially professors) ttend to be leftists who would do anything to undermine the president. remember these people want to bring the terrorists here so that they have the same constitutional rights as us (which is absurd). and they also argue that the Geneva Convention applies to these people (which it does not).[/quote]

Whether the Geneva Convention applies to "these people" is irrelevant. If waterboarding is torture, it shouldn't be done on anyone.

The 100 professors who signed that petition may or may not be liberal, but that should hardly matter. In my opinion, liberals are wrong on many things, but that doesn't mean they're wrong on [b]everything[/b].

[quote]I do not believe that water boarding is torture. I am currently looking for a rather in depth study i found a few months ago on the subject. If done with medical supervision there are no long term health affects.[/quote]

Well, I'm sure you'll post it when you find it. I'm quite curious to read it.

[quote]Also as a side note i know a few Namn vets who say they got water boarded and while it was extremely terrifying and could cause sever physical discomfort for a short period of time(shortness of breath difficulty breathing) they are not opposed to water boarding and do not consider it torture as i have defined it above.[/quote]

There were also many people who experienced it and did claim it was torture. Here are more [url="http://waterboarding.org/firsthand"]quotes[/url] for you to mull over:

[quote]"It sounded like when we are really in pain, choking in water. The sound was screaming, from the throat. I suppose they could not bear the torture. Whenever we heard the noises we were really shocked and scared. We thought one day they will do the same thing to us."

Is it torture?

[b]"Yes, it is severe torture. We could try it and see how we would react if we are choking under water for just two minutes. It is very serious."[/b]

— Van Nath, Survivor recalls horrors of Cambodia genocide, CNN April 7, 2008

"The rag was soaked rapidly. Water flowed everywhere: in my mouth, in my nose, all over my face. But for a while I could still breathe in some small gulps of air. I tried, by contracting my throat, to take in as little water as possible and to resist suffocation by keeping air in my lungs for as long as I could. But I couldn't hold on for more than a few moments. [b]I had the impression of drowning, and a terrible agony[/b], that of death itself, took possession of me. In spite of myself, all the muscles of my body struggled uselessly to save me from suffocation."

— Henri Alleg, quoted in Waterboarding is torture - I did it myself, says US advisor, by Leonard Doyle in The Independent, November 1, 2007.

"Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."

— Attorney General Ashcroft, Top Bush Advisors Approved 'Enhanced Interrogation', ABC News April 9, 2008[/quote]

Malcolm Nance, a counter-terrorism and intelligence consultant for the special operations, homeland security and intelligence agencies, [url="http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,155470,00.html"]wrote[/url] that [b]"waterboarding is unquestionably being used as torture technique."[/b]

A man on The Straight Dope's forum decided to try waterboarding himself (you can read his entire account [url="http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448717"]here[/url]). His conclusion?

[quote]I'll put it this way. [b]If I had the choice of being waterboarded by a third party or having my fingers smashed one at a time by a sledgehammer, I'd take the fingers, no question. It's horrible, terrible, inhuman torture. I can hardly imagine worse.[/b] I'd prefer permanent damage and disability to experiencing it again. I'd give up anything, say anything, do anything. The Spanish Inquisition knew this. It was one of their favorite methods. [b]It's torture. No question. Terrible terrible torture.[/b] To experience it and understand it and then do it to another human being is to leave the realm of sanity and humanity forever. No question in my mind.[/quote]

[BeenaBobba]

You may argue that some people who've been waterboarded deny that it's torture, but that doesn't matter. You see, the fact that it [b]can[/b] and [b]does[/b] constitute torture for many, many people is enough to prove that it shouldn't be done. Why? Well, Mark Shea, a Catholic apologist, [url="http://markshea.blogspot.com/2007_12_01_archive.html"]wrote[/url] the following explanation on 14 December 2007:

[quote]A reader (and Thomist Philosopher) asks a pertinent question:

Since when did "moral ambiguity" become a synonym for "let's proceed"?

Just so. [b]Morally dubious acts like waterboarding are, like abortion, matters where, if you don't know if it's evil or not, you shouldn't do it. In the same way, you don't shoot the bush if you are not sure there isn't a hunter behind it.[/b]

The reality is this: to boast of a willingness to be waterboarded is to say "I am absolutely sure that waterboarding is not torture." It is not the boast of a thoughtful, nuanced person who can see all aides of the issue. It is the boast of somebody who Who Sees No Moral Ambiguities At All.

Me: I'm willing to grant that a SEAL trainer who waterboards troops to prepare them for the real thing is not a torturer, but a good and responsible trainer. Of course, I also think that it is precisely *because* waterboarding is torture that we train our troops to prepare for it. In short, I get that there is "moral ambiguity" to the physical actions behind the technique. That's why we shouldn't do it. But the reader who speaks of "moral ambiguity" out of one side of his mouth and then urge us to *do* these morally shady things with the absolute assurance that they are not shady at all is not really looking for moral nuance. He is stating his utter certitude and urging us to shoot into the bush.[/quote]

In a 17 December 2007 entry, Mark Shea also [url="http://markshea.blogspot.com/2007_12_01_archive.html"]wrote[/url]:

[quote]However, we are still playing the "What O What *is* torture" game. Because not a few people still have the notion that the Church's teaching here is entirely negative--"Don't torture"--and has no positive component. Also, there is still the delusional notion that the world is chockablock with Ticking Time Bombs, so that we *need* to be able to tiptoe right up to torturing somebody in order to, 'ow you say, "save countless lives". Consequently, we have been treated to the spectacle of various readers trying to parse just exactly where to draw the line between "breaking the will" and torture or puzzling about what possible moral difference there could be between training people to endure waterboarding in a nice safe environment and being subjected to waterboarding at the hands of interrogators who don't much care whether you drown or not.

This embarrassing spectacle of attempting to simultaneously claim that waterboarding is *not* torture but training people is makes me roll my eyes.

Here's the deal: have you ever had an experience of being dunked when you weren't ready for it as a teenager? Ever wrestle as a kid and have somebody cut off your wind for half a second? Remember the panic when you needed to breathe and couldn't?

Now: You are strapped to a board spread-eagle. You already can't breath too deeply in this position. The board is tipped back into a dunk tank and you are head down in the water. The water runs into your sinuses unless you breathe out through your nose. But breathing out means you can't hold your breathe for long. You feel the urge to breathe but you mustn't. Your whole body begins to flex in panic and terror. Your knotted fists bang ineffectually on the board. [b]But the people doing this are not trainers. They are Professionals. They aren't waiting for you to say, "Okay guys, I get the idea of what it's like, You can take me out now!"[/b]

[b]They are waiting for your lungs to feel as though they will burst, for the moment *past* the moment of supreme horror when your autonomic system kicks in and you inhale--and gag on--a lungful of water, when you would scream if there were any air in your lungs, when you start to black out.

Then, they pull you from the water, pound on your chest, and bring you to, coughing and retching and more terrified than you have ever been in your life. You have five seconds to start talking--even if you have nothing to say.[/b]

And then it all starts again.

And people in these comfy comboxes and elsewhere in cyberspace and on the Rubbber Hose Right (not to mention in the office of the Vice President) have the *gall* to say "That does not rise to the level of torture."

[b]A second and a half of not being able to reach the surface of the lake when I was a kid is still the stuff of nightmares decades later.[/b] Those who pretend waterboarding is not torture are either so out of touch with reality that they should not be allowed to operate heavy machinery or they are moral imbeciles.

And still, all this fine parsing about "What O what is torture?" come nowhere near to discussing the real issue of how to deal with the [b]Church's *positive* command to "Treat prisoners humanely".[/b] That command is so far beyond the thinking of most of the discussants because, still, so many people don't really believe the gospel to be a reflection of reality but an unattainable ideal.

I think the gospel is, quite simply, the truth about the human person. Therefore, I believe that if we obey the gospel instead of searching for excuses to disobey it, reality will, in the long run, cooperate and we will be blessed for it. Might be an interesting change of pace to change the conversation from "How close can we tiptoe to war crimes?" to "How do we treat prisoners humanely *and* get the intelligence we need?"[/quote]

I should also note that waterboarding meets the Catholic Church's criteria for torture. As Cathqat posted in a previous comment on this thread, torture is discussed in more than one Church document. I'll repost excerpts.

From [i]Gaudium et Spes[/i]:

[quote]Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, [b]whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself[/b]; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.[/quote]

From [i]Evangelium Vitae[/i]:

[quote]The Second Vatican Council, in a passage which retains all its relevance today, forcefully condemned a number of crimes and attacks against human life. Thirty years later, taking up the words of the Council and with the same forcefulness I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience: "Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, [b]whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself[/b]; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator."[/quote]

From [i]Veritatis Splendor[/i]:

[quote]Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil" (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object." The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; [b]whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit[/b]; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator".[/quote]

As I've already pointed out, waterboarding can be extremely terrifying and uncomfortable, and it can have lasting negative effects (such as PTSD). It also attempts to "coerce the will itself." Merriam-Webster [url="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coerce"]defines coerce[/url] as "to achieve by force or threat." All that said, waterboarding meets every criteria of torture as defined by the Catholic Church.

[quote]no i would not approve of it if i thought it were torture, and to be honest it wouldn't matter to me if the Church were against torture or not (though by her nature she must be) I would still think torture is wrong. If my child was a known terrorist yes i would. I would be EXTREMELY saddened and i would not want it done, however that does not mean that i do not understand it is needed for the protection of the community of individuals.[/quote]

Well, that's not what I was getting at. If you had a fifteen-year-old son who you needed to punish/interrogate about something that happened at, say, school, would you waterboard him under the proper supervision? Again, you've argued that waterboarding is (1) safe, (2) not incredibly painful or damaging, (3) unlikely to cause long-term effects, and (4) not torture. If that's the case, why wouldn't you support waterboarding children under "proper supervision"?

Before I end this post, I have two questions, and please don't take them the wrong way because they're not meant to cause offense. First off, how would you feel if you found out that terrorists were waterboarding American soldiers? I'm not trying to be snarky here, but would you be somewhat comforted by the fact that you'd believe they weren't being tortured? Secondly, how would you feel about having to waterboard someone? Would you have to dehumanize your prisoner to be emotionally able to cause him extreme terror and discomfort?

Anyhow, I'd really appreciate it if you could take the time to thoroughly read and review both my posts and my sources before responding.

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' post='1498931' date='Apr 13 2008, 11:09 PM']How so?[/quote]
when debating you should follow the rules of logic. it makes prevents muddle thought

[quote]I agree with that, but that's not what I was arguing against. If a certain action is inherently wrong, then the state does not have the authority to commit it. As you know, I believe that waterboarding is torture; therefore, I believe that the state does not have the legitimate authority to use it as an interrogation technique.[/quote]
I agree actions that are inherently wrong are always wrong, however there are things which the state can do which individuals cannot do. the questions are as followed 1. is torture inherently wrong? 2 if so is water boarding torture? now we both have agreed that we will presume number 1. your mistake is that you have not asked the 2? we have not agreed water boarding is torture there for we need to define torture and then see if water boarding is torture. your definition is circular. you assert water boarding is torture, then when i ask what is torture you say water boarding.





[quote]Here is how Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines significant:
1: having meaning; especially : suggestive <a significant glance>2 a: having or likely to have influence or effect : important <a significant piece of legislation>; also : of a noticeably or measurably large amount <a significant number of layoffs> <producing significant profits> b: probably caused by something other than mere chance <statistically significant correlation between vitamin deficiency and disease>[/quote]
"of a noticeably or measurably large amount" is the only part of the Webster definition we can use and i find it wanting. I think Severe is a better word for us to operate from, as it implies a strong degree.


[quote]When I used it, I meant that waterboarding can cause "a noticeably or measurably large amount" of pain/discomfort and terror (e.g., enough to cause PTSD).[/quote]
Discomfort is unimportant. as far as pain we need to take into consideration the lasting effects of the pain. for example is the sever pain temporary like that of sprinting for along time where the pain is sharp and immediate but only lasts for a long time.


[quote]I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I'm sure you know that if an action is inherently wrong, it's wrong under all circumstances.[/quote]
Yes we have agreed that what is wrong is wrong. however the reason why the terrorists are not brought to this country is because they would be given the same rights as Americans(that was one point). The other point i was making is that where as we might refrain from doing things to a uniformed enemy of war not because it is wrong but because it is harsh, to deny the same privilege to an enemy who breaks all rules of combat is not wrong.

[quote]If waterboarding isn't inherently wrong, as you argue, then why not use it against suspects here in the United States? Let's say you were pulled over because you were [b]suspected[/b] of being a drug dealer. The police officer took you to the station, where he proceeded to pour water down your throat until you gave him some answers. Does this sound like something that's morally legitimate to you? Since you argue that waterboarding is (1) safe, (2) not incredibly painful or damaging, (3) unlikely to cause long-term effects, and (4) not torture, would you oppose waterboarding becoming a regular suspect or witness interrogation technique here in the United States? If not, please explain your reasoning. You may want to keep in mind that the Church [url="http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/criminal.shtml#introduction"]teaches[/url] that [b]all[/b] prisoners deserve to be treated humanely, regardless of whether they're American citizens, prisoners of war, or suspected terrorists.[/quote]First i did not say it was not Painful
you are equivocating things which are not equal. take the death penalty for example (I am using Aquinas as my backdrop), it would be immoral to execute a thief however it is not immoral to execute a deliberate murderer. but lets use an example that is truly equal. The police pull me over and I am not only suspect of being a terrorist (not one of the water boarded terrorist were suspect they were ALL THREE known terrorists) but have proof, and have caught me in the action of committing a terrorist action, and on top of this i have made public statements taking credit for several attacks. I would be opposed to being water boarded but not for the reason that it is not torture but that i might be forced to reveal information i dont want to reveal.

Also the usccb says alot of things. and they say alot of wrong things, I don't pay attention to anything they say unless it is legislatively binding.

[quote]Unlike torture, neither penitentiaries nor the death penalty are inherently wrong, so your examples aren't completely comparable. Regarding the death penalty, however, the very real possibility that innocent people may be put to death is one of the reasons I don't support it here in the United States. Besides, the CCC [url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm"]states[/url] that the death penalty simply isn't necessary if there are other means of protecting society from violent criminals.[/quote] (just as the drug dealer and the terrorist are not comparable) however you have not shown water boarding to be torture you are presuming it is and constructing your definitions accordingly.
also the statement in the CCC about the application of the death penalty is not binding. what is misunderstood about this statement in the CCC is that it is expressing the [b]opinion[/b] of the Holy Father AT THAT TIME. Believing in the hermeneutic of continuity I take what JP II says in the context of past teaching. This is why 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with guidance to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated succinctly, emphatically and unambiguously as follows: June, 2004 "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. ***[b]For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion[/b]***. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.".
so someone who supports a more liberal use of the death penalty than what John Paul II believed is not holding something contrary to the church.
In fact the catechism of Trent contradicts John Paul II “The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of [u][b]paramount[/b][/u] obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder.”.



[quote]The use of waterboarding as an interrogation technique has not been confined to the War on Terror, and in all the instances it's been used throughout history, it is quite possible that innocent people were made to suffer (which makes it all the more horrible). All the same, that's besides the point. Like I pointed out in a previous post, if waterboarding is torture, then it's wrong to do to the guilty as well.[/quote]
Your argument here has nothing to do with the conversation. How it was used in the past does not matter, what needs to be asked is how it is being used now as well as who it is being used on now. that is like saying the death penalty is wrong because someone who is innocent might be put to death. its a false argument

[quote]As a side note, [url="http://waterboarding.org/success_story"]this website[/url] claims that Khalid Shaikh Mohammad was captured "after the plot was discovered, after the plot was 'derailed,' after the pilot of the plane was captured. Khaled Sheikh Mohammed could not have 'provided valuable information and saved lives' when all aspects of the plot were well-known and the attack had been foiled prior to his capture."[/quote]

The reason what you are saying is wrong is because you are presuming that he does not have information about other plots.

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' post='1498946' date='Apr 13 2008, 11:26 PM']I'm not sure what you mean by that.
No, the burden of proof is on the both of us. I've provided sources. I've yet to see any sources from you, but I'm eagerly awaiting them. [/quote]
I mean that you are not by your statement were twisting what was being said (you did it again with the example of the drug dealer).
and no the burden of proof lay on you as you are the one asserting it is torture, the burden lay on me to refute you. if i cannot successfully refute you then your case being superior is right. this is how debate works and as for sources again we have not gotten that far yet.


[quote]Merriam-Webster [url="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intense"]defines intense[/url] as "existing in an extreme degree." Of course, people who were waterboarded have described the intense panic, terror, and discomfort they experienced.[/quote]
Alright we agree on the definition of intense. now what I am going to ask is this, should we operate from perceived intensity or actual intensity. If it is prceived then torture is subjective (which is the definition i am opposed to). if we however take an objective view then intensities which do not cause injury are excluded from our definition.


[quote]Whether the Geneva Convention applies to "these people" is irrelevant. If waterboarding is torture, it shouldn't be done on anyone.[/quote] agreed. however WE have not concluded that water boarding is torture. the point of brining up the Geneva Convention is rather a simple one, it is to demonstrate that conditions which we provide to POW's (terrorists are not POW's) we do not have to provide for members of "de-regularized militia".

[quote]The 100 professors who signed that petition may or may not be liberal, but that should hardly matter. In my opinion, liberals are wrong on many things, but that doesn't mean they're wrong on [b]everything[/b].[/quote]
"Just because your crazy doesn't mean they are not out to get you." right i agree. however what we need to look at then is the motive of the professors. because there is nothing to demonstrate otherwise I am operating from the norm of liberal mindset(the default) which is the only honest and objective position one can take. to presume what is contrary to normal behavior is not charity it foolishness. therefore i discredit the 100 professors on the grounds that the vast (not just the) majority of professors are socialists and marxist, and that the standard of operation is to be against anything bush is for, and or to use everything possible to damage the image of the president.

[quote]There were also many people who experienced it and did claim it was torture. Here are more [url="http://waterboarding.org/firsthand"]quotes[/url] for you to mull over:[/quote]
I do not care about the quotes they make no difference to the conversation they are subjective what i am looking for is an objective answer (something you seem to not want).

[quote]Malcolm Nance, a counter-terrorism and intelligence consultant for the special operations, homeland security and intelligence agencies, [url="http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,155470,00.html"]wrote[/url] that [b]"waterboarding is unquestionably being used as torture technique."[/b][/quote]

The definition of torture she is using is not the same as the definition we are trying to construct. the definition she is using or at least what i can gather from context is as follows
Torture: anything method which has at its goal the extraction of information.
under this definition i will give the following example. Muslims cannot eat pork. It IS(we both will agree) inhumane to deny someone food. it is not however inhuman to put pork in the food of a Muslim and tell them it is in there (I am using human in its objective sense not its subjective[touchy feelly sense]). If they choose not to eat then that is on them as there is nothing morally objectionable about pork. however feeding a Muslim pork until they provide the information desired is torture according to her definition.

[quote]A man on The Straight Dope's forum decided to try waterboarding himself (you can read his entire account [url="http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448717"]here[/url]). His conclusion?[/quote]

again i am looking for objective.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1500089' date='Apr 15 2008, 04:05 PM']when debating you should follow the rules of logic. it makes prevents muddle thought[/quote]

I'm still not quite sure what you're getting at. According to you, which rules have I broken? Please provide specific examples and quotes from my previous comments to back up your claim.

[quote]the questions are as followed 1. is torture inherently wrong? 2 if so is water boarding torture? now we both have agreed that we will presume number 1. your mistake is that you have not asked the 2? we have not agreed water boarding is torture there for we need to define torture and then see if water boarding is torture. your definition is circular. you assert water boarding is torture, then when i ask what is torture you say water boarding.[/quote]

In all due respect, your accusation is patently false. In a previous post, you asked me to define torture. Here's the definition you provided:

[quote]Torture: inflicting sever physical or psychological pain which has long term negative effects on an individual.[/quote]

In my response to you (post 138 in this thread), I wrote that "[b]I'm willing to use your definition for the time being.[/b]" I also wrote (also in post 138) that "if we assume that your definition of torture is correct, waterboarding is torture because it can cause intense pain/discomfort and lasting damage." I then went on to cite numerous sources and examples to support my claim. Not only that, but I also provided the Catholic Church's definition of torture.

[quote]"of a noticeably or measurably large amount" is the only part of the Webster definition we can use and i find it wanting. I think Severe is a better word for us to operate from, as it implies a strong degree.[/quote]

I don't have a problem with that.

[quote]Discomfort is unimportant. as far as pain we need to take into consideration the lasting effects of the pain. for example is the sever pain temporary like that of sprinting for along time where the pain is sharp and immediate but only lasts for a long time.[/quote]

Yes, and as was written in [i]Gaudium et Spes[/i], [i]Evangelium Vitae[/i], and [i]Veritatis Splendor[/i], torture can be mental and/or physical. Even if waterboarding doesn't cause long-term physical effects, I've cited more than one source indicating that it can and often does cause long-term psychological effects (such as PTSD). If you disagree, then by all means, feel free to cite some sources to support your position.

[quote]Yes we have agreed that what is wrong is wrong. however the reason why the terrorists are not brought to this country is because they would be given the same rights as Americans(that was one point).[/quote]

Honestly, I really don't care if they're given American rights; however, they should be treated humanely, for the Catechism of the Catholic Church [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P81.HTM"]says[/url] that "non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely."

[quote]The police pull me over and I am not only suspect of being a terrorist (not one of the water boarded terrorist were suspect they were ALL THREE known terrorists) but have proof, and have caught me in the action of committing a terrorist action, and on top of this i have made public statements taking credit for several attacks. I would be opposed to being water boarded but not for the reason that it is not torture but that i might be forced to reveal information i dont want to reveal.[/quote]

Like I've written, whether someone is guilty or innocent is irrelevant, though the possibility that someone may be innocent makes the situation all the more horrible. You wrote that you wouldn't want to be waterboarded in this scenario because you "might be forced to reveal information [you] don't want to reveal," but as I posted in a previous comment, [i]Gaudium et Spes[/i], [i]Evangelium Vitae[/i], [i]Veritatis Splendor[/i] list "attempts to coerce the will itself" as a serious sin. You've admitted that you'd possibly be [b]forced[/b] to reveal information if you were waterboarded, and that, my friend, is [url="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coercing"]coercion[/url].

[quote]Also the usccb says alot of things. and they say alot of wrong things, I don't pay attention to anything they say unless it is legislatively binding.[/quote]

I quoted the USCCB in reference to treating prisoners humanely, but as I've posted above, that's a command from the [i]Catechism of the Catholic Church [/i] and is binding on all Catholics.

[quote]however you have not shown water boarding to be torture you are presuming it is and constructing your definitions accordingly.[/quote]

I've quoted psychologists and other professionals; I've quoted testimony from people who've been waterboarded; I've quoted Catholic documents. I'm not sure what else you want for proof.

[quote]also the statement in the CCC about the application of the death penalty is not binding. what is misunderstood about this statement in the CCC is that it is expressing the [b]opinion[/b] of the Holy Father AT THAT TIME. Believing in the hermeneutic of continuity I take what JP II says in the context of past teaching. This is why 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with guidance to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated succinctly, emphatically and unambiguously as follows: June, 2004 "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. ***[b]For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion[/b]***. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.".[/quote]

I neither said nor implied that the death penalty is inherently wrong. I merely stated my opinion that it shouldn't be applied here in the United States, but that's irrelevant to our discussion.

[BeenaBobba]

CatholicMax, I'm currently writing the second half of my response, so you may want to keep that in mind before you respond.

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' post='1500551' date='Apr 15 2008, 11:26 PM']I'm still not quite sure what you're getting at. According to you, which rules have I broken? Please provide specific examples and quotes from my previous comments to back up your claim.[/quote]
You are putting the cart before the horse. You are giving very long expositions when what I am trying to do (in part because the long replies are taking up quite a bit of time and i do have finals coming very soon) is get definitions clear. This is the first step to providing a good solid debate. once we have defined terms then from their we can move on. you however for the majority of our posts have been rushing through the definitions(the most important part of the debate as it is the foundation of any discussion) and jumping to the end. the rule you are breaking is your terms are not clear.


[quote]In all due respect, your accusation is patently false. In a previous post, you asked me to define torture. Here's the definition you provided:
In my response to you (post 138 in this thread), I wrote that "[b]I'm willing to use your definition for the time being.[/b]" I also wrote (also in post 138) that "if we assume that your definition of torture is correct, waterboarding is torture because it can cause intense pain/discomfort and lasting damage." I then went on to cite numerous sources and examples to support my claim. Not only that, but I also provided the Catholic Church's definition of torture.[/quote] Here is an example of what i mean. you are providing argument before we have finished defining terms. so far we have defined three terms (if i am keeping accurate record)

Torture(two definitions we abandoned the first in favor of the second as it was a better definition )
Intense (one definition)
Severe (one definition)

I have not even been ready to begin to delve into the question of what is torture and what is not as we have seemingly just now come to what i think will be a workable definition.

for this reason after this post I will only focus on the correct steps of a logical debate and will ignore all of the "Slack" in the post.



[quote]Yes, and as was written in [i]Gaudium et Spes[/i], [i]Evangelium Vitae[/i], and [i]Veritatis Splendor[/i], torture can be mental and/or physical. Even if waterboarding doesn't cause long-term physical effects, I've cited more than one source indicating that it can and often does cause long-term psychological effects (such as PTSD). If you disagree, then by all means, feel free to cite some sources to support your position.[/quote]
Though this strikes at the heart of the matter and I would be ready to get into this with you now I am afraid that you have introduced another term that I do not know what it means so we will put this on Pause so that i can understand you more clearly.

[quote]Honestly, I really don't care if they're given American rights; however, they should be treated humanely, for the Catechism of the Catholic Church [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P81.HTM"]says[/url] that "non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely."[/quote]
Here is where i need another term defined. I am not certain that causing discomfort to an enemy combatant is inhumane, the reason I am not certain if it is inhumane is because i do not know what this means. so if you will clarify this for me please. This is the ONLY part of your next post i will respond to.


[quote]Like I've written, whether someone is guilty or innocent is irrelevant, though the possibility that someone may be innocent makes the situation all the more horrible. You wrote that you wouldn't want to be waterboarded in this scenario because you "might be forced to reveal information [you] don't want to reveal," but as I posted in a previous comment, [i]Gaudium et Spes[/i], [i]Evangelium Vitae[/i], [i]Veritatis Splendor[/i] list "attempts to coerce the will itself" as a serious sin. You've admitted that you'd possibly be [b]forced[/b] to reveal information if you were waterboarded, and that, my friend, is [url="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coercing"]coercion[/url]. [/quote]

I am not asking for an exposition I would like to know what parts of these documents you are referring to(section numbers) so that I can read the context later.


[quote]I quoted the USCCB in reference to treating prisoners humanely, but as I've posted above, that's a command from the [i]Catechism of the Catholic Church [/i] and is binding on all Catholics.[/quote]
Actually there are fallible things contained in the CCC which is what causes so much confusion. There are infallible things in the CCC however for example section 2267 on the death penalty states the CHURCHES position however it also states JOHN PAUL II position which is not the position of the Church. The USCCB as a teaching body is a joke. if you want to cite individual bishops or better yet Saints i have no problem with that however The USCCB is not a credible source in our debate.


[quote]I've quoted psychologists and other professionals; I've quoted testimony from people who've been waterboarded; I've quoted Catholic documents. I'm not sure what else you want for proof.[/quote]
Alright let me put it to you this way. For all of your citing you have not shown me anything. what you have done is provided evidence for a claim you are making with out proper definition. Because I do not know what you are saying you have not SHOWN me anything you have only provided words copious amounts of them that do nothing but muddle the debate. FIRST we must have definition. you have provided another case where we need to define yet another term because i am clueless to what it means when we have an agreed definition to the term (humane) then we can proceed but not before hand. and then you can show me.
[quote]I neither said nor implied that the death penalty is inherently wrong. I merely stated my opinion that it shouldn't be applied here in the United States, but that's irrelevant to our discussion.[/quote]
no that was not what you did. the way in which you phrased your statement was to say 'This is the position the Church takes'. if you intended this or not this is what happened.

I will wait for a working definition of Humane.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1500100' date='Apr 15 2008, 04:29 PM']and no the burden of proof lay on you as you are the one asserting it is torture, the burden lay on me to refute you. if i cannot successfully refute you then your case being superior is right. this is how debate works and as for sources again we have not gotten that far yet.[/quote]

I disagree. Without providing sources to support one's claim, debates can't and don't get very far.

[quote]now what I am going to ask is this, should we operate from perceived intensity or actual intensity. If it is prceived then torture is subjective (which is the definition i am opposed to). if we however take an objective view then intensities which do not cause injury are excluded from our definition.[/quote]

The thing is, the perception of pain is [b]highly subjective[/b]. The National Pain Foundation [url="http://www.nationalpainfoundation.org/MyTreatment/MyTreatment_PainAndYourMentalHealth.asp"]wrote[/url] that "[b]every person reacts differently to pain at different times[/b], which can make relationships and pain control difficult." Also, the Mayo Clinic [url="http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pain/PN00017"]wrote[/url]:

[quote]Messages from your brain also affect the gate. Rather than just reacting to pain, [b]your brain actually sends messages that influence your perception of pain[/b]. Your brain may signal nerve cells to release natural painkillers, such as endorphins (en-DOR-fins) or enkephalins (en-KEF-uh-lins), which diminish the pain messages.
This last idea explains how your brain — and its psychological and emotional processes — can affect your experience of pain. In fact, how you interpret pain messages and tolerate pain can be affected by your:

Emotional and psychological state
Memories of past pain experiences
Upbringing
Attitude
Expectations
Beliefs and values
Age
Sex
Social and cultural influences

For example, a minor sensation that would barely register as pain, such as a dentist's probe, can actually produce exaggerated pain for a child who's never been to the dentist and who's heard horror stories about what it's like.

But your emotional state can also work in your favor. Athletes can condition themselves to endure pain that would incapacitate others. And, if you were raised in a home or culture that taught you to "Grin and bear it" or to "Bite the bullet," you may experience less discomfort than do people who focus on their pain or who are more prone to complain.[/quote]

[quote]agreed. however WE have not concluded that water boarding is torture. the point of brining up the Geneva Convention is rather a simple one, it is to demonstrate that conditions which we provide to POW's (terrorists are not POW's) we do not have to provide for members of "de-regularized militia".[/quote]

Again, [b]all[/b] prisoners must be treated [url="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humane"]humanely[/url]. You may argue that terrorists are not POWs, and that's fine, but one cannot escape the fact that they are still [url="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prisoner"]prisoners[/url].

You know, it's interesting to note that Japanese soldiers were executed for waterboarding American POWs. If you'd like to read more about this, click [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html"]here[/url]. In the meantime, here's an excerpt:

[quote]The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. [b]The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it. [/b]

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. [b]Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.[/b][/quote]

[quote]however what we need to look at then is the motive of the professors. because there is nothing to demonstrate otherwise I am operating from the norm of liberal mindset(the default) which is the only honest and objective position one can take. to presume what is contrary to normal behavior is not charity it foolishness. therefore i discredit the 100 professors on the grounds that the vast (not just the) majority of professors are socialists and marxist, and that the standard of operation is to be against anything bush is for, and or to use everything possible to damage the image of the president.[/quote]

In all due respect, I find it almost laughable that you describe your position on this as "objective." You can't possibly ascertain the exact motives of every professor on that list. While I agree that many academics are rather liberal, it's quite possible that they oppose waterboarding because they view it as torture.

[quote]I do not care about the quotes they make no difference to the conversation they are subjective what i am looking for is an objective answer (something you seem to not want).[/quote]

Again, one's perception of pain and discomfort is subjective, and like I've written in a previous post, the fact that many people have described their waterboarding experiences as highly terrifying and severely uncomfortable (going so far as to equate it with torture) is enough to ban the technique. One cannot tell beforehand how a prisoner will react to waterboarding, so if there is a possibility of torture and/or coercion, the technique shouldn't be used (as was explained in a quote from Mark Shea's blog in one of my previous posts).

[quote]The definition of torture she is using is not the same as the definition we are trying to construct. the definition she is using or at least what i can gather from context is as follows
Torture: anything method which has at its goal the extraction of information.[/quote]

Well, as I also posted, Church documents list coercion as sinful. Waterboarding is also a form of coercion.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1500567' date='Apr 16 2008, 01:59 AM']You are putting the cart before the horse. You are giving very long expositions when what I am trying to do (in part because the long replies are taking up quite a bit of time and i do have finals coming very soon) is get definitions clear. This is the first step to providing a good solid debate. once we have defined terms then from their we can move on. you however for the majority of our posts have been rushing through the definitions(the most important part of the debate as it is the foundation of any discussion) and jumping to the end. the rule you are breaking is your terms are not clear.[/quote]

I have no problem defining or clarifying words if you are unsure about what they mean or how I'm using them, but I think I've been quite clear. Words like severe and significant don't exactly have complex, nuanced meanings.

[quote]for this reason after this post I will only focus on the correct steps of a logical debate and will ignore all of the "Slack" in the post.[/quote]

All the same, everything in my previous posts still stands, so after every term has been defined to your satisfaction, I'd advise you to go back and reread everything I've written.

[quote]Though this strikes at the heart of the matter and I would be ready to get into this with you now I am afraid that you have introduced another term that I do not know what it means so we will put this on Pause so that i can understand you more clearly.[/quote]

Are you referring to PTSD? PTSD stands for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and you can learn more about it [url="http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/ncmain/ncdocs/fact_shts/fs_what_is_ptsd.html"]here[/url], [url="http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd/index.shtml"]here[/url], and [url="http://www.medicinenet.com/posttraumatic_stress_disorder/article.htm"]here[/url].

[quote]Here is where i need another term defined. I am not certain that causing discomfort to an enemy combatant is inhumane, the reason I am not certain if it is inhumane is because i do not know what this means. so if you will clarify this for me please. This is the ONLY part of your next post i will respond to.[/quote]

Here is how Merriam-Webster [url="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humane"]defines humane[/url]:

[quote]1 : marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals
2 : characterized by or tending to broad humanistic culture : humanistic <humane studies>[/quote]

Here is how the American Heritage Dictionary [url="http://www.bartleby.com/61/80/H0318000.html"]defines humane[/url]:

[quote]1. Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion: a humane judge. 2. Marked by an emphasis on humanistic values and concerns: a humane education.[/quote]

[quote]I am not asking for an exposition I would like to know what parts of these documents you are referring to(section numbers) so that I can read the context later.[/quote]

Cathqat provided that information in post 120 of this thread.