Will Sean Hannity go through with his commitment to be waterboarded for charity?

[Ringo84]

Except not everyone agrees that it is torture, or even on the definition of torture.

Which is why it's good we have the United Nations Council Against Torture to help us understand what torture is:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

United Nations Convention Against Torture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Waterboarding is defined thusly:

In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates a gag reflex almost immediately.[13] The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, ultimately, death.[4] Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.

Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You seem to think that just because some disagree that waterboarding is torture, that means it isn't torture. If a large number of Americans believed that 9/11 was an inside job, would that make it true?

If it is torture and torture is ABSOLUTELY YOU'RE SATAN IF YOU DISAGREE wrong

Who here or elsewhere has said or implied that you're "Satan" if you disagree about torture?

The topic is waterboarding(and Sean Hannity), which does not constitute torture to many people

Slavery may not constitute a human rights violation to some people. Does that mean that slavery is not a human rights violation?

and the narrowmindedness you guys are demonstrating refuses to recognize it.

Says the person who immediately responded to my first post not by answering my arguments but accusing me of being "sanctimonious". It's the pot calling the kettle black.

Except I'm not the one who is desperate. Making ultimatums and absolutist thinking like "It's absolutely torture and it's absolutely wrong" are signs of desperation. Since you guys are the ones making such extremist rhetoric then it is pretty obviously you guys who are desperate.

How is that desperation?
Ringo

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm going to have to call a Poe on this one.

Unnecessary, since I'm already here.

And don't call it when you clearly don't know what it is.

no it's not. The topic is waterboarding(and Sean Hannity), which does not constitute torture to many people,

But does constitute torture to many more people, including the pre- and post-Bush US government.

and the narrowmindedness you guys are demonstrating refuses to recognize it.

I'm narrow-minded because I don't find your POV as brilliant as you do?

Or am I narrow-minded because I don't think Hannity is going to live up to his word?

Except I'm not the one who is desperate. Making ultimatums and absolutist thinking like "It's absolutely torture and it's absolutely wrong" are signs of desperation.

So you don't believe in moral absolutes.

Since you guys are the ones making such extremist rhetoric then it is pretty obviously you guys who are desperate.

Are you absolutely sure? Wouldn't you absolutely rather talk about abortion rather than the topic at hand?

 

[mpok1519]

slamming people against a wall isnt torture?

drowning people isnt torture?

lol

Youre INSANE if you believe this

 

[rambot]

Faking you can't comprehend what torture is is a coping mechanism for people so they don't feel guilty about advocating torture.

 

[Sphere]

But hey, why am I bothering? Despite the fact that the three men we waterboarded were unharmed I'll still keep hearing the words "It's TORTURE!!!" shouted loudly like a broken record, resounding loudly and beating down dispassionate and reasoned discourse until there's no more independent thought left in the room.

Hitchens was a rabid waterboarding supporter and never considered it torture until he actually underwent the procedure. But you seem to know what you're talking about by regurgitating the Hannity/Limbaugh talking points.

Have you considered 'setting the record' straight with Hitchens? Try sending him an email saying that he's wrong and what he experienced wasn't torture.

I'm sure you'll let us know how that turns out.

 

[Ringo84]

I sure wouldn't want to confuse Karate with any facts.
Ringo

 

[Morcova]

Actually the USA considered it torture until very recently.

When it was done to our GI's by the Japanese we considered it torture.

What changed?

 

[FedererFan]

Actually the USA considered it torture until very recently.

When it was done to our GI's by the Japanese we considered it torture.

What changed?

We decided we wanted to do it. Ergo, not torture.

 

[oldbetang]

Actually the USA considered it torture until very recently.

When it was done to our GI's by the Japanese we considered it torture.

What changed?

That isn't quite true. The US never considered all types of waterboarding to be torture. What was done to US GIs that was deemed torture was not just waterboarding. No Japanese soldier was convicted for using waterboarding as a standalone interrogation procedure. However, they certainly could have been , since the Japanese "water cure" was particularly harsh.

 

[Hooksta]

Quite a bit of evidence that most consider it torture. (here)
Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Waterboarding is not authorized under the Geneva Convention either. Between the Geneva convention and the facts in the Wiki link, and our past history of calling it both torture and illegal, it sure would seem we are walking the tightest of tightropes of using a technicality to bypass the Geneva convention (enemy combatents not being representing a country or having uniforms) and in RE-defining the act because a few would feel it suits our needs right now.

 

[Ringo84]

That isn't quite true. The US never considered all types of waterboarding to be torture. What was done to US GIs that was deemed torture was not just waterboarding. No Japanese soldier was convicted for using waterboarding as a standalone interrogation procedure. However, they certainly could have been , since the Japanese "water cure" was particularly harsh.

Saying that watrboarding isn't wrong because Japanese officers were convicted for usingwaterboarding and other harsh techniques is like saying that assault isn't illegal because a person was convicted for assault and battery. It just doesn't ring true.

If we used waterboarding, we tortured. If we tortured, we used an illegal interrogation technique on our detainees. End of story.
Ringo

 

[Morcova]

That isn't quite true. The US never considered all types of waterboarding to be torture. What was done to US GIs that was deemed torture was not just waterboarding. No Japanese soldier was convicted for using waterboarding as a standalone interrogation procedure. However, they certainly could have been , since the Japanese "water cure" was particularly harsh.

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. 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.

.

 

[oldbetang]

Saying that watrboarding isn't wrong because Japanese officers were convicted for usingwaterboarding and other harsh techniques is like saying that assault isn't illegal because a person was convicted for assault and battery. It just doesn't ring true.

If we used waterboarding, we tortured. If we tortured, we used an illegal interrogation technique on our detainees. End of story.
Ringo

You can't rightly compare the Japanese water torture to the waterboarding technique used by the US. The Japanese "water cure" was to "waterboarding" as practiced at Guantanamo what rape at knifepoint is to calling your secretary "honey."

 

[oldbetang]

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. 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..

What is the source for that?

 

[FedererFan]

What is the source for that?

I've seen it here:

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime - washingtonpost.com

 

[Nathan Poe]

You can't rightly compare the Japanese water torture to the waterboarding technique used by the US. The Japanese "water cure" was to "waterboarding" as practiced at Guantanamo what rape at knifepoint is to calling your secretary "honey."

How so?

 

[oldbetang]

I've seen it here:

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime - washingtonpost.com

Thank you! From that article:

Here's the testimony of two Americans imprisoned by the Japanese:

They would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness.

And from the second prisoner: They laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air. . . . They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water.
​

And THIS:

[FONT=times new roman,times]The victim's stomach is filled with water from a hose placed in the throat. A plank is then placed across the distended stomach, and Japanese, one on each end, then ' see-saw' thus forcing out the water from the stomach. Many of the victims die under this torture."[/FONT]
​

 

[oldbetang]

How so?

See above!

 

[Ringo84]

You can't rightly compare the Japanese water torture to the waterboarding technique used by the US. The Japanese "water cure" was to "waterboarding" as practiced at Guantanamo what rape at knifepoint is to calling your secretary "honey."

From Federer´s article:

And from the second prisoner: They laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air. . . . They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water.

What's the difference between that waterboarding method and our method - the fact that we waterboard with good intentions?
Ringo

 

[oldbetang]

[/i]From Federer´s article:


[/i]What's the difference between that waterboarding method and our method

Pretty much all of it.