He doesn't know if it is torture...

Darth Rotor said:
There is an error in your descriptive, which I find inaccurate, pg. The intent of waterboarding is not death, it is something else inspired by the fear or death by drowning. Drowning includes death, does it not? If you don't die, you didn't drown. So, if all you want to do is drown someone, stick their head under water and have a few big strong prison guards hold his head under until subject drowns.

That isn't what waterboarding is.

I realize this is a semantic quibble, but I think you will agree that this waterboarding thing is not drowning, since the subject would have to die in order for it to be drowning as you state. A waterboarding gone awry might result in a drowning, achieving an unintended result, a dead by drowning subject, whereas one done consistent with the intent (scare them into something due to perceived fear of drowning) would not.

FWIW.

DR
Click to expand...

This would mean that no one could ever be in the process of drowning. So "Help him he is drowning" is wrong.

But I do know that non fatal drowning like events, where to be referred to as near drowning as an EMT.
 
pgwenthold said:
If you consider that drowning means death, then it would not be drowning. Then again, it wouldn't be "simulated drowning" either, as it is usually described, because you aren't simulating death, so that would be wrong, too.

Regardless, it most certainly involves filling the lungs with water, which is part of the process of drowning (drowning can be more complicated). The important thing to note is that this is not just making a person feel like they drowning, it involves taking them through the actually physical processes and causing the same reflexive responses. The only thing they do is to stop before death occurs (prolonged waterboarding (how long?) will lead to death)
.
Click to expand...

Filling the lungs with water is not quite what I think it generally does, that is because any water getting into your lungs is a very bad thing. It is not a membrane that is intended to have water pass through it.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Filling the lungs with water is not quite what I think it generally does, that is because any water getting into your lungs is a very bad thing. It is not a membrane that is intended to have water pass through it.
Click to expand...

But waterboarding consists of pouring water in through the nostrils, and the mouth is usually held open. It's hard to hold your breath in that situation. Your body's reflexes will take over and try to devert the water into your stomach, but given the position, it is not as effective.

Pneumonia is a possible side-effect of waterboarding.
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
But waterboarding consists of pouring water in through the nostrils, and the mouth is usually held open. It's hard to hold your breath in that situation. Your body's reflexes will take over and try to devert the water into your stomach, but given the position, it is not as effective.

Pneumonia is a possible side-effect of waterboarding.
Click to expand...

Waterboarding consists of many different exact behaviors. It is not one specific act.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Waterboarding consists of many different exact behaviors. It is not one specific act.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but they all consist of pouring water on one's face, right?

It's not like it is a sponge bath or anything.

Funny, do we see these hairs being split when it is described as "simulated drowning"? Can it be waterboarding if it does not involve "simulated drowning"?

OTOH, I really think this whole issue is moot. The US has prosecuted people in the past for waterboarding. In fact, didn't I read that US soldiers in Vietnam were prosecuted after pictures of them using waterboarding surfaced? So when did it become legal?
 
pgwenthold said:
So when did it become legal?
Click to expand...

Haven't you heard? George W. Bush is above the law in all ways. If he approves of a criminal act, it is no longer a criminal act, as long as he can somehow tie it to his coward's "war on terror" nonsense.
 
Actually, Rachel Maddow talked about it a little on her show tonight. Basically, it ended up that the administration kept sacking legal counsels until they found one that gave them the answer they wanted. The initial guy apparently approved, but then retracted his approval. So they canned him, and brought in another. This guy subjected himself to waterboarding to get a first hand experience, and then wrote the memo that called torture an "abomination." So he got canned, too. They finally found a guy to approve of it (a guy who had clerked for Clarence Thomas, in fact). Now the ACLU is trying to get the justice department to release the memo in which he argued that it was legal. I think they want to see the legal arguments that were made.

If it is anything like the legal reasoning from Clarence "precedent means nothing compared to my interpretation" Thomas, you could imagine why they might wonder if it isn't pretty baseless.
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
Actually, Rachel Maddow talked about it a little on her show tonight. Basically, it ended up that the administration kept sacking legal counsels until they found one that gave them the answer they wanted. The initial guy apparently approved, but then retracted his approval. So they canned him, and brought in another. This guy subjected himself to waterboarding to get a first hand experience, and then wrote the memo that called torture an "abomination." So he got canned, too. They finally found a guy to approve of it (a guy who had clerked for Clarence Thomas, in fact). Now the ACLU is trying to get the justice department to release the memo in which he argued that it was legal. I think they want to see the legal arguments that were made.

If it is anything like the legal reasoning from Clarence "precedent means nothing compared to my interpretation" Thomas, you could imagine why they might wonder if it isn't pretty baseless.
Click to expand...
It goes deeper than that, and also illuminates the choices for AG the Supreme Court. They believe that the President is in actuality an "elected king", and is not bound by the rule of law. They will only appoint people who hold that view, or who will ignore the legal consequences when the Bush administration acts outside of the law.
 
pgwenthold said:
Yeah, but they all consist of pouring water on one's face, right?
Click to expand...

It seems so, but I have also found related events that clearly show that the water was swallowed and not aspirated, as the amount swallowed resulted in a distended abdomen that was then beaten.
 
headscratcher4 said:
Am I missing something...or have church leaders been unusually silent on this. I would have thought that the Catholic Bishops, at least, if not other denominations would have weighed in on the issue and condemned torture. Did I miss it?
Click to expand...
Why, they are about as quiet as Pat Robertson commenting on Rudy Guilani's adultery, support of gay marriage, and his pro-choice stand.

Funny thing that hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
While we usually refer to drowning survivors as having a "near drowning" my understanding is one need not die to have "drowned" listed as a medical diagnosis.
Click to expand...
As usual, things get down to fine semantic points. That doesn't make PG's loose usage any better.

So, the confirmation happened, now what? :confused:

DR
 
Upchurch said:
Charges are filed, war crime hearings are started, and accountability is at last enforced....

[/daydream]

Nothing, as per usual.
Click to expand...
I'll let this gestate for a month or two, but given the points made by some of the less friendly questioners of the nominee, I wonder if they will endeavour to enact clearer guidelines and standards. That would be sorta neat. The AG has as part of his duty the enforcement of federal law, or so I hear. :cool:

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
I'll let this gestate for a month or two, but given the points made by some of the less friendly questioners of the nominee, I wonder if they will endeavour to enact clearer guidelines and standards. That would be sorta neat. The AG has as part of his duty the enforcement of federal law, or so I hear. :cool:

DR
Click to expand...

If they are not illegal, how did successful prosecutions for war crimes happen?
 
ponderingturtle said:
Then people shouldn't pretended that there is any rule of law for such things and that war criminal means something other than looser.
Click to expand...
Quite simply, no law or crime is worth the paper it is printed on absent the ability to enforce it. What a victor can do is impose the victor's vision of justice on a loser. That is due to the relative positions of power. This also allows such humorous events as the three plus year "trial" of Milosevic, which was abruptly terminted due to his dying in custody. I suspect he either died of laughter, or boredom. ;) The official story, of course, is a medical condition.

I think you meant loser, not looser.

Your use of "shouldn't" is a flag for your wanting to waste my time. Not playing.

DR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom