So you don't consider the fact that Kiriakou has undergone waterboarding torture, applied the waterboarding torture and now says those interrogation techniques should not be applied even if it saves American lives relevant? You accept Bushco's opinion over this professional's opinion?

__________________
Divide and rule, the politician cries;
unite and lead, is watchword of the wise.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

You're appealing to authority, Mannie (logical fallacy).

"Even if it saves American lives" is the relevant part. He says "no matter what" and that's where he loses me. What if it was a nuke? I take people at their word. Idealism that would rather allow a nuke to hit us than waterboard the guy who can stop it is ridiculous, IMO. Ideals sometimes contradict one another and must be prioritized. The real world may get in the way of ideals.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

I don't blame you a bit. However, I would like to point out that I've been a lot more honest with you than the CIA has.

Really, I think that this is just gonna come down to everybody's personal opinion on whether or not torture is fun. Some people like it, some people don't.

But if the CIA has figured out a way to make testimony given under torture reliable, that does make it the first time ever in the history of history, so I'm wondering what they do that's so much more effective than all of the other people who've ever tried it since the beginning of time.

Let's cast this discussion of "torture" into a larger political context for a minute, 'kay?

'Cause when it comes to the politics of it, torture is a form of coercion, right?

And therefore, all the Constitutional concepts around "coercion", apply to the concept of "torture".

See where I'm going with this?

So like, let's consider the argument about "even if it saves American lives".

So, for instance, think about the concept of a "warrant" in the domain of law enforcement. Usually, normally, on any "normal" day, the law requires that the police (or any kind of government "enforcement" arm, you know, it could be ATF or DEA or anything else) have a "warrant". That's kinda like an "oversight" piece - that means there's been "another pair of eyes" on the case, and usually that would be a judge (ie an "unrelated branch of government") - and that pair of eyes, has basically agreed with yours.

What the government is specifically not allowed to do, on any normal day, is waltz into your house for no reason, and start "looking for something". Even if they have reason to suspect there's "something there" that needs looking at. Right? They have to get a warrant. That's the law.

But, there are exceptions. In fact, there are all kinds of exceptions to that concept. They range from very simple things, like, once a cop stops you for a traffic violation, he can kinda look into your car, and if he sees a half open bottle of booze sittin' there on the front seat, he can make you get out and take a sobriety test, 'cause that's "immediate suspicion" that a crime "is taking place or is about to take place", and in most places (ie most states and most localities) there's some kinda provision for that in the law.

Also, there's the SWAT team concept - "instant response to emergencies". So like, if someone's robbing a bank, no one needs a warrant, right? But here's the point: that's a crime in progress. The critical distinction in this space, has to do with this: "how do you know that a crime is about to occur, and what level of certainty is appropriate or required, before a response can be initiated"?

You know, so like, if you call up the cops and say, "hey, Joe Blow just threatened me and I'm in fear of my life", the chances are the cops are gonna tell you, "lady, we're very sorry, but there's nothing we can do until Joe Blow actually does something to you - you know, hurts you in some way or something" - And then the exception to that, would be, if you've got a witness that heard Joe threatening to kill you or something - which under "some" laws in "some" places, could be considered a "terrorist threat".

And then, there's the further consideration that the 9th and 10th Amendments, say that the federal government has no power of coercion, except that which is enumerated in Article I Section 8 under "legislative powers". They specifically don;t get to do "whatever they want". So, I mean, technically, the only real question here, is whether you're gonna allow the US government to do this to foreign citizens, because my read of the Constitution says it's absolutely forbidden on US citizens, no matter what.

So, I mean, this whole issue kinda boils down to a re-consideration of another "central fallacy" in the Neo-Nut-Job thinking, which is that "non-US citizens" are second class citizens, and are not subject to the same rights and privileges as US citizens.

You guys are so transparent, you wanna start changing word meanings in favor of your idiotic ideology - you guys are worse than Clinton, who couldn't even figure out what the word "is" means.....

I agree. Let's waterboard these wing-nuts, and then see how they feel about it!

Really? So if I volunteered to sit in a chair and have my skin peeled it wouldn't be torture?

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

Nah, I wouldn't think that "torture" would enter my thought-space if I saw something like that.....

Words like "insanity" might come to mnd.... I'd probably start thinking said activity might involve some form of "masochism" (and maybe by extension then, some form of "sadism" on the other side) -

But "torture"? Nah.... I'm not sure about the concept of "inflicting torture on yourself" - even "by proxy"....

Well, what I mean by "I'm not sure", is that I'm not entirely sure such a thing would represent a distinct threat to We the People, right?

Would you really do such a thing?

I do think though (as long as I'm wearing my "We the People" hat I'm gonna just say this before I have to temporarily unload that buffer again) -

I do think, that the perception on the part of the internatiobnal community, that the United States is engaging in torture, does represent a clear and present danger to We the People.

And that would be specifically, We the People of the United States.

Think about it.

Looks like I'm not the only one.
Because no one here has been waterboarded, no one here can reach an opinion without the appeal to authority. Because Kiriakou has been waterboarded and observed its effects and because I'm pretty sure that Bushco has not, I'll take Kiriakou's opinion over Bushco's.
While we're on the subject of fallacies: RE nuke: You're begging the question by assuming what a tortured suspect will tell you is the truth.

__________________
Divide and rule, the politician cries;
unite and lead, is watchword of the wise.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

And, you realize that there's no way to prove a negative. I've heard too many people use the word torture when they were talking about sleep deprivation, bright lights and that kind of thing. Even when the prisoner gains weight, torture is discussed as if it's an established fact. Absolutely nothing we can do will change perceptions, IMO.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

Then I'll just have to appeal to the same authority you used who said it worked.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.