Quote:
Originally posted by Rockaholic:

Yes, I am also waving my hand over my head in that "Wow, that went way over your head" kind of way.

[Spit]

Holy shit, you couldn't have missed the obvious if you were fishing in the middle of the desert and then figured that you weren't catching anything because you were using the wrong bait.

No, I'm not calling you a member of Al Qaeda because you support waterboarding the worst of terrorist captives. I said it because you said wtaerboarding Terrosits is a good thing - your first line of your first post. You modify your argument by later poting that "Waterboarding is not torture. Waterboarding has also saved people's lives. You people on the left are always claiming you are concerned about the lives of innocent people. Waterboarding has saved the lives of innocent people."

So I make the accusation that you are a Terrorist - now follow along here, this is where you completely didn't get it the first time -
Let me break it down for you in a more simplified version so you can understand.

You argue Torture should be used on Terrorists, even if a few innocent people get hurt along the way, because that saves lives....

So, I promptly accuse you of being a terrorist.

Being a suspected terrorist, the administration uses torture to question you about your suspected terrorist ties - because by torturing terrorists the Government saves lives, even if a few innocent people get hurt along the way.

I'm not saying you are a terrorist, but showing how very quickly the arguement for Torturing terrorists can turn into a circular problem.

How hard is it to accuse someone of being a Terrorist anyway. You obviously thought I just called you one.

Let's also not forget, the 4 Terrorists who flew the planes on 9/11 attended flight schools and lived for some time in the USA.

So yeah, the use of torture on "terrorists" could severly impact a citizens civil liberties, should they be falsely accused of being a terrorist.

Now I also read that if it doesn't kill or cause damage it's not torture.
You obviously don't know the definition of the word:
Torture: 1a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY 1 : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
Your problem there Rockaholic is that you are basing some of things I have said on your own opinions and suppositions.

You think waterboarding is torture. I DO NOT think waterboarding is torture. If we were pouring water over people and hooking them up to hot electrodes, that would be torture. If we were pulling out their fingernails, that would be torture.

Waterboarding does not meet the definition of torture. If you are going to define torture to include some temporary mental anguish, then watching an episode of "Sex and the City" or listening to JayZ albums could be considered torture.

Actually many people have argued that pyschops like blasting annoying music is torture. That is completely ridiculous. What is next? Not supplying champagne cocktails and cigars will be considered torture? Is denying terrorists the Al Jazerah channel going to be considered torture in the near future?

I think the loud music has already been taken away as a tool. How far are we willing to go in defining down the definition of torture? How far are we willing to weaken ourselves and remove every single tool available to extract information?

If waterboarding is torture as you claim, that means the US government tortures many of their own people during training for their jobs.

Why does the government train people to endure waterboarding? It's not because no one else doesn't do it. Every government does it when they feel the circumstances are warranted. Most governments on earth do far, far worse.

Waterboarding is a tool. It is not torture. You are arguing from a position where you think waterboarding has already been established by everyone as torture. It has not been.
_________________________
Click here for Democrat Party theme song...