Quote:

---

US national intelligence chief Mike McConnell has said the interrogation technique of water-boarding "would be torture" if he were subjected to it.

Mr McConnell said it would also be torture if water-boarding, which involves simulated drowning, resulted in water entering a detainee's lungs.

He told the New Yorker there would be a "huge penalty" for anyone using it if it was ever determined to be torture.

The US attorney-general has declined to rule on whether the method is torture.

However, Michael Mukasey said during his Senate confirmation hearing that water-boarding was "repugnant to me" and that he would institute a review.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Cool. So all three people who have been water-boarded by the CIA can sue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
"Have you or a loved one suffered the indignity of ... WATERBOARDING? Our team of top-notch lawyers is ready to get you the justice you deserve. Call 1-800-WTRBORD today. Operators are standing by.

(lawyers not licensed to practice in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, or most anywhere else)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
So it's a numbers game for you Geezer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
The numbers just don't add up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Cool. So all three people who have been water-boarded by the CIA can sue. Since the CIA banned it in 2003, they better hurry, before the statute of limitations runs out.

"Have you or a loved one suffered the indignity of ... WATERBOARDING? Our team of top-notch lawyers is ready to get you the justice you deserve. Call 1-800-WTRBORD today. Operators are standing by.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
What happens when its decided to use water-boarding on ordinary citizens (not suspected terorists) who piss off the government?

Don't pay your parking ticket? Thats a torture.

Don't file your taxes on time? Thats a torture.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
What happens when its decided to use water-boarding on ordinary citizens (not suspected terorists) who piss off the government?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
It's not the numbers, its the fact that our fucking government doesn't have the dignity to condemn the practice.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
What happens when flying angel monkeys come down from heaven and give us all magic wish granting bananas?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
So the fact that they don't do it anymore, since 2003, doesn't mean anything to you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
How many pages/blogs/threads/reports/articles/discussions have there been here and elsewhere condemning the US government for waterboarding three people, all of whom are still alive, and none waterboarded after 2003?

---

Quote:

---

How many pages/blogs/threads/reports/articles/discussions have there been here and elsewhere condemning Al Queda and its fellow travelers for blowing up thousands of innocent people in markets, temples, schools, stores, etc., all of whom are still dead, and such events still occur every day?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Who dreams this stuff up? I mean I would never have considered something like waterboarding, it would never have crossed my mind to do something like that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Geezer, how come you don't post anything about it being so cold in space??

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

So terrorism is just a natural phenomenon, and we should accept it as such, without any anger at those who perpetrate it or dismay over the loss of life?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Who dreams this stuff up? I mean I would never have considered something like waterboarding, it would never have crossed my mind to do something like that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
People who torture people every day for a living probably started to develop back problems from bending their victims backward over a horse trough. Their employers probably bought them back braces but they still all eventually asked for transfers to the finger nail pulling department. I think some smart middle manager in the simulated drowning department came up with water-boarding as a way of keeping his best employees.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Geezer, how come you don't post anything about it being so cold in space??

---

So terrorism is just a natural phenomenon, and we should accept it as such, without any anger at those who perpetrate it or dismay over the loss of life?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
My point is that not posting about the obvious does not a pro-terrorist (or a pro-freezing-in-the-vacuum-of-space) make.

Ever been shot? You need to be shot....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
No, it makes you someone who doesn't care enough about folk getting blown up by terrorists to say anything - silence being consent, and all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Your sound, calm truth and logic leaves them no alternative.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
silence being consent, and all.

---

Quote:

---

And, yeah, I have been shot.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Your sound, calm truth and logic leaves them no alternative.

---

EFFUE, you steaming pile of go-se!!!!!

Uh, I mean, I disagree with you here, J.

Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Then why do you silently consent to international piracy? I've never seen you speak out on it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Perhaps if this thread was about sweeping changes to maritime law you might have a point.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
I have a point now, regardless of this threads topic. Apparrently not expressly condemning something means consent, Geezer hasn't expressly condemned piracy here or anywhere else, thus by his own logic he must silently condone it. He introduced no limitations to his statement, if he had you would have a point, but he didn't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
But if for some unfathomable reason it must be limited to this thread and subject, why do you silently condone terrorism? Why do you silently condone torture? You've spoken out against neither here, and by your adapted version of Geezers definition, that means you silently condone them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Then why do you silently consent to international piracy? I've never seen you speak out on it.

---

Quote:

---

Or for that matter Wife beating. QED.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
But in fact it's about a government out of control, taking absolute power to itself and answerable to no one.

FBI biometrics database "Covert iris- and face-image capture is several years away, but it is of great interest to government agencies." And what would be the use of covert biometrics without that massive government database - eh ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
And why discuss the topic at hand when you can delve into the minutia of semantics to sidetrack it.

---

Quote:

---

I condone neither. I find torture inhumane but I find senseless slaughter of innocents inhumane as well. Depriving someone of their right to freedom is inhumane and yet it is sometimes necessary for the well being of others, do you not agree?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Probably because it's never come up here. The topic of Al Queda terror has, and usually ends up with you and your cronies making excuses and saying "they're no worse than the US government".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

I condone neither. I find torture inhumane but I find senseless slaughter of innocents inhumane as well. Depriving someone of their right to freedom is inhumane and yet it is sometimes necessary for the well being of others, do you not agree?

---

Yes. Is this when I mention that this is completely off topic and delving in semantics in order to sidetrack the thread, or are we over that silliness?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
... They don't want to do anything to fight terrorists. Heaven forbid we eavesdrop on someone calling a cave in Tora Bora, or a group moving money in and out of the First Infidels Will Die Bank. But what they really mean is gee won't I be fucked if someone hears me talking to my drug dealer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Should the one which is worse deserve more or less condemnation by the folks in RWED?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted in the 75 Percent of Al Qaeda in Iraq has been Destroyed! thread by AnthonyT:
Hello,

This recent argument smacks of dishonest debate tactics.

Q - "Do you support pedophiles? That is, do you support adults who rape little children?"

A - "Why, no. Of course not."

Q - "Do you support hiring an armed guard for each and every child in the world, to protect them from pedophiles?"

A - "Well... no. That doesn't seem practical."

Q - "It sounds like you support pedophiles, since you don't want to protect children. You support pedophiles, don't you?"

A - "No, of course not."

Q - "Then hire the armed guards."

A - "I don't think it's even possible to-"

Q - "Admit it. You're a pedophile, aren't you?"

A - "No! Jesus Christ, man."

Q - "A pedophile and a blasphemer! If you don't support protecting kids from pedophiles, then you are a pedophile supporter, or a pedophile yourself, which is just as bad."

A - "Look, just because I don't accept your choice of solutions doesn't mean-"

Q - "Pedophile!"

A - *Sigh* "I give up..."

Q - "He gave up on our children! Monster!"

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Should the one which is worse deserve more or less condemnation by the folks in RWED?

---

C'mon, it's not like we're cheering for sides here. I know that's what some of you keep trying to frame it as, but that's ridiculous. You seem to be saying that any criticism of our own government must be accompanied a more strenuous condemnation of our enemies. Do you really think that the people griping about waterboarding are "pro-terrorism"?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It’s one thing to disagree with a policy, but much of this criticism is not thoughtful disagreement, it’s simply a naïve knee-jerk reaction to an emotional issue, and this leads to an imbalance in the discussion, where the real issue - terrorism - is set aside in favor of finding easier demons to slay, as it were.

---