Now do I have a problem with it being used on Khalid Sheik Mohammad? Nope. So yes, I’m not afraid to say I support torture in that case.

Dash on November 4, 2007 at 8:47 AM

No, sir – I’d say what’s clear is that your statements make no sense whatsoever, provided no substantiated basis for your claim – and your namecalling, like the namecalling techniques used by liberals, add no credibility to your arguments.

Let’s look at your precious definition:

“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”

So – how can an act such as waterboarding which is PROVEN to not create any actual physical harm to an individual, but which could cause an individual who ignores that fact to THINK that they may be harmed qualify as “severe”, or even “pain” or “suffering”. It does not harm or kill people – period. Ergo – your point does not make sense and your definition does NOT substantiate your claim. Secondly, this definition is based on a set of rules applied to LEGAL combatants who are OBEYING the Rules of the Geneva Conventions. This basis does NOT apply to The Terrorists. They did NOT sign the Geneva Conventions – and they DARN sure don’t follow them. Ergo – the use of your definition is, in itself, a falsehood and a lie. It does not apply. It is like solving a Math problem in Polar Coordinates using Cartesian Rules. They don’t match.

I ALSO like this place, and when people post things here that look like they came from a village idiot calling names, yelling at traffic and not displaying cogent thought – it makes ME look bad. Please think before you post and refrain from posting anyting like that. Thank you.

The Koran pee incident…

Why the hell were terrorist prisoners at Gitmo given their guidebook of terror -the Koran- in the first place?

Not many Mein Kampf’s were handed out to Nazi POW’s, if I recall correctly.

I think the grand total was ZERO.

I still read Sullivan even though I don’t agree with much he has to say because it’s important to read what the smartest folks on the other side are saying and why. It also helps remind me that you can be very smart and yet very wrong.

And I do like that feature where readers submit the views out their windows.

A little historical question:

-which nation(s) that the US ever fought strictly obeyed the Geneva Conventions?

Answer:

NONE.

So, the mythical plea that “they will stop obeying them if we violate them” has always been meaningless.

The Imperial Japanese, Nazis, North Koreans/Chinese/Soviets, Viet Namese, etc., all violated the rules for POW’s.

Why is this slight detail ALWAYS overlooked?

As a gay man myself, I once read Andrew with relish; he was my hero, back before he lost his head up his ass. I have no idea what happened to the boy, but he’s become an intellectual fraud. No morally serious person should pay him the slightest heed.

paul006 on November 4, 2007 at 3:15 PM

Nice piece of satire

He is well known though regardless of what you think of him.

Dash on November 4, 2007 at 12:24 PM

Never heard of him and have not missed a thing.

Thanks for the WaPo letter. Brilliant!

georgej on November 4, 2007 at 6:19 AM

Well said.

A little OT:

Meredith Whitney, the analyst who prompted a $369 billion (£177 billion) plunge in the value of US shares on Thursday by issuing a negative note on Citigroup, hit out at Wall Street’s culture of intimidation yesterday after receiving several death threats from investors in the bank.

Ms Whitney, a CIBC analyst who is married to the former World Wrestling Entertainment champion Death Mask, prompted a near 7 per cent drop in Citigroup’s shares on Thursday, after suggesting that the bank needed to raise more than $30 billion to restore its capital cushion.

She also downgraded her recommendation on Citigroup’s shares to “market underperform” in the note that set off America’s biggest stock market decline since August.

Ms Whitney, Forbes’s second-highest ranked stock picker for 2007, told The Times: “People are scared to be negative, especially when a company has such a wide holding. Clients are not pleased with my call and I have had several death threats.

“But it was the most straightforward call I’ve made in my career and I am surprised my peer analysts have been resistant. It’s so straightforward, it’s indisputable.”

MB4 on November 4, 2007 at 3:34 AM

Needs more Austrian Economics…

I loved this guy’s letter to the Washington Post on Friday:

What It’s Like to Be Waterboarded

I find it interesting that waterboarding “has been prosecuted in U.S. courts since the late 1800s and was regarded by every U.S. administration before this one as torture” ["The Waterboarding Dodge," editorial, Oct. 30] but was routinely used during the training of U.S. military air crews in survival, escape, resistance and evasion. I do not recall the prosecution of anyone in the Navy’s chain of command for this “torture.”

While I considered my personal experience with waterboarding a learning experience (it worked, and I talked), it was no more difficult or demeaning than my near-drowning during underwater helicopter escape training or the physical and mental challenges presented during Plebe Summer at the U.S. Naval Academy.

A possible solution to the “torture” debate may simply be to train captives as members of the U.S. military.

CHARLES E. GEYER JR.

Fairfax Station

Some gay writer.

Dork B. on November 4, 2007 at 11:26 AM

He doesn’t look gay joyful to me

Wade on November 4, 2007 at 11:10 AM

Some gay writer.

Heck, who needs water boarding when we have The Folsom Street Fair and its sponsors, like Dungeon Beds?

It isn’t torture if they have a “safe word”.

Hopefully, this clears that ALL up. Thank you.

grtflmark on November 4, 2007 at 1:54 AM

What’s clear is you’re a little off balance there sir. I like this place, when people post things that look like they came from a mental patient it makes me look bad. Please breathe deep and refrain from posting your lunacy at all let alone in bold.

Is waterboarding torture? Under this definition: “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” Yes I would say it’s certainly torture. It’s also not pulling fingernails out or various other nasty things, but I cant deny it falls in that description.

Now do I have a problem with it being used on Khalid Sheik Mohammad? Nope. So yes, I’m not afraid to say I support torture in that case.

For terrorists and enemy combattants, I do not categorically rule out torture if (1) time is of the essence, and (2) American lives are at stake. I do not categorically condemn torture, in other words. It has its place when used against captured terrorists. Its reliability is suspect, especially when used “routinely.” The Geneva Conventions forbid torture if applied to PRISONERS OF WAR. But as terrorists do not honor the “rules of war,” I have no qualms about making terrorists ineligable for the protections afforded by the Conventions.

Hey, all they (Al Qaeda, Taliban, etc.) have to do is obey the rules of war and this becomes a moot issue.

I do not consider waterboarding to be torture, The physiological pressure is subordinated by the psychological. Hence, it is a valid interrogation technique that can be used when necessary.

I do not consider sleep deprivation to be torture except when used for routine domestic crime interrogation. It is a valid technique when used against captured enemy combatants and terrorists.

I do not consider manipulating room temperature to be torture (unlike Dick “Turban” Durbin). Neither frostbite nor heatstroke are the result of its use.

I do not consider the use of drugs to obtain information to be torture.

No doubt there are liberals reading this blog that are upset and peeing in their pants in righteous indignation. Too bad. The lives of Americans are more important that your sensibilities.

This entire fretting about “torture” by the left and the opposition to Gitmo is an attempt to sabotage the war. It is not a “civil rights” issue because captured ENEMY COMBATANTS not following the “rules of war” do NOT HAVE any rights, especially the one provided to POWs, because they have voluntarily surrendered any such rights.

Meredith Whitney, the analyst who prompted a $369 billion (£177 billion) plunge in the value of US shares on Thursday by issuing a negative note on Citigroup, hit out at Wall Street’s culture of intimidation yesterday after receiving several death threats from investors in the bank.

“But it was the most straightforward call I’ve made in my career and I am surprised my peer analysts have been resistant. It’s so straightforward, it’s indisputable.”

Do not let your son date him.

pat on November 4, 2007 at 2:56 AM

Hunh?

Harry Potter was the favorite to be read to prisoners at Club Gitmo.

El Guapo on November 3, 2007 at 11:17 PM

I’ve always wondered why the Gitmo guards haven’t stood/sat outside the cells reading the Bible.

/sarc (NOT)