But not more informed than the CIA. The army doesn't waterboard remember.
Irrelevant. The Army doesn't torture either.
But not more informed than the CIA. The army doesn't waterboard remember.
Are you saying that only the ARMY, Navy, Air Force, and Marines are bound by the Geneva Convention and the War Crimes Act when dealing with enemy combatants in a foreign arena?Treaties are signed with nations, however many only deal with warfare between standing armies. Their scope does not extend to non-military agencies.
Okay, show me a source outside the administration and it's talking heads that has stated waterboarding is not torture. If it is highly contested then there should be a pretty equal number of responses on both sides. McCain says it is torture, the senate says it is torture, the house says it is torture, the SCOTUS says it is torture, the Geneva convention says it is torture, the UN says it is torure, etc, etc.
Vague speak at best...effective at what? Surely he can sight relevant information to counter all the official stances, such as the one expressed by General Patraeus and the Army, to the contrary...many of which are actual case studies and not just opinions.
Are you saying that only the ARMY, Nave, Air Force, and Marines are bound by the Geneva Convention and the War Crimes Act when dealing with enemy combatants in a foreign arena?
Let me see if I follow this logic, because the argument has been made several times that there is a significant and important psychological difference between people waterboarded during training - where the person has the mental safety net of knowing it's training - versus people waterboarded for interrogation - where the person has no mental safety net.And again, context matters. I've volunteered for things that were quite painful in the past, it doesn't mean suddenly it'd be no big deal if those same things were done to me against my will by a foreign government.
Playboypenguin said:Just for fun...I will offer a prize to the first person that successfully guesses my MOS (either old or new nomenclature) based on my posts.
Therefore, if a person wanted to protest torture in general, they would experience less pain and mental anguish by volunteering to have their fingernails ripped out in public or to have their genitals electrocuted in public. After all, they would have the mental safety net of knowing it's being done in a safe environment.
For some reason, I think you could find more volunteers for public waterboarding than for public fingernail ripping or public genital electrocution. I wonder what accounts for that difference?
Therefore, if a person wanted to protest torture in general, they would experience less pain and mental anguish by volunteering to have their fingernails ripped out in public or to have their genitals electrocuted in public.
Taboo on national geographic is one of the best shows ever.Though I suppose there are entire subcultures that would suggest that one man's torture could be another man's pleasure, from cutters to some of your more out there sexual fetishes.
Yes, I think they would experience less mental anguish if they voluntarily did that than if they were forced.
I must admit I'm not up to speed on the current (no pun intended) state of genital electrocution, but what's the physical injury involved there? I would have thought that, except in extreme cases, there would be only pain.But yes, it is arguable that somebody would experience less psychological injury by voluntarily undergoing the treatments mentioned...but considering the physical injury involved it's probably pretty hard to find volunteers to really study it.
Same type of injury that could result in hooking any part of the body to a car battery: severe nerve and tissue damage.I must admit I'm not up to speed on the current (no pun intended) state of genital electrocution, but what's the physical injury involved there? I would have thought that, except in extreme cases, there would be only pain.
So you are saying that there is always severe nerve and tissue damage? You words say "could," but the implication leans toward always. And so I ask in search of clarity.Same type of injury that could result in hooking any part of the body to a car battery: severe nerve and tissue damage.
My words were very clear.So you are saying that there is always severe nerve and tissue damage? You words say "could," but the implication leans toward always. And so I ask in search of clarity.
Of course. However there's a significant difference between accidentally touching a hot wire with your finger and jerking away immediately and having someone apply the current of a 12 volt car battery to your family jewels.I've dabbled with electronics on an amateur basis around vehicles and my home, and have had a few nasty jolts. So have friends of mine. I don't know anyone who has ever had severe nerve and tissue damage due to electricity. Therefore, there must be a range above which severe nerve and tissue damage does occur, and a range below which severe nerve and tissue damage does not occur.
You also have to take into account that even without severe nerve and tissue damage there can be permanent damage to the reproductive system. Then of course there's the psychological fear of exposing one's coin purse to any kind of damage. And don't forget the extreme pain.If there is a lower level that is still torture but does not cause severe nerve and tissue damage, then the issue of severe nerve and tissue damage cannot be the reason why protesters have voluntarily submitted to waterboarding but have not voluntarily submitted to genital electrocution.
The specialists do not feel it is effective but the powers that be wish to keep it around because it is a useful tool.
What the 'experts' show opposite about waterbording, and the bloodthirst of 'people like Bush', and these studies showing exactly the opposite.
Unless one was drafted into the service then it most certainly is voluntary. One can refuse to take on whatever assignment requires that kind of training with severe consequences but being thrown in jail for disobeying orders is a hell of a lot different than being forced to do something by enemy captors.A bit, no, QUITE a bit of a stretch to call ANYTHING at POW training voluntary.
You mean part of the intelligence community. The head of the Defense Intelligence Agency has stated that the Army field manual gives his people the tools to do their job.And again, I ask (since the only answer so far has been 'It's not effective but is useful') why would our intelligence people want to retain this tool if it is not effective?