That is just silly.

I don't approve of most forms of torture. I do approve of some forms. To attempt a gross over-simplication and say that I would therefore simply approve of torture is misleading, and is the exact reason that I'm using specifics to convey my point.

You do know that the basis of written communication involves using words which most properly convey the message one is trying to get across, right? Therefore, by simply saying "Aramike approves of torture" inadequately describes my position. However, the words I used to present which methods I do approve of COMPLETELY describes my position.

This is like fifth-grade stuff, man.

And how is my position "impossible to defend"? That is also a silly statement. I'm defending my position just fine, thank you. Also, you are not the arbiter of what position is correct and what's not. That's why people debate differentiating points of view.

Erm, again, I'm not saying that waterboarding isn't torture. You should read what I write and skip over Tribesman's attempts to make a point for me, so he has something to attempt to counter.

Let me make this clear (for the umpteenth time) - waterboarding is a FORM OF TORTURE that I support when used following specific guidelines. Period. Case closed. No redefining.

Agreeing with something is NOT redefining it. Redefining something is applying a different definition to a word. I am not doing that. It IS torture.

Seriously, can I make this any easier for you lefties? Geez...

:har::har::har:

No it isn't, you either support torture or you don't , torture is clearly defined , there is no middleground in this case , something is either torture or it isn't.
Torture is torture , simple as that, you cannot rename torture as "torture" and pretend its somehow OK
Because torture is indefensible , which is why some of your politicians are wriggling like hooked worms trying to get off the barb they have placed themselves upon

Wow, this is tedious:Already said I support certain forms of torture, and there clearly is a middleground. You do know what "conditional statements" are, right?

You are suggesting that someone who supports waterboarding must also support all other forms of torture. That's not a very intelligent suggestion, as I will now prove easily prove it wrong:

I support waterboarding.
I do not support yanking somone's fingernails out.

See? I win.Since when does putting a word in quotes change the word?

Not trying to be insulting here, but is English your first language?

It would be similar to me saying that a Mini is a "car". Clearly it is a car, and using quotes don't change it. What the quotes implies is what I feel about the car itself.

Got it?

You support torture , you do not support torture .
Yeah thats a win :doh:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...ole-deepens/p/

Aside - I find it interesting that some of those who decry government intrusion into private life seem to be perfectly happy with government exercising the powers of arbitrary arrest and torture.

Actually tribesman, you are partially correct and I was partially incorrect. Afghanistan was a signatory at the time, thus they would be covered n theory. Iraq however was not a signatory and did not declare ratification until well after. However, be that as it may, I am not above admitting a mistake, and I was in fact incorrect. One could argue that both ratified the treaty at various times.

Well after ? you mean Iraq ratified it over 52 years ago ?
OK that aside , one easy way to see if the conventions apply .
You came out with the some of the same arguements Bush tried , those arguements have since been put before the courts on numerous occasions , the arguements have fallen at every fence . It is the failure of these arguements which now has some politicians scurrying to distance themselves from actions they approved with the very silly legal advice Bush got his lawyers to peddle
actually you couldn't really argue on that , it is a clearly established fact . but as I said earleir even if neither Iraq or afghanistan had ratified the convention it would still apply as the United States is bound as a high contracting party that was the occupying power

I agree with your last line. In my mind I really do think Obama came in with good intentions and a mind free of the hypocracy. I think he wants to clear the air as it were. As far as the election losers pushing the 'perfect' ploy, it backfired. Obama supporters believe he is perfect, etc. The problem he faces is the old school DC way of getting things done. Personally I do not mind he released these memos. They would come out sooner or later anyway. I do not think he thought it would cut as deep as it looks to be doing. As far as the pictures, I do not need to see them. I believe it was done. Do I believe it was right to do it. Not really but my response in the thread concerning this is I do not care at this juncture. There is a plethora of other issues that need immediate attention.

That's why the english language has additional words.

Like, "certain", and "specifically", along with other words to identify the "certain" and "specific".

:har::har::har::har:

If someone asks you what kind of car you drive the answer isn't "car".

torture is torture Aramike .

Do you feel the same way about those who ordered the torture?


EDIT - Matt Yglesias sums it up pretty well here - http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar...si-presser.php

Certainly. But as most of these go, somehow this will fall into the murky waters and be forgotten like most issues such as this that involve high power government employees.

I don't think that something like this should be allowed to fade away.

Not when it seems that the Vice President of the US tortured people in order to find excuses for going to war.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...ified-scandal/

I believe it will Tchocky. Things like this receive late night phone calls and hush hush meetings. Things are sorted behind closed doors. The media is not given information. Once it is off the TV screens and out of the papers/internet the short rememberance of Americans kicks in. But thinking about it, what Pelosi said yesterday was quite strong. She actually said the CIA lied. By doing so she has greatly underminded the image of the CIA and splashed on a face of distrust now for the agency. If she is correct and the CIA did in fact 'mis-lead' the Congress then we do have a very bad issue within this agency. I do not think that is the case because Chaney has been pushing to get these memos release concerning what was obtained by torturing. He has been denied. So, there is something there. It will boil down to how much the high power individuals involved want to go with it. I'm guessing a draw. All parties involved will be in hot water. How to avoid that? Say nothing at all and let it fade into the background with the other noise.

Today I watched Pelosi on the hot coals. She has changed here story a few times and looks to be a bit flustered indicating to me she is cornered.