This week’s On The Media opened with an excellent segment on waterboarding. The debate over the term’s meaning became white-hot after Michael Mukasey’s refused to call a spade a spade and acknowledge waterboarding as torture during his Senate hearings to become Attorney General. Copy desks and style mavens also had to wrestle with this key definitional question—which isn’t made any clearer by the fact that several different procedures producing similar effects go by the same name.
If you listen to the piece (which I recommend), you’ll hear Malcolm Nance, a former Army trainer and waterboarding expert, complain that its creeping usage as a metaphor debases debate over its actual usage.
With that in mind, take a look at this passage from Howard Fineman’s most recent Newsweek column:
A campaign is an extension of the candidate, reflecting his or her personality. Bill Clinton’s in 1992 was a brilliant combination of soap opera and floating crap game. George W. Bush’s cold-blooded machine had no compunction about waterboarding Sen. John McCain in 2000 or swift-boating Sen. John Kerry four years later.
Right. That’s the same Senator McCain who was repeatedly beaten while spending five and half years as a North Vietnamese prisoner of war, which also happens to be the same Senator McCain who’s repeatedly denounced waterboarding as antithetical to American values. So, Fineman, next time, instead of cramming in a hot button term without considering its true meaning, just crack open the ol’ thesaurus.



Clint Hendler Wrote
The debate over the term’s meaning became white-hot after Michael Mukasey’s refused to call a spade a spade and acknowledge waterboarding as torture...
padikiller wonders
If, in the name of "professional journalism", a CJR self-proclaimed "watchdog" is willing to declare waterboarding to be "torture"...
One would think that this "watchdog" should be able to summon the testicular fortitude to state his proclamation of presupposed fact in the headline...
"Waterboarding is "serious business'"?!.....
Why not simply state that "Waterboarding is torture", if this is what one means?..
HUH?...
Of course the answer is obvious... Waterboarding is NOT "torture"..... Torture involves the infliction of actualy pain... Inducement of fear is NOT torture.... Every "good cop-bad cop" interrogation tactic would qualify as "torture" otherwise...
REAL torture, by the way, can be seen in the Al-Quaida manual found here:
http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,1783,00.html
Posted by padikiller
on Thu 15 Nov 2007 at 09:07 PM
The world according to Padi, where the dreams he dreams really do come true ... at least to him.
Waterboarding has been prosecuted by the US as a war crime. Consider this:
"The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170_pf.html
Waterboarding does cause physical pain, Padi. It causes the body to go through all of the physical responses that it would if drowning. It is torture and torture is an unreliable means of intelligence gathering as it encourages the victim to lie in order to stop the torture. And how do false leads help your war on terror? That is ... unless you'd like to invade ANOTHER country that has no ties to the terrorist groups who attacked us.
Posted by AhmNee
on Fri 16 Nov 2007 at 04:42 PM
1. Japanese soldiers poured water into the throats of American POW's until they lost consciousness... This is not "waterboarding" as moonbats allege the US to have employed..
2. There is no proof that Americans have employed waterboarding... Merely allegations (conflicting allegations, nonetheless).
3. There is no law against waterboarding, as it is alleged to have been used by Americans overseas....
4. Use of waterboarding, or indeed any act, overseas does not violate American laws. Moonbats should look to laws of foreign nations to protect the civil liberties of suspected terrorists..
5. President Bush entered an Executive Order banning the use of torture... (Moonbats should be thanking him)
Posted by padikiller
on Sat 17 Nov 2007 at 07:57 AM
Translated:
1. If you're careful with your semantics, you can try to say waterboarding isn't actually waterboarding.
Which is why the administration needs to clearly define what they consider torture and say where they draw the line.
2. If you try hard enough to ignore the statements of the Vice President on the use of waterboarding or the fact that the White House will not issue a statement that says we do not and will not use the technique, you can actually fool yourself into believing we don't actually use it.
3. We can pretend there's no law against the practice of waterboarding despite it being against the Geneva Conventions and the National War Crimes Act declares any violation of the Geneva Convention a felony ... in some cases punishable by death.
4. If the above isn't working for you, we can attempt to make another semantic argument that because we torture people in other countries who don't specifically outlaw the practice that the practice isn't actually as despicable as it is. There's still that Geneva Conventions and War Crimes Act thing, however, but we try to convince ourselves that they don't actually exist.
5. President Bush made an empty gesture in hopes that he could bait and switch the American people into believing we're not using torture to interrogate prisoners. Unfortunately, an executive order banning torture is meaningless if you won't actually say what forms of torture are covered by the order and the White House has refused on multiple occasions to define waterboarding as torture and defining what acts constitute torture.
I believe having to get up at 6am is torture but for some reason I don't think that's what they had in mind for the ban. Sure would be nice if the President and CIA would clarify what exactly it IS they have in mind as being banned. It would take a load off of my mind and I think many others who value basic human civil rights.
Posted by AhmNee
on Sun 18 Nov 2007 at 08:10 PM