John Yoo and John Stewart

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Given that you endorse Theissen's view on waterboarding and the Geneva Convention, and given that you admit you don't actually know what it is in Geneva which prohibits waterboarding (other than you think it isn't torture), are you sure you want to argue it is the left who has a "lack of serious thinking about this issue" which is "emotion-driven instead of rational and logical?"

Sure, and in fact, I think my personal knowledge of the Geneva Convention is totally irrelevant, but I'm not surprised you went there.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Sure, and in fact, I think my personal knowledge of the Geneva Convention is totally irrelevant, but I'm not surprised you went there.

Why would you be surprised? You are arguing that the left is irrational and illogical on the topic, and in the next sentence you admit you don't really understand the topic. Query: how then, do you so matter of factly conclude it is the other guys who are irrational and illogical?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Why would you be surprised? You are arguing that the left is irrational and illogical on the topic, and in the next sentence you admit you don't really understand the topic. Query: how then, do you so matter of factly conclude it is the other guys who are irrational and illogical?

Um, no, that's not what I admitted, and I'm not going to follow you down one of your favorite rabbit holes of distraction.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Um, no, that's not what I admitted, and I'm not going to follow you down one of your favorite rabbit holes of distraction.

This isn't a distraction. It is actually quite central to your point.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

This isn't a distraction. It is actually quite central to your point.

Actually, it's quite not. You're trying to make this about me--my personal knowledge of Geneva, my opinion on whether the Left is logical--rather than the central topic.

If you want to pivot back to waterboarding, this is where we left off before your detour.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Actually, it's quite not. You're trying to make this about me--my personal knowledge of Geneva, my opinion on whether the Left is logical--rather than the central topic.

If you want to pivot back to waterboarding, this is where we left off before your detour.

No, it is about Geneva and torture. The fact that you don't have a response is why the conversation has stalled. Get back to me when you do.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, it is about Geneva and torture. The fact that you don't have a response is why the conversation has stalled. Get back to me when you do.

Response to what? The question of what specifically in Geneva might prohibit waterboarding? Does that even matter? Is it not enough that we mutual agree that it does? Your whole line of thinking is predicated on:

A. Geneva prohibits torture
B. Theissen says Geneva prohibits waterboarding

Therefore

C. Waterboarding must be torture.

That's illogical thinking, regardless of whether I've even heard of the word "Geneva" before. You're the one trying to change the subject, not me.

EDIT: Here's a little more. Again, I can't speak for Theissen. It's a shame Sands wasn't as smart as you to think to ask him this question, since you really seem to be tied up in a wad over it. However, here's a blog post by a guy who is on your side of the coin, and he says this:

Now this practice certainly violates article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention - whether or not we would call it "torture" or merely "cruel treatment" or "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment" is irrelevant from this point of view.

It's entirely possible that the reason Theissen opposes American troops being waterboarded--on the basis of their Geneva protections--is that it constitutes an "outrage upon their personal dignity" while still not being torture.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Response to what? The question of what specifically in Geneva might prohibit waterboarding? Does that even matter? Is it not enough that we mutual agree that it does? Your whole line of thinking is predicated on:

A. Geneva prohibits torture
B. Theissen says Geneva prohibits waterboarding

Therefore

C. Waterboarding must be torture.

That's illogical thinking, regardless of whether I've even heard of the word "Geneva" before. You're the one trying to change the subject, not me.

EDIT: Here's a little more. Again, I can't speak for Theissen. It's a shame Sands wasn't as smart as you to think to ask him this question, since you really seem to be tied up in a wad over it. However, here's a blog post by a guy who is on your side of the coin, and he says this:



It's entirely possible that the reason Theissen opposes American troops being waterboarded--on the basis of their Geneva protections--is that it constitutes an "outrage upon their personal dignity" while still not being torture.

No, it isn't irrelevant. It is fundamental to the discussion. What is waterboarding? What is it about waterboarding that suggests we can't do it to other people? You say the Geneva Conventions don't allow us to waterboard some people and do allow us to waterboard other people. I ask for an explanation, and all I get is "you are tied up in a wad over it." If you don't want to have a discussion, then fine. Don't have one. But don't try to pretend you are just approaching this logically and rationally. To the contrary, I think pro-waterboarders are driven by one primary motivation- fear. You are afraid of terrorists and what they can do to you and your family, so you are willing to do just about anything to them if you think it will keep you safe. That is the antithesis of logic and rational thought.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, it isn't irrelevant. It is fundamental to the discussion. What is waterboarding? What is it about waterboarding that suggests we can't do it to other people? You say the Geneva Conventions don't allow us to waterboard some people and do allow us to waterboard other people. I ask for an explanation, and all I get is "you are tied up in a wad over it."

That is just bull, and you are so not paying attention.

I never said Geneva allows us to waterboard anyone. Ever. You want to make an allegation like that, you'd better be able to back it up.

Here's what I did say (pay attention): the reason American soldiers and legitimate enemy POWs are protected from waterboarding is by virtue of their Geneva status. Further, the reason terrorists and/or unlawful combatants are waterboardable is because they are not protected by Geneva. (Actually, Theissen said all this, and I'm just reiterating it. Credit where it's due.)

I went to great lengths to explain this distinction, again and again. How is it you missed this? Should I put it in bold letters so you will read it this time?

The place where this broke down was when you started to get on my case for not being able to provide you the exact language in Geneva that protects people from waterboarding while not equating it with torture. This is one of your time-honored tactics. You cease to make conversation on the issue, and instead try to make it personal. I make no secret that I'm not a lawyer. I do my best to understand the issues from a layman's perspective and I trust experts that I believe understand it better. Theissen is one of those guys. My view is not "illogical" or "irrational" just because I don't have a degree in international law, and I'm not going to let you drag me into the swamp by trying to make my credentials the issue.

I also apparently got under your skin by calling the Left emotional and illogical, because you've suddenly made that your crusade too. Well it's my opinion (not fact, and thus not provable), I'm entitled to it, and you're not going to change my mind, so deal with it. It's certainly not central to my position.

Lastly, I did finally take some time to search around, and I offered you some possible language in Geneva that could protect against waterboarding, while still not being torture ("outrage upon their personal dignity"). And you ignored it. Big surprise.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

That is just bull, and you are so not paying attention.

I never said Geneva allows us to waterboard anyone. Ever. You want to make an allegation like that, you'd better be able to back it up.

Here's what I did say (pay attention): the reason American soldiers and legitimate enemy POWs are protected from waterboarding is by virtue of their Geneva status. Further, the reason terrorists and/or unlawful combatants are waterboardable is because they are not protected by Geneva. (Actually, Theissen said all this, and I'm just reiterating it. Credit where it's due.)

I went to great lengths to explain this distinction, again and again. How is it you missed this? Should I put it in bold letters so you will read it this time?

The place where this broke down was when you started to get on my case for not being able to provide you the exact language in Geneva that protects people from waterboarding while not equating it with torture. This is one of your time-honored tactics. You cease to make conversation on the issue, and instead try to make it personal. I make no secret that I'm not a lawyer. I do my best to understand the issues from a layman's perspective and I trust experts that I believe understand it better. Theissen is one of those guys. My view is not "illogical" or "irrational" just because I don't have a degree in international law, and I'm not going to let you drag me into the swamp by trying to make my credentials the issue.

I also apparently got under your skin by calling the Left emotional and illogical, because you've suddenly made that your crusade too. Well it's my opinion (not fact, and thus not provable), I'm entitled to it, and you're not going to change my mind, so deal with it. It's certainly not central to my position.

Lastly, I did finally take some time to search around, and I offered you some possible language in Geneva that could protect against waterboarding, while still not being torture ("outrage upon their personal dignity"). And you ignored it. Big surprise.

IOW, you are going to feign righteous indignation and not actually respond to any of the questions I just asked. Got it.