John Yoo and John Stewart

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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

Originally Posted by Cali Coug Translator

I love the way your fur-lined glove feels on my chest.

I'm still trying to understand the subtext of the translation.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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

I have made a good faith effort to answer your questions in the face of an avalanche of distortion and distraction. Don't blame me for your impotence.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm still trying to understand the subtext of the translation.

Waters- your jealousy knows no bounds.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I have made a good faith effort to answer your questions in the face of an avalanche of distortion and distraction. Don't blame me for your impotence.

Impotence? Is that what happens after a discussion like this?

Hm. Didn't think I signed up for that.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Impotence? Is that what happens after a discussion like this?

Hm. Didn't think I signed up for that.

You came into this thread suggesting that I agree waterboarding is torture, and that Geneva permits waterboarding, neither of which is true. You attack me personally when I can't cite you chapter and verse, and you try to make me the issue. You've been unfocused in your responses, and lied in your characterizations of mine.

Forgive me if your whining about not having your questions answered falls a little flat.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

You came into this thread suggesting that I agree waterboarding is torture, and that Geneva permits waterboarding, neither of which is true. You attack me personally when I can't cite you chapter and verse, and you try to make me the issue. You've been unfocused in your responses, and lied in your characterizations of mine.

Forgive me if your whining about not having your questions answered falls a little flat.

You did suggest you agree waterboarding is torture (ironically just after a thread where you threw a fit for not being "precise" enough in my use of a word). That was you, not me. You then cited a guy who also seemed to suggest waterboarding was torture, and you endorsed his views. When I pressed you on why it wasn't an endorsement of the view that waterboarding=torture, you simply said you didn't know and that you assumed there was something else in there which was violated (other than a ban on torture). You then seemed irate that I wanted more of an explanation from you on that point.

Then you said people who don't follow the rules of the Geneva Convention can be waterboarded because they aren't covered by Geneva. I characterized this as a statement that Geneva, according to you, permits some people to be waterboarded at which point you once again threw a fit. I am still awaiting an explanation on how my characterization fails to fit your explanation. Follow along here: Geneva prohibits waterboarding on at least some people (we can both agree on that). You claim the group which can't be waterboarded is limited to those who abide by the Geneva rules on conduct. If you don't abide by the Geneva rules on conduct, you can be waterboarded. So, according to you, a group of nations got together, made an agreement on lots of issues, one of which was that a defined group of people cannot be waterboarded, but people outside that definition have no protection (i.e., can be waterboarded by default). Throw a fit all you want (maybe it will impress somebody), but that has been your argument.

And here we are. At the end of the day, you are standing on the side of torture, and I am standing on the other side. I expect that one day in the hopefully near future, you and others who have argued for torture will look back on this era and realize how insanely far you were willing to go when prompted by fear (much like many did following detainment of the Japanese post-WWII). I think that will be an uncomfortable day for you.

[Archaea]

There's soft torture and hard torture.

Soft results in no permanent physical impairment and hard does.

[Tex]

Let's see if we can dial it down a notch, shall we?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You did suggest you agree waterboarding is torture (ironically just after a thread where you threw a fit for not being "precise" enough in my use of a word). That was you, not me.

I'm going to give you a pass on this one. Personally, I think it's utter nonsense, but you say you legitimately thought I had converted to the waterboarding=torture crowd, so I'll take your word for it.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You then cited a guy who also seemed to suggest waterboarding was torture, and you endorsed his views. When I pressed you on why it wasn't an endorsement of the view that waterboarding=torture, you simply said you didn't know and that you assumed there was something else in there which was violated (other than a ban on torture). You then seemed irate that I wanted more of an explanation from you on that point.

Again, I'm going to try to be gracious and overlook this, despite my disagreement. I've cited a possible phrase in Geneva now that fits your criteria, so why not have a look.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Then you said people who don't follow the rules of the Geneva Convention can be waterboarded because they aren't covered by Geneva. I characterized this as a statement that Geneva, according to you, permits some people to be waterboarded at which point you once again threw a fit. I am still awaiting an explanation on how my characterization fails to fit your explanation. Follow along here: Geneva prohibits waterboarding on at least some people (we can both agree on that). You claim the group which can't be waterboarded is limited to those who abide by the Geneva rules on conduct. If you don't abide by the Geneva rules on conduct, you can be waterboarded. So, according to you, a group of nations got together, made an agreement on lots of issues, one of which was that a defined group of people cannot be waterboarded, but people outside that definition have no protection (i.e., can be waterboarded by default). Throw a fit all you want (maybe it will impress somebody), but that has been your argument.

Your mischaracterization is when you say "Geneva permits some people to be waterboarded." I took that to mean, "Geneva explicitly permits some people to be waterboarded," which it doesn't. What you're saying (is that I'm saying) that Geneva "permits" something because it omits it. That's a very confusing way to put it.

It all boils down to this. Put simply: people who don't meet the Geneva convention requirements don't get Geneva convention protections. I interpret that to include waterboarding. Others, like you, don't. We may disagree, but it's not an inconsistent position.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

And here we are. At the end of the day, you are standing on the side of torture, and I am standing on the other side. I expect that one day in the hopefully near future, you and others who have argued for torture will look back on this era and realize how insanely far you were willing to go when prompted by fear (much like many did following detainment of the Japanese post-WWII). I think that will be an uncomfortable day for you.

Wholly gratuitous and totally uncalled for, to say nothing of emotional and illogical.