Quote:



The primary definition in that dictionary example (under noun) specifically relates to inflicting pain as a means of obtaining information -- whether it saves lives, increases profits, or affects classroom behaviour, as examples, the reason is irrelevant.

That's one of the problems with torture. You either commit this type of act as a nation, or you stand against it. Torturing "rarely, unless there's a really, really good reason" puts a nation in the former camp, not the latter, no matter how much it may seem that way.

Apart from physical torture's long and proven history of providing inconsistent results in general, why would we want to advocate use of a method (waterboarding) in which brain damage of the suspect (through oxygen deprivation) over sustained use is a near certainty? This defies all logic to me. To use a technique which has a large probability of causing negative effects on the very organ responsible for retrieving the information you wish to access is illogical. It would be one thing if waterboarding was just about inflicting the fear of drowning alone, but these other aspects make it repugnant.





No the goal isn't the information itself, it's the safety of the civilian population, ours. Therefore your definition doesn't fit. Call it a repugnant act, but it still doesn't make it torture by the definition you provided. /discussion


@Big Vagina

According to the second article I posted it was a very similar situation, oh, and it wasn’t torture. Nice how you tried to link the two, Abu Ghraib and KSM, but like usual you fail.

Quote:


(i suppose trying them in our military courts would be an option, if i believed for one second they would get a fair trial)



Are you saying Bin Ladins driver didn’t get a fair trial?