Quote:


No it doesn’t make me feel any better, it just the way life is, either people are conservatives or they’re liberals. They usually fall into one or the other all by them selves, two party system you know. Although, both are quite willing to jam their beliefs down someone else’s throat.




People AREN'T JUST conservatives or liberals -- those are just the two parties in the US with mediocre enough platforms to try to run and garner a significant enough share to hold office. There are a lot more viewpoints and sides -- maybe this is why you can only call other people liberals when they don't agree with your perspective -- does that make you a conservative?

Quote:


I don’t see my example, KSM being water boarded to save lives, in the definition you provided.




You won't find it under any other definition in a dictionary either -- because the specifics of the situation don't matter so long as the roles being portrayed by the actors involved match the definition. The definition pertains to an aggressor human dominating a captive prisoner, not specific situation # 222189712897. Don't play thick with me -- if you are truly not familiar with how a dictionary works when providing a definition for an act or scenario, then you should get educated before attempting to argue whether an act is torture or not.

Quote:

Was he in Gitmo, water boarding KSM himself? If not he hardly pertains to this discussion. This is what liberals like to do though, throw out Bush’s name to invoke the Bush hate for the sole purpose of misdirection.



I used Bush's name as an example. You can I tell I did so, because I put "(for example)" after the use of his name. Again, the reading comprehension seems to be lacking here, but calling out people as supposed "liberals" does nothing to help your argument.

Attempting to identify me as your partisan enemy or something doesn't refute the facts anything I post, so keep peppering your responses with those if it makes you feel better. If anything, it shows how small your worldview is, in that it would seemingly be impossible to disagree with you if someone was a conservative. I was raised to think for myself, so I agree and disagree with whomever I feel like, without needing the groupthink partisan mentality for reinforce me in some kind of "us against them" rallying cry.

Quote:


Context matters. See my KSM example above.




Context doesn't matter -- that's why being a country who doesn't torture has prestige. No matter what the excuse, no matter what the "threat", a country with higher standards doesn't resort to barbarianism no matter what comes up.

Your position seems to be the same as saying :
"I don't bang trannies. Last night I was hard up, and this guy was a really hot chick, so I banged shim. But I didn't bang a tranny -- I just did what I had to do". How relevant was the context there? It doesn't matter what you would normally do. It matters what you do when the chips are down and you're desperate.

(actually that example sounds more like ChristianXXX's resume... I kid, I kid...)

Quote:


Quote:


From the known history of prisoners being waterboarded in US custody :




Seems rather unfair to lump every instance of possible abuse into one pile and call it all torture, all justified, or all anything.




Waterboarding is torture. All instances where waterboarding was used are instances of torture. The KSM example is one amongst many equals, if only notable because they did it one-hundred-odd times in a short period.

Quote:


The act itself does not constitute torture. Context matters. If I inflict excruciating pain on my drive home, do they call it torture or a collision?




If you satisfied all three parts of the definition somehow, then yes, you would meet the dictionary definition of it. Are you really that new to how definitions of words and phrases work in English?

Quote:


Wrong, as I’ve stated it was done to save lives.




Do you comprehend how chains of command work? The interrogator used a technique on a prisoner. He did so for no reason other than to obtain information. That is his role in the act. The interrogator does so with no preconception as to whether the act will save lives or end lives. The interrogator is the torturer. He did the act on request of his superiors (in this case, leaders/intelligence apparatus of a nation-state). They are the ones potentially attempting to save lives through execution of decisions they make (hence why they are called executives), but they're also the ones who take the blame later on for the consequences of their decisions alongside the people who carried them out.

It is also interesting how you attempt to refute the dictionary definition of torture by ("as you told me") the supposed manner in which the act being carried out was intended to be perceived (supposedly 'not torture'). You can have perceived reasons all day long without contradicting the defined name our civilization has given the act -- torture.