RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] what waterboarding looks like [Politics]

["Hargus, Diana" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Mike Miller
>
>On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Christian M. Cepel wrote:
>
>> I'm going to go out on a limb here and offer my opinion that it is 
>> very likely that each of these members of congress are _far_ more 
>> knowledgeable on the subject than you or I and that they are 
>certainly 
>> _not_ dupes, and _not_ ignorant of what is at stake.
>
>They know how to promote themselves -- they vote for certain 
>things and in return get certain favors or avoid certain 
>punishments.  That's how the game is played.
>
>
>> And neither are they evil.
>
>Some of them are evil.

Define evil please.  Or can we use the Wikipedia defition?

	In religion and ethics, evil refers to the "bad" aspects of the
behaviour and reasoning of human beings -those which are deliberately
void of conscience, and show a wanton desire for destruction. Evil is
sometimes defined as the absence of a good which could and should be
present; the absence of which is a void in what should be. In most
cultures, the word is used to describe acts, thoughts, and ideas which
are thought to (either directly or causally) bring about affliction and
death -the opposite of goodness, which itself refers to aspects which
are life-affirming, peaceful, and constructive. Aspects regarded as
"evil" are thought of as immoral, corrupt, corrupting, inhumane,
selfish, and wicked, and terroristic. .
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil )

I think that pretty much sums up a lot of politicians from both sides,
wouldn't you agree?


>> To clarify for you, the reason they should be re-elected is because 
>> they _did_ vote _for_ the bill.
>>
>> These are people who really know what's at stake and who can 
>actually 
>> read the statutes of the Geneva convention.  While this subject is 
>> uncomfortable, it is one that adults have to approach and make tough 
>> decisions on... which they did.
>
>Here are some things to consider:
>
>(1) does torture work to extract information?
>     Some experts say 'no' -- that should give you pause, at least

Sorry Mike, but but no points for this one, as there are "experts" that
will say anything you pay them for, a la "global warming does not exist"

>(2) if we announce to the world that we torture people, are we 
>not giving
>     up our right to complain when someone tortures our people?

Most certainly!  "Do unto others as you would have done to yourself"
Sound familiar?

>(3) We have never had a problem interpreting the Geneva 
>Convention, which
>     was always held as almost sacred, until now.  Why now?

Because they feel they can get away with it...

>(4) How will "enemy combatant" be defined?

As they see fit, although the definition in 6166 is pretty ambiguous

>(5) If habeas corpus is to be suspended in some cases, how will we ever
>     know if the detainee is being held for legitimate reasons?

Or if your loved one is?

>
>Your comment about "adults" is very peculiar.  Why did you 
>write that?  I don't understand your perspective.  Are you 
>saying that people who do not advocate for torture are living 
>in a children's world of fairy tales?

Hear now, no psycoanlyzing allowed!  :P

>
>> I won't even classify this as torture, but rather psychological 
>> manipulation and intimidation.  When I define torture, it involves 
>> causing vast amounts of pain by the destruction of body elements.
>
>So drowning you to unconsciousness, then resuscitating you and 
>repeating it, over and over and over again -- that would not 
>be torture because it doesn't destroy your "body elements".  
>If we were to apply electric shock to your genitals, but not 
>enough to burn the skin off, that would not be torture.

If I don't permanently scar/injure/disfigure you, but break your mind
into little pieces, essentially killing what makes you "you", does that
not count as torture, if not death (identity death)?

>
>I can see that you've really thought this through carefully.
>
>Mike
>

I wish I could remember the name of a game from Infocomm years ago that
had this as a plot.  It went something like a computer AI simulation
followed the policies and projected them forward to the ruin of society.
That was probably at least 20 years ago.  Anyone else remember it?

Diana 
 
***********************
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: 
This e-mail and any attachments are intended only for those to which it is addressed and may contain information which is privileged, confidential and prohibited from disclosure and unauthorized use under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying of this e-mail or the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited by the sender. If you have received this transmission in error, please return the material received to the sender and delete all copies from your system.

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion