John Yoo and John Stewart

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's not sophisticated at all, because that's a total distortion of what Thiessen said.

He didn't say "because we are an upstanding country." Rather, he said, "because we follow Geneva."

He didn't say "the bad people." He said, "terrorists who don't follow Geneva."

It's a very solid argument which has the support of international law. I recognize that upsets you, but distorting the argument does not strengthen your position.

Support of international law? You must know that is a total fabrication.

The irony of the position in the video is that he is accepting waterboarding is torture. Geneva prohibits torture. If he says people can't waterboard our soldiers because Geneva prohibits it, he is accepting that waterboarding=torture. This isn't a position the right has taken in the past (nor you, until this thread). It is shameful and appalling that anyone would argue that torture should be permitted, and it is morally bankrupt to suggest the test for deciding when we can torture people is our analysis of whether or not they adhere to the requirements of international treaties.

[Tex]

I'm not going to discuss this with you as long as you insist on distorting my position.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm not going to discuss this with you as long as you insist on distorting my position.

Where did I distort your position?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Where did I distort your position?

I'm not going to play this game with you.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm not going to play this game with you.

Not playing a game.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Not playing a game.

Then call it your Martha Coakley-Curt Schilling moment. I can't believe anyone would think that I believe waterboarding is torture, given the body of statements I've ever said on the topic over the last ... what, 2 years maybe?

If you can't get what I meant when I said "exactly" then I really have nothing further to talk with you about.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Then call it your Martha Coakley-Curt Schilling moment. I can't believe anyone would think that I believe waterboarding is torture, given the body of statements I've ever said on the topic over the last ... what, 2 years maybe?

If you can't get what I meant when I said "exactly" then I really have nothing further to talk with you about.

If you meant something other than "exactly," then perhaps "exactly" wasn't the word you were looking for. Feel free to rephrase.

It isn't just that statement, either. You then endorsed the viewpoint of the person in the video who argues that waterboarding is in violation of the Geneva Convention, but we can still use it because the detainees aren't covered by the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention prohibits "torture." It doesn't specifically prohibit waterboarding. To accept that waterboarding is covered by the Geneva Convention is to accept that waterboarding is torture. You endorsed that view (and said "exactly" in response to my argument), and that has created the confusion.

This isn't a game I am playing, these are your statements and arguments. If they don't make sense to you, imagine how we feel.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If you meant something other than "exactly," then perhaps "exactly" wasn't the word you were looking for. Feel free to rephrase.

Fine. "Exactly, except that waterboarding isn't torture." Good enough for you, counselor?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It isn't just that statement, either. You then endorsed the viewpoint of the person in the video who argues that waterboarding is in violation of the Geneva Convention, but we can still use it because the detainees aren't covered by the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention prohibits "torture." It doesn't specifically prohibit waterboarding. To accept that waterboarding is covered by the Geneva Convention is to accept that waterboarding is torture. You endorsed that view (and said "exactly" in response to my argument), and that has created the confusion.

I don't know exactly what provision of Geneva Theissen thinks would be violated by waterboarding, but I guarantee it isn't the prohibition on torture. He explicitly says it isn't, and he uses the fact that American servicemen are waterboarded to underscore that point.

Look at what Sands offers in return: Theissen's book is "terrifically entertaining fiction." His arguments are "straight out of Monte Python." Theissen should submit himself to waterboarding, says Sands, and suggests some people believe that Theissen might be complicit in torture by merely writing in defense of waterboarding!

That raft of nonsense--non sequiturs, all--exposes the lack of serious thinking about this issue on the Left. It's hyperbolic and emotion-driven instead of rational and logical.

[MikeWaters]

American soldiers are waterboarded against their will?

I need a source for this one.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Fine. "Exactly, except that waterboarding isn't torture." Good enough for you, counselor?



I don't know exactly what provision of Geneva Theissen thinks would be violated by waterboarding, but I guarantee it isn't the prohibition on torture. He explicitly says it isn't, and he uses the fact that American servicemen are waterboarded to underscore that point.

Look at what Sands offers in return: Theissen's book is "terrifically entertaining fiction." His arguments are "straight out of Monte Python." Theissen should submit himself to waterboarding, says Sands, and suggests some people believe that Theissen might be complicit in torture by merely writing in defense of waterboarding!

That raft of nonsense--non sequiturs, all--exposes the lack of serious thinking about this issue on the Left. It's hyperbolic and emotion-driven instead of rational and logical.

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?"