It took Erich Mancow, right-wing talk radio host, just six seconds to declare waterboarding torture.  He had refused to do that prior to being waterboarded.  The average person is said to last 14 seconds, but Mancow couldn't take it that long, despite the fact that his lungs should be stronger than average from all of his right-wing bloviating on the radio. 

How about sntjohnny or jfoxton?  How long does anyone think they would be able to withstand what they refuse to acknowledge as torture?  I would bet that sntjohnny could last 14 seconds.  Don't know about jfoxton.  I wouldn't last two seconds, but that's because I recognize torture for what it is.

I don't think anyone denied it causes pain Cop. I think the issue is whether or not it is of the degree as to be defined as "toture" in the "cruel and unusual" sense. Otherwise your definition of "torture" becomes so pervasive that you can say "Yeah, the military conducted torture." but you lose any meaningful reason to care.

Perhaps you should address your argument to Mancow.  He took your exact same position until he was waterboarded for six seconds.  So how long do you think you would last before you confessed it was torture in the "cruel and unusual" sense?  Or maybe waterboarding is not so cruel or unusual in your experience?

And, BTW, being stuck repeatedly with needles, forced to look directly into the sun, or even to run on a treadmill could be called torture.  Anything that forces people to undergo unbearable suffering, whether physical or mental, is torture.

I don't think aligning a dislocated shoulder is "cruel and unusual" either. Nor does my not wanting to go through the experience make an iota of difference.

Obviously, you've thought long and hard about this.  For you, at least, the pain of a dislocated shoulder is far preferable to the procedure that will end it. 

This is the same tact abortionists use when they say "Well do you want to raise the kid yourself?" It's just throwing up smoke. It doesn't matter.

I'm not going to ask you to explain the relevance of that remark.  Past experience suggests that there is nothing there to explain.

Then you've lost any reason to care, as "unbearable" is a rather nebulous term.

Not to those who are forced to bear it.  But I remind myself that no one has forced me to read your posts.   

I think involuntary waterboarding is torture under international law.  It's less clear to me that it is torture under the relevant U.S. statute that existed at the time the waterboarding took place.  I think the relevant language is "prolonged" physical or mental distress.  One of the links that you provided that I clicked on invoked 2005 amendments to define waterboarding as torture.   But you can't use 2005 laws against conduct that was committed in 2003

"I'm sure that many modern improvements have been made."

Well, you seem to be utterly ignorant of the fact that the way we waterboarded is nothing like the waterboarding of the past.  For example, you invoked the Japanese.  Well, what did they do?  They filled people's bellies with water until they were distended and then jumped on them to get the water out.  I'd say this is waterboarding in a different class.  This is just one example.

You are equivocating and I'm not going to let you get away with it.

"I will agree with you that one of us is out of touch with the national dialogue, but it isn't me."

Pretty sure it is.

For example, I was listening to NPR and a guy who was against waterboarding was on who acknowledged some ambiguity.  He was still disgusted, but his proposal was reasonable enough:  if it was ambiguous before, render it un-ambiguous and don't attempt to prosecute what the law specifically won't allow.

And this guy was on your side.

"Torture covers a broad range of activities.  Clearly, you think that you can split some significant hairs here, but you are only deluding yourself."

I'm not splitting hairs.  I'm simply pointing out to the linguist that in polite society people don't get to define words however it happens to please them at any given moment.   Torture has a legal definition and it has common usage.  In common usage I think there is a big difference between waterboarding (the way we did it) and, for example, putting people on the rack.

I am not deluding myself.  I'm reflecting reality.  Of course, if you want to define it legally as torture, that's a different story and I'm not addressing that, per se, except to say that in my view, only things that really are torture should be considered torture, and it is an open question if things we do to our own really are torture.

At any rate, if they are torture, then we shouldn't be doing, them.  Not even at SERE.

"Unfortunately, a lot of Democrats caved in to pressure that was generated by Bush and the Republican majority,"

And of course the Democrats had no interest in a war in Iraq.  I mean, they didn't vote for an authorization or anything.

"I am well aware of such legislation, and it is for the courts to sort out all of the meanings and conflicts that exist between statutes and the Constitution."

Oh, that's swell. 

My view is that if it is clear that a law has been broken then enough with the foreplay, just arrest the people you think broke it.  If it isn't clear, you don't hold a witch hunt.  If you wish it had been clear, pass a law so it becomes clear.

"Whether or not Nancy Pelosi endorsed torture is nothing more than a distraction here."

Nonsense.  If Pelosi and any number of other Dems were all aware of these things, they are the last people on earth who should be in charge of a 'truth commission.'

You wouldn't want Bush admin officials heading up a truth commission looking into the question.  I am not going to trust the Dems to do any better.  They had hoped for a one way inquisition.  As it is, they are probably deeply complicit for every thing that you wish to pin solely on the Bush admin.

The reality that Pelosi knew about this stuff is highly relevant, and raises the important question of which other Dems did.  Of course if the Dems denied it, you'd believe them.  Not I.

"Waterboarding was always considered torture by the US government"

Equivocation.

"Just to make it crystal clear to you one more time:  I do not care whether some Democrats are guilty of hypocrisy."

Well that's very noble of you.  It's splendid that you're perfectly content to put the hypocrites in charge of a truth commission. 

"I do care whether we, as a nation, continue to be hypocrites when it comes to forbidding the use of torture."

Equivocation.

I for one am taking the time to speak to my friends and family who are involved in the SERE training to get a better perspective.   You shouldn't think that I have made my mind up on it.   My objection is to the sloppy use of language and the lemming-like rush to hold prosecute what doesn't appear to be prosecutable.

To Cimics you said:

"That's true.  You can, however,"

Well, so much for the rule of law.  Nevermind that it wasn't explicitly illegal at the time.  Fry them anyway!

"use 18th century Constitutional language and common sense."

Since when do you care what the 18th century language was?  I thought the Constitution was a living document?  If you can make it 'live' so that women can terminate their own children under an unexplicit 'right to privacy' because 'times change' then why can't (hypothetically) the Bush admin have done the same thing in light of the modern face of terrorist threats and non-state sponsored violence?  Times change, you know.  Let that Constitution breathe, man.  Let it live!

It's a little tortured to be trying to appeal to the rule of law when your personal philosophy is that the law can adapt- without anyone even bothering to change it (just ram it through the courts!)- because 'modern circumstances' warrant it.

Incidentally, what 18th century language are you referring to?

Also, in your view, do you see cutting off people's fingers as categorically different than waterboarding the way we did it?  What about tying them up and throwing them off of buildings?  Or what about the story, documented by Amnesty International, of the man thrown alive into a meat grinder while his wife and family looked on?  In that instance, was that man treated categorically different than our prisoners?  Do you think, really, that the word 'torture' covers them both?  And what about the wife and family?  They weren't touched, themselves, but surely that psychological experience is of a different order?

I think words should mean things.  If the word 'torture' is thrown about carelessly, even if your quest is sincere, you risk belittling and dishonoring the hordes of people around the world through the ages who really and certainly do deserved the descriptor:  tortured.