Defense attorney: Bradley Manning a whistleblower

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Kanluwen**

I like how you just lumped them as "sick feths". That lends credence to your argument and makes you seem completely impartial.

**Jimsolo**

Point of symantics: drowning requires death to be drowning. Waterboarding can't actually be drowning unless you die. Much like electrocution, the word implies a method of death, not a method of endangerment.

So, simulating the effects of drowning is a good way to describe waterboarding. The same description could also be applied to the act of holding someone's head under water until they went unconscious, and then resuscitating them. Both of which are pretty terrible activities.

**Medium of Death**

The thread that burns twice as bright burns for half as long - and you have burned so very, very brightly, thread.

I love the back and forths in this thread. Has been a hoot.

I don't think waterboarding is the "low end" of the scale. It certainly would appear to be from how it's described, but I think seeing it in practice is pretty scary/intense.

**Monster Rain**

Well, we are talking about a spectrum that involves some excessively horrible things.

No one would say that being waterboarded is a picnic.

**AlexHolker**

Kanluwen wrote:
I like how you just lumped them as "sick feths". That lends credence to your argument and makes you seem completely impartial.

Don't insult me with this bs, Kanluwen. If someone takes joy in raping and torturing prisoners, if they can pose over the corpse of a man they tortured to death with a thumbs-up and a gak-eating grin, there is something deeply wrong with them. Don't hide behind this feigned concern about my choice of terminology.

Jimsolo wrote:
Point of symantics: drowning requires death to be drowning. Waterboarding can't actually be drowning unless you die. Much like electrocution, the word implies a method of death, not a method of endangerment.

Drowning requires someone to be in the process of becoming drowned - if someone is struggling in deep water at the beach, you don't wait until they're dead and buried to say they were drowning.

In fact, the World Health Organisation agrees with me:

...Surveillance, however, has been hampered by the lack of a uniform and internationally accepted definition that permits all relevant cases to be counted. To develop a new definition, an international consensus procedure was conducted.... The consensus was that the new definition should include both cases of fatal and nonfatal drowning. After considerable dialogue and debate, the following definition was adopted: “Drowning is the process of experiencing respiratory impairment from submersion/immersion in liquid.” Drowning outcomes should be classified as: death, morbidity, and no morbidity....

**Jihadin**

Think a lot of you all need to experience a "water boarding" session to have a better grasp on what it is. Please post it on youtube and provide link here. 15-20 mins duration pls.

Please have some serious friends you can TRUST if attempted. Also be aware. Nut checks are allowed

**Medium of Death**

Monster Rain wrote:
Well, we are talking about a spectrum that involves some excessively horrible things.

No one would say that being waterboarded is a picnic.

True. I guess it gets really complicated to quantify when you try and compare physical pain with psychological distress.

This causes me both.

Spoiler:

**djones520**

Medium of Death wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
Well, we are talking about a spectrum that involves some excessively horrible things.

No one would say that being waterboarded is a picnic.

True. I guess it gets really complicated to quantify when you try and compare physical pain with psychological distress.

This causes me both.

Spoiler:

I'd fully support a war crimes trial over that.

**Kanluwen**

AlexHolker wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
I like how you just lumped them as "sick feths". That lends credence to your argument and makes you seem completely impartial.

Don't insult me with this bs, Kanluwen. If someone takes joy in raping and torturing prisoners, if they can pose over the corpse of a man they tortured to death with a thumbs-up and a gak-eating grin, there is something deeply wrong with them. Don't hide behind this feigned concern about my choice of terminology.

The problem is that you are assuming that EVERY SINGLE PERSON involved in the process was involved in the abuses.

They clearly were not since it was military personnel who reported the incidents as abuses.

**Jihadin**

She looked good in Grease with all leather 8)

**CptJake**

whembly wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:
I would think that one could survive waterboarding as long as you keep the idea in your head that you will survive the incident. The thrashing that your body does involuntarily might cause injury, but that's different than bamboo shoots right?

I dunno... can you be fatally wounded with bamboo shoots under the fingernails?

Depends on if infection sets in.

**Monster Rain**

CptJake wrote:
whembly wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:
I would think that one could survive waterboarding as long as you keep the idea in your head that you will survive the incident. The thrashing that your body does involuntarily might cause injury, but that's different than bamboo shoots right?

I dunno... can you be fatally wounded with bamboo shoots under the fingernails?

Depends on if infection sets in.

You can certainly be permanently disfigured from that sort of procedure.

I'm not sure where the "fatally wounded" prerequisite came into play.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Medium of Death wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
Well, we are talking about a spectrum that involves some excessively horrible things.

No one would say that being waterboarded is a picnic.

True. I guess it gets really complicated to quantify when you try and compare physical pain with psychological distress.

This causes me both.

Spoiler:

That song...

It haunts my dreams.

**Jimsolo**

AlexHolker wrote:
Jimsolo wrote:
Point of symantics: drowning requires death to be drowning. Waterboarding can't actually be drowning unless you die. Much like electrocution, the word implies a method of death, not a method of endangerment.

Drowning requires someone to be in the process of becoming drowned - if someone is struggling in deep water at the beach, you don't wait until they're dead and buried to say they were drowning.

In fact, the World Health Organisation agrees with me:

...Surveillance, however, has been hampered by the lack of a uniform and internationally accepted definition that permits all relevant cases to be counted. To develop a new definition, an international consensus procedure was conducted.... The consensus was that the new definition should include both cases of fatal and nonfatal drowning. After considerable dialogue and debate, the following definition was adopted: “Drowning is the process of experiencing respiratory impairment from submersion/immersion in liquid.” Drowning outcomes should be classified as: death, morbidity, and no morbidity....

Hmmm...well, while the dictionary disagrees with the WHO, I'll accept that you can be in the process of drowning without actually completing the process of drowning.

So, point conceded. My bad.