Should anybody be charged with a crime for torture?

[Excaliber]

So what part of the Wikipedia definition is inaccurate, in your opinion Dan40, or anyone else for that matter?

Is it the gag reflex you question? Lung damage? Brain damage due to lack of oxygen? Death? Broken bones? What part would you like removed so the women and children can more readily accept a definition that favors the torturer?

Strange, I don't see Cheney or his peer's editing the Wikipedia definition to make it more acceptable. Maybe someone here would like to step up to the plate and handle that right away, since it's SO EASY to edit.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

So what part of the Wikipedia definition is inaccurate, in your opinion Dan40, or anyone else for that matter?

Is it the gag reflex you question? Lung damage? Brain damage due to lack of oxygen? Death? Broken bones? What part would you like removed so the women and children can more readily accept a definition that favors the torturer?

Strange, I don't see Cheney or his peer's editing the Wikipedia definition to make it more acceptable. Maybe someone here would like to step up to the plate and handle that right away, since it's SO EASY to edit.

Wikipedia is not really the best source to use. Sometimes you find an article that is well researched, but most of it seems to be written by people with an agenda on one or the other side on the aisle.

Steve

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

So what part of the Wikipedia definition is inaccurate, in your opinion Dan40, or anyone else for that matter?

Is it the gag reflex you question? Lung damage? Brain damage due to lack of oxygen? Death? Broken bones? What part would you like removed so the women and children can more readily accept a definition that favors the torturer?

Strange, I don't see Cheney or his peer's editing the Wikipedia definition to make it more acceptable. Maybe someone here would like to step up to the plate and handle that right away, since it's SO EASY to edit.

Once again, FROM their website:

Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.


That means, it is NOT a source of reliable information. Therefore it is useless, unless you prefer its propaganda.

Lung damage? Cite one case. To my knowledge, NO liberals HAVE or attempted to cite a single case.

Brain damage due to lack of oxygen? Same as above. If it were a liberal, how would one determine that "brain" damage had occurred?

Death? No cases cited, even by far left liberals

Broken bones? Same as above.

Water boarding is NOT intended to harm anyone. It is a more physical method of sleep deprivation. Both are used to exhaust and disorient the subject, so that his thought processes and reasoning are TEMPORARILY disrupted. [makes the terrorist think as logically as a liberal]

[Excaliber]

If you don't accept the potential for injury from water boarding your not certainly not qualified to define the limits of it's use! Wikipedia's definition stands, in all it's horror, when waterboarding is done without guidelines.

The argument would be better served by stating the benevolent CIA carried it out to limits carefully prescribed by the Government and the 'torture' was surpervised by a doctor to assure the torturee was not seriously injured, or was just 'slightly injured'. Did they cross the line? THATS why we need an investigation, not necessarily a prosecution.

At any rate, the Government does not support waterboarding at the present time, for multiple and various reasons. I don't have a position on that. But I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and justify waterboarding as little more than a swimming exercise either! Just trying to keep the facts straight.