Oddly silent

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote: The word torture is subjective... I believe options that don't result in any physical harm should not be eliminated as a last resort... especially since we've used them on our own soldiers in their training. I'm not going to go back and forth with you on what is or isn't torture, because that really would be torture and I have better things to waste my time on.

Options that don't result in any physical harm are already "allowed". That's not the issue here. Torture is the issue - government sanctioned torture, to be specific. There's a body of evidence (already shared in a previous post and acknowledged by the CIA, itself) that talks about torture methods being used on our own military personnel in SERE training not being the same thing as "real" torture as alleged has been going on for quite some time now.

I believe the reason you don't want to go back and forth on what is or isn't torture is because you have no viable argument to support your position. Facts are facts. Denial of those facts won't make them go away.

Ok ZHawke, lets do this your way, but first lets bring back one of my personal peeves and we can compare and contrast.

Lets take the word "murder". What is your definition of the word murder? If you honestly answer this question, I will continue to play.

Rick wrote: Ok ZHawke, lets do this your way, but first lets bring back one of my personal peeves and we can compare and contrast.

Lets take the word "murder". What is your definition of the word murder? If you honestly answer this question, I will continue to play.

Not playing that game, Rick. Conflating "murder" with "torture" is not the point of this discussion. Torture is torture as defined in codified law, both in this country and in international law. By its own admission, the CIA, by way of CIA personnel and CIA contractors (CIA Report link shared earlier), engaged in torture that went beyond what is considered minimal standards for torture in that codified law and as set forth by the Department of Justice (John Yoo justification) at the time. Even John Yoo has now publicly stated CIA personnel may be legally liable for their actions if the Senate Report turns out to be true.

If you want to get picky about this, even murder has varying degrees of definition as does torture, or, as we are now supposedly calling it, Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. So, defining murder, as you've requested, depends upon (as it does with torture) what kind of murder actually takes place.

The CIA was very concerned about what might be legally permissible prior to engaging in EIT. That's why they went to DOJ for their "opinion" on this issue. It is also stated in the CIA Report that certain CIA personnel were more than a little concerned about some of the activities they were engaging in, both from a personal liability perspective right along with questions they had about whether what they were doing was legal, period.

There is plenty of information available and already shared in this thread on what constitutes "torture" and what does not from an arguably legal standard/perspective. There's a whole lot more out there. I've only begun to scratch the surface, so to speak.

Let's begin with this one: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109s3930enr/...ILLS-109s3930enr.pdf

Continue with this: www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm34-52.pdf

The last one is pretty specific on what is and is not permitted in Army interrogations.

You missed my point, I'm not comparing torture to murder or to anything else for that matter. I just want to talk about the DEFINITION of words and how some people define a word as one thing while others will define the same word as something else. Do you understand what I'm asking now?

So forget about the word torture for now, we probably have different definitions which we can discus after this.

But the word murder should be much easier to universally define right? So I'm just asking you to define the word as you believe is universally recognized. Now if you say you can't define the word murder because there are too many different meanings, then you should be able to understand my dilemma with the word torture.

So again, what is your definition of murder?

Murder...PERSONAL definition, my POV (NO I will not get into a debate about abortion/murder/fetus)...
without looking up Webster's...a WANTON and willful act of taking another's life,without their consent.
That' just off the top of my head...

homeagain wrote: Murder...PERSONAL definition, my POV (NO I will not get into a debate about abortion/murder/fetus)...
without looking up Webster's...a WANTON and willful act of taking another's life,without their consent.
That' just off the top of my head...

Well I wasn't going there but to avoid that would be to avoid the reality that different people have different definitions of different words.

How about targeting a suspect and killing him without his consent or trial? Is that murder, or does the circumstance matter?

Rick wrote: You missed my point, I'm not comparing torture to murder or to anything else for that matter. I just want to talk about the DEFINITION of words and how some people define a word as one thing while others will define the same word as something else. Do you understand what I'm asking now?

So forget about the word torture for now, we probably have different definitions which we can discus after this.

But the word murder should be much easier to universally define right? So I'm just asking you to define the word as you believe is universally recognized. Now if you say you can't define the word murder because there are too many different meanings, then you should be able to understand my dilemma with the word torture.

So again, what is your definition of murder?

I'll suggest you start a new thread on the subject of a "Definition of Murder". I would join in that discussion, but the truth is it does not apply here from my perspective. To me, your question represents an attempt to side track the discussion about torture.

Rick wrote:

homeagain wrote: Murder...PERSONAL definition, my POV (NO I will not get into a debate about abortion/murder/fetus)...
without looking up Webster's...a WANTON and willful act of taking another's life,without their consent.
That' just off the top of my head...

Well I wasn't going there but to avoid that would be to avoid the reality that different people have different definitions of different words.

How about targeting a suspect and killing him without his consent or trial? Is that murder, or does the circumstance matter?

[/b]

Circumstances do NOT matter,the keyword is "consent"... murdered individual had NO say in the
action.JMO

Murder is an act of homicide absent any justification or excuse. Blind rage might explain the homicide, self defense might justify it, which is why there are criminal levels of homicide that aren't murders and some homicides which are not criminal acts at all. Degrees of murder speak to aforethought. A murder which is planned is more heinous to the conscious, and the society, than one which was not; which is why 2nd degree murder isn't punished as harshly as 1st degree murder is.

Apparently, Rick, you've successfully side-tracked this discussion of torture.

Thanks, Obama!!!!!

The killing of an enemy while prosecuting a war is not murder, even when the person killed happens to be a non-combatant that was killed, or so-called "collateral damage".

Where Renegade's analogy gains accuracy is in the fact that waterboarding the accomplice in your own child's abduction would be a violation of their rights, and a violation of the laws protecting those rights, even if the results of that illegal act saved the life of the child. The one waterboarded to obtain the information would have the protection of the law and any results of the act barred as evidence that could be considered in their trial. They would have a civil cause of action against the person who did the waterboarding as well.

The difference, near as I can tell, is that some would not hold it against the waterboarder because it saved the life of the child, but they do hold it against members of the CIA even though it resulted in the lives of those serving in the military being saved. Do I condone the practice as a normal, everyday method to be used by the CIA? Of course not, no one that I know would either. When we are talking about getting UBL who was ultimately responsible for the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people and an ongoing war that puts those who have pledged their lives to protect every citizen in the Union in peril? Not even a close call.

Edited to add: It's called situational ethics, something that all of us are guilty of practicing at one point or another in our lives.