Nah, I just meant he was being sarcastic and flippant just before he got waterboarded.

It now sounds a bit like I'm trying to make you feel guilty for posting those pictures, which wasn't meant to happen :( sorry :)

No, just confused lol.

^ agreed

Waterboarding was used on precisely 3 people.

All of them were well-known and major terrorist figures, this "according to current and former US intelligence officials" as has been repeated in numerous articles for quite a while now.

One problem:

It was a ratings hoax

(Note that this is 4 links above, not one.  The last one thoroughly debunks it.)

The newbusters article actually has an update where the mention getting a callback from Mancow on the story and he admits it wasn't real.

"...it wasn't supposed to be a REALLY real waterboarding to begin with..."

They even talk about his post-hoax interview on Olbermann and that they might have known it was a hoax and done the interview anyways (although they were allegedly quite angry when they found out).

Things like waterboarding are what experts who understand the "lines we should not cross" came up with to go as close to the line as possible without crossing it.  This is why the protocols for waterboarding, which you read about when you read on this subject, are not the same as they were 80, 40, or even 20 years ago. And now that a few people have found out "how the sausage is made" so-to-speak, it offends their wussified sensibilities.  Sensibilities they wouldn't have the luxury of in the first place without the people who find that line.

Nobody is debating whether there is or is not a line of "going to far", the simple fact is that the line has been defined and the argument that waterboarding, as used under current policy, crosses it is tenous at the absolute best. Despite all of the crap that gets thrown around about how it is illegal.

We prosecuted the Japanese in WWII for it?  Not quite - we prosecuted people for a lot of things but nobody was prosecuted for just waterboarding.  It was mentioned in the trials but all of the prosecutions for torture were for actual torture like shoving bamboo under fingernails, letting bamboo grow through a man's torso, etc... Nobody was prosecuted for just plain ole waterboarding. (Note that waterboarding is not water curing, water torture, etc... and that the only time it was ever discussed in a trial was amongst real torture.)

As far as I can tell this issue actually only comes up in a single case, the Yukio Asano case, but he was convicted for lots of things..including "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture (different from waterboarding); burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward"

And the form of waterboarding he actually did use was without several safety precautions we require as standard practice.  Specifically he poured water directly into the mouth and nose which allowed it to get into the lungs, etc... Existing protocols require something to block water from actually entering the respitory system of the subject - something that significantly reduces the chance of mental/physical injury.  Hence "to the line without crossing it".

We use it on innocent or potentially innocent people?  Nope - we've used it on 3 high profile and well-established known terrorist entities.  And even then ONLY after we tried standard methods first.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, has been able to reconcile the FACT that we train our troops under waterboarding.  If people honestly believe that waterboarding is torture then you also should believe that the US Military, as a matter of active policy, tortures its soldiers and intentionally and knowingly inflicts long-term mental trauma and/or physical anguish to those men.

So the anti-waterboarding argument might have at least a shred of credability if you guys showed some outrage at the "torture" of US soldiers by the US government instead of showing that outrage only when it happens to three terrorist who are among the worst of the worst.  The terrorist shouldn't even be on the table as part of the discussion while soldiers are subjected to it - but that is only the case if it were a legitimate conviction and not simply a political bludgeon...which is exactly what it is. 

Nothing more.

Nothing less.

Plain. Ole. Politics.

Well, ignoring the unnecessary stuff in your post (I never talked about the Japanese, nor the citizens, nor the troop), nobody should be forced to go through waterboarding. Not that I think my point mattered to you, I think you just used me as some kind of lightning rod for your unending tirade of torture support. I often see conservatives argue that the government is too big when they want to raise taxes or regulate businesses. But, apparently, it's okay for them to execute and torture people. We can't just change our morality based on how bad a person is, otherwise, there's a whole bunch of other bounds we can find "legitimate" reasons for crossing.

I'll grant you that I came back a bit stronger than was probably necessary (been a bit grumpy this week ) but calling it a tirade is just being dismissive and doing so without actually addressing legitimate points.  Those are in fact tough questions that I've not seen anyone with your position address.  Furthermorem, I don't support torture, I support EITs.  If you want to call waterboarding torture in your argument that is fine it is your view, but don't distort and missrepresent my views by claiming I support torture.  I'm fully against things that are actually torture, such as: disemboweling, disfigurement, scalping, bamboo reeds, bamboo torsos, crucifying, a myriad of practices involving boiling hot tar, beatings, etc....

As for your labeling of me, well I'm far more of a libertarian than a conservative (but I understand lumping me in one or the other is useful for folks).

Beyond that though, it is called the US Constitution.  We can play a little game if you like, I'll go find the portion where it explicitly grants the federal government power to defend the country and even where it defines torture (although the 2nd bit is in the US code T18S2340)...then I'll list some of those things I object to the federal government doing and you can try to find where it explicitly grants them those powers.  Of course in reality the vast majority of things aren't explicitly authorized and they've inferred this, that, and the other thing slowly giving themselves more and more and more power.  Thus the objection, and thus the objections are logically and philosophically consistent. There are even a few things the military does that I question but EIT's performed by experts is simply not one of them.  Really though this line of debate on your part is more deflection of the issue than it is an actual case against waterboarding.  We both agree (I assume) that we can interrogate them so the apparatus of government around the room is pretty damn irrelevent for the discussion.  The question is how far is too far?

As for "we can't change our morality for how bad a person is".  We aren't changing anything...you obviously saw the bit about the soldiers yes?  So are you claiming that the soldiers are worse people than terrorists or ...what is your argument here exactly? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

But more than that it really isn't changing our morality anyways.  Is it moral to throw an innocent man in prison?  How about a rapist or murderer?  I'm betting you're ok with one but not the other....so is that changing our morals? Of course not, it is recognizing that actions have consequences and you can do one thing to one person that would be amoral to do to another simply based on what actions the two have taken.

I know you said you're going to ignore the rest of that stuff but again I'll point out that those are legitimate points.  If you don't want to debate it then thats fine, as I said I was probably too strong in my reply - but don't engage and then ignore legitimate points. 

Your arguments are overly general which sort of underscores my point about people not wanting to know how their sausage is made.  Lets get down to specifics if we are going to have a discussion.

What, specifically, in your view is the standard?  Discomfort?  Light/Mild/Strong Fear? Light/Mild/Strong Pain?  What is too far in your view?