[Dagobahn Eagle]

Requesting that this thread be merged with the Road to Guantánamo thread.

Well, frankly, if you're gonna be sarcastic, I don't mind, but at least get your setup straight. I know a lot of sarcastic people, myself included, so it's no skin off my teeth.

Fine to me.

"I speak of everyone who recognizes it as perhaps the most horrific method of torture of all time." Really, pray tell, who are they? You, AI and HRW? Maybe some of your friends?

Scandinavian Science Illustrated, for one.

Chinese Water torture (should've specified "Chinese") is extremely brutal for two reasons:

First, have you ever noticed how little drops of water dripping over the same spot on the asphalt will eventually dig holes (about one cm deep) in the asphalt? Water is a rather painful affair, if applied correctly. Imagine it slowly drilling a one centimeter-deep hole in your forehead.

Second, due to the way you're tied up, you see every drop coming, and can do nothing to stop it. You can't retreat into yourself, as your concentration is fully on the drops.

An extremely painful and brutal method of torture. Yes, I'd rather fry my testicles with electrodes in Abu Grahib than have Cheng or some other ancient leader in Cathai subject me to the dripping bucket of certain doom.

I wonder if in fact they've done much research on torture or just complain b/c it's one of the methods cited as being used in the "war on terror".

It is? I knew about the sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, beatings, attack dogs, sexual abuse, and what the Heck not, but not water torture. Source, please.

Just since you're not clear on the subject, spies are people that disguise themselves in the uniform of their opponents or in civilian garb.

Spies are people that spy on their opponents, no matter what the Heck they're wearing.

Just like you're a combatant when you enter combat. You don't lay a land-mine in front the path of a Humvee to spy on it, you do it to blow the thing to Holy Hell.

I don't actually need to cite a source.

How convenient.

You DO realize, I hope, that spies can't operate effectively if the walk around in the military uniform of the side they belong to, don't you? That LOGICALLY leaves only two alternatives, the other side's uniform or civies.

Nice logical reasoning. It does not change, however, the fact that the spies in that AWACS plane were wearing American uniforms.

So, had the mullahs of Iran or Assad in Syria had OBL, you'd have supported an invasion of those countries?

Yes.

I looked at your article postings, but they fail to back up your claim that the US was INTENTIONALLY TARGETING civilians.

Dropping cluster bombs and white phosphorous over a city full of civilians isn't targetting civilians? That's like saying that you were not targetting civilians when you nuked Hiroshima.

If you order a strike on a city with munitions with a large blast radius, or munitions that represent a threat long after being used (cluster bombs), you are targetting civilians. Not to mention that White Phosphorous is not even, in fact, legal (United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III). Just goes to show that the USA doesn't care about rules of engagement in the first place, which renders the whole "they're not protected by this or that!"-argument void, regardless of its validity.

This begins to sound more like the debate in the hiroshima/nagasaki thread about the nature of what type of weapons should ever be allowed to be used vs a MILITARY target, lest ANY civilians be hurt or killed. Do you condemn the Allies from WW2 b/c there were civilian casualties during the Normandy landings?

Strawman fallacy. You're pulling my words and the words of the opponents of the atomic bombing of Japan completely out of proportion.

Was that aticle 5 of the GC or DHR? I ask b/c you claim it's in both, but don't say which one you're citing in your post.

You know, it is possible for you to Google the thing and read it yourself.