Why is this a problem?

[Hawkmoon]

https://nypost.com/2018/04/30/man-accused-of-waterboarding-wife-while-holding-her-captive/

But ... I thought waterboarding was just "enhanced interrogation."

I'm so confused. When the Iranians captured a British navy small boat several years ago, "the media" reported that the sailors were tortured -- apparently because they were subjected to harsh words. The U.S. waterboarded suspected terrorists and said that wasn't torture, and "the media" went along. Now a guy waterboards his wife and everyone gets upset.

I just don't know what to do the next time I want to ask someone a question they don't want to answer. Is waterboarding okay, or isn't it?

[Perd Hapley]

Waterboarding aside, I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to treat your wife the same way the U.S. treats suspected terrorists.

[Angel Eyes]

Waterboarding aside, I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to treat your wife the same way the U.S. treats suspected terrorists.

... unless it's consensual, which does not appear to be the case here.

[zxcvbob]

I think he has a pretty good case for appeal on the torture conviction because of what you mentioned.  He's still screwed (and rightly so) for kidnapping, etc.

[Pb]

Of course waterboarding is torture.

I have no educated opinion as to whether it should be done in interrogations of foreign terrorists or not though.

[Kingcreek]

Guy is 36, wife of 2 months is 65?
There's probably more story out there somewhere.

[cordex]

Waterboarding aside, I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to treat your wife the same way the U.S. treats suspected terrorists.

Whoa, let's not get crazy with the feminism here.

[Hawkmoon]

Guy is 36, wife of 2 months is 65?
There's probably more story out there somewhere.

Hey, the guy married a cougar. No big deal, right?

[Perd Hapley]

Whoa, let's not get crazy with the feminism here.

Sorry. I meant to add, "unless she misbehaves."

[Hawkmoon]

Waterboarding aside, I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to treat your wife the same way the U.S. treats suspected terrorists.

Well, duh! These days, harsh words are often construed as spousal abuse. Ralph Kramden would never have lasted througb 39 episodes of The Honeymooners in today's social climate.

[dogmush]

Just so we're clear:

Waterboarding IS torture. The US was being disingenuous when it tried to pretend it wasn't. The media was blind or complicit when it went along with it. One should NEVER waterboard one's spouse.

I know that sometimes tone can be lost in the internet, and that Hawk is pointing out the differences of the two reportings of waterboarding, but we shouldn't lose site of which reporting was actually wrong.


FWIW: Jackie Gleason was a funny guy, but it's also not OK to threaten to punch your wife weekly, even if she knows you don't mean it.

[cordex]

FWIW: Jackie Gleason was a funny guy, but it's also not OK to threaten to punch your wife weekly, even if she knows you don't mean it.

Can you expound on that?  Intuitively the bolded part seems to change the equation a bit.  A hyperbolic statement mutually-understood to not be serious doesn't strike me as beyond the pale, even if that's not how I would communicate with my wife.

I do sometimes threaten my children with being "stomped into a fuzzy paste" - a dire threat that is typically greeted with laughter.  Is that also not OK?

[zxcvbob]

Just so we're clear:

Waterboarding IS torture. The US was being disingenuous when it tried to pretend it wasn't. The media was blind or complicit when it went along with it. One should NEVER waterboard one's spouse.

I know that sometimes tone can be lost in the internet, and that Hawk is pointing out the differences of the two reportings of waterboarding, but we shouldn't lose site of which reporting was actually wrong.

Of course it is, but if the US has pretended it's not when they do it, that should be the legal precedent now.  Goose, gander, sauce, etc.  There's plenty more here to put the guy away for a long time.

[dogmush]

Can you expound on that?  Intuitively the bolded part seems to change the equation a bit.  A hyperbolic statement mutually-understood to not be serious doesn't strike me as beyond the pale, even if that's not how I would communicate with my wife.

I do sometimes threaten my children with being "stomped into a fuzzy paste" - a dire threat that is typically greeted with laughter.  Is that also not OK?

There's a lot of room between "not OK" and "beyond the pale", but yes, I will expound a little.

The main joke of the Honeymooners was Ralph would come up with some plan, it wouldn't work (with hijinks), he'd lose his temper and yell, bluster, and blame other folks, including threatening to hit his wife, then he would be shown the plan's failure was his fault and be contrite until the start of the next episode.  Rinse and repeat.  It's a show, and fiction, so we can take the humor for what it is and have some fun.

Actually treating people like that would not be OK.  It would make you an ahole.  Ralph (the character) was also threatening Alice when angry.  He wasn't joking (as I assume you are with your children) he was genuinely angry when he threatened violence.  That's actually the foil of the show, that he gets angry when everyone else can see it's his fault. It is often pointed out (even in the wiki page) that Alice knew he wouldn't really hit her, and he never did, but he was still an ahole to her for the entirety of the show.  It's not OK to be an ahole to your wife even if she takes it.

A note here:  I'm not saying the Honeymooners wasn't funny, or that it should be boycotted or purged or anything, just that Ralph (the character) was a jerk.  While funny as a caricature, one shouldn't emulate that behavior.

Which brings us to:

Of course it is, but if the US has pretended it's not when they do it, that should be the legal precedent now.  Goose, gander, sauce, etc.  There's plenty more here to put the guy away for a long time.

No, you're backwards.  This guy should go down for torture, AND the US should admit it was torturing people.  The fact that the US government did something wrong and claimed it wasn't doesn't make the act not wrong, it makes the US government wrong.

[KD5NRH]

Hey, the guy married a cougar. No big deal, right?

Last dance I went to, there was a woman who sort of had the Reba McEntire thing going.  Probably about the same age too.  I'd take that over plenty of the 30-somethings on the market.

For reference.  If it was common for 63 to look this good, even with pro makeup, I suspect a lot of us would be doing some serious cougar hunting.

[Hawkmoon]

Just so we're clear:

Waterboarding IS torture. The US was being disingenuous when it tried to pretend it wasn't. The media was blind or complicit when it went along with it. One should NEVER waterboard one's spouse.

I know that sometimes tone can be lost in the internet, and that Hawk is pointing out the differences of the two reportings of waterboarding, but we shouldn't lose site of which reporting was actually wrong.

I'm glad somebody got it. I was trying to make a point, but I guess I approached it too obliquely. The point is, of course, that anything we would call "torture" if it was done to our people is still torture when we do it to their people (whoever "their" refers to today). I disapprove of my government playing semantics with this, and calling what is clearly torture "enhanced interrogation techniques." IMHO all we're doing is reducing ourselves to "their" level of savagery. And, from what I've read, much of the purported intel gained from such techniques was useless anyway.

[Nick1911]

*redacted*

[Angel Eyes]

Huh?   

Oh, sorry, I was still looking at Reba McEntire.

[TommyGunn]

I'm glad somebody got it. I was trying to make a point, but I guess I approached it too obliquely. The point is, of course, that anything we would call "torture" if it was done to our people is still torture when we do it to their people (whoever "their" refers to today). I disapprove of my government playing semantics with this, and calling what is clearly torture "enhanced interrogation techniques." IMHO all we're doing is reducing ourselves to "their" level of savagery. And, from what I've read, much of the purported intel gained from such techniques was useless anyway.

You realize that we do it to our own guys---waterboarding them, that is.  It's part of training for spec-ops and others who go into enemy territory and might be captured.
Maybe it is torture.  But it somehow seems nicer than tossing people off roofs, beheading them, and various other actually vicious methods that AL Qaeda and ISIS have employed against those they despise.
I'm not saying waterboarding isn't torture, but I will say it is not reducing  us to "their" level of savagery.
If we do start beheading them, or tossing them screaming off roofs,  then we will be down to their level of savagery.

[freakazoid]

I thought the media was in large part against it?

[KD5NRH]

If we do start beheading them  and tossing them screaming off roofs,  then we will be down to their level of savagery.

If they're still screaming after being beheaded, it's not savagery but necessity.

[Pb]

I think being waterboarded is part of SERE school.

[BobR]

I think being waterboarded multiple times is part of SERE school.

FTFY


bob

[Hawkmoon]

I think being waterboarded is part of SERE school.

Not because it isn't torture, but because it is considered to be torture. We do it to our own guys to try to prepare them for what they may encounter if captured. I haven't sat in on any of their training, but I would be very surprised if they are taught that waterboarding isn't torture.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm glad somebody got it. I was trying to make a point, but I guess I approached it too obliquely. The point is, of course, that anything we would call "torture" if it was done to our people is still torture when we do it to their people (whoever "their" refers to today). I disapprove of my government playing semantics with this, and calling what is clearly torture "enhanced interrogation techniques." IMHO all we're doing is reducing ourselves to "their" level of savagery. And, from what I've read, much of the purported intel gained from such techniques was useless anyway.

So you're opposed to all torture, in all cases, or do you make exceptions? For example, is it OK for us to torture our own Green Berets, as training?

In any case, torturing terror suspects is not the same "level of savagery" as actually being a terrorist. Let's not go off the rails.