I'm not sure what you are getting at here? Are you avoiding the debate, or is this some sort of finisher line? Back to the topic, I don't look back at history with 21st century eyes. That's just stupid. I look at history and take relatives. Relative to their time frame, the Romans are the most advanced civilization. Relative to their respective region and influence, the Mayans, the Aztecs, the people of Cahokia, are quite advanced. Compared to today the only civilization that has any comparison is Rome. That is why we look at civilizations in context.



Torture? Is waterboarding civilized? Is holding terror suspect without charging him/her of a crime civilized? They are not by most standards, yet here we are 2008 and we still have torture.

__________________
Non concupisces domum proximi tui; nec desiderabis uxorem eius, non servum, non ancillam, non bowem, non asinum, nec omnia quae illius sunt.

I know. And why is it necessary?

__________________
"Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
-Joseph Welch

Your dry observation, "Human sacrifice does not automatically mean you are uncivilized," strikes me as roughly analogous to the equally deadpan line from Prizzi's Honor that I quoted. Perhaps I should have instead offered the famous line, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?" It seems very close, in reasoning, to the slightly reworked line, "Other than the fact that the Mayans practiced human sacrifice, they were really quite civilized."

I do not believe that waterboarding (which, for the record, has never been routinely practiced) is either "torture" or uncivilized. Special circumstances may call for special measures; and the three (that's right: three) times that waterboarding has been used since 9/11 do not strike me as excessive.

As for GITMO, to which you appear to allude with the reference to "holding [a] terror suspect without charging him/her of a crime," I certainly have no problem with that, either; I would not offer illegal combatants the full panoply of rights under American criminal law.

But this is really a huge digression. If you wish to discuss this matter further, I would suggest you start another thread.

Well, there you go again (if I may borrow from the late Ronald Reagan). You continue to assume as "facts"--in your premises--those things that are not agreed upon.

For sake of simplicity, let me list a few of the things, relevant to this discussion, for which I find no convincing evidence:

(1) That Europeans' arrival on these shores--or their westward expansion--constituted an "invasion" or anything approaching "theft."

(2) That Indians' massacres of white settlers was a purely defensive maneuver, and therefore more morally elevated than the massacres that (admittedly) occured the other way around.

(3) That revisionist historians are more "objective" than traditional historians were in their interpretation of early American history.

Any posts that contain these assumptions within the premises are automatic non-starters, from my standpoint.

See my comments on the theory of "invasion," above. (Also, you might want to bear in mind that the US is now a real country; there simply was no country, several hundred years ago, in the land that now constitutes the contiguous 48 states.)

So its uncivilized for the Ancient civilizations to have human sacrifice, but it is civilized to mentally torture and reduce the status of people that they no longer are human. I'm sorry, I didn't notice the footnote in what is or is not a civilization, "You may not kill your own people or sacrifice them to the gods, but you can torture them in any way you see fit."

As to waterboarding's use being excessive, once is too much.

And if this is off topic, I'm sorry, but you seem to believe that what the Europeans did is justified by the fact that the Native Americans are primitive. And that just doesn't make sense.

__________________
Non concupisces domum proximi tui; nec desiderabis uxorem eius, non servum, non ancillam, non bowem, non asinum, nec omnia quae illius sunt.

In case you didn't notice, we are not in agreement that waterboarding constitutes "torture" of any sort, regardless of the modifier affixed to it. And the part about our (allegedly) "reduc[ing] the status of people that they no longer are human" is a claim from way, way out in left field.

Let me reiterate: If you really wish to discuss this subject at some length, I will be glad to pick it up on a new thread. But I would prefer not to stray too far afield here disputing loosely related matters that you assume to be the Received Truth, and that I do not.

Fine, this arguement ends for now.

__________________
Non concupisces domum proximi tui; nec desiderabis uxorem eius, non servum, non ancillam, non bowem, non asinum, nec omnia quae illius sunt.

Whipping people isn't torture if America does it, because we said so!

Substitute "waterboarding" for "whipping" in the above sentence, and your case that waterboarding isn't torture is reiterated.

How is waterboarding not torture? You bring people to the edge of drowning, all trying to get information from them. It was a tactic used by the Spanish Inquisition. Calling a skyscraper an elephant doesn't make it an elephant, and calling waterboarding "not torture" doesn't make it not torture.

__________________
01100001 01101000 00100000 01101011 01101001 01101100 01101100 01100101 01100100 00100000 01100001 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101110 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01100101 01111000 01110101 01110011 00111111

How hard it is for one to see themselves for who we are...it is in our nature to excuse the wrong we do while condemning what we don't approve of what others do. And quite often we do what we condemn others for doing.

I wonder, have you seen anyone being subjected to Water Boarding or have you ever been subjected to such? If it was not torcher it would not be used; it is not something that is pleasant. And I’m sure that you will get even those who are innocent to say anything if it means that the ordeal will stop. I have heard someone that was subjected to Water Boarding during WW2 and it did not sound as if it was not torcher. Refusing not to call Water Boarding torcher does not mean its not. If I refuse to call a ham sandwich a ham sandwich does it change what it is?

As I suggested to another poster, if you really desire an in-depth discussion of the issue of waterboarding, please start another thread. I will be glad to engage you on the issue. But a thread entitled "Sacredness of the Law," which was (supposedly) devoted to the question of whether it is acceptable for people to come to the US illegally, is not the proper place for a discussion of waterboarding.

One could easily get the impression that some people wish to change the subject; for whatever reason, we can speculate.