Cheney Admits He 'Signed Off' on Waterboarding of 3 Guantanamo Prisoners

[faithr]

Author's note: The statements Cheney made this week during an interview with the Washington Times about his role in approving the waterboarding of three Guantanamo detainees and the so-called "enhanced interrogation" of 33 prisoners was, disturbingly, not covered at all by the mainstream media.

Also published at my web magazine, The Public Record.

Vice President Dick Cheney, in another stunning admission during his campaign to burnish the Bush administration’s legacy, said he personally authorized the “enhanced interrogations” of 33 suspected terrorist detainees and approved the waterboarding of three so-called “high-value” prisoners.

“I signed off on it; others did, as well, too,” Cheney said about the waterboarding, a practice of simulated drowning done by strapping a person to a board, covering the face with a cloth and then pouring water over it, a torture technique dating back at least to the Spanish Inquisition. The victim feels as if he is drowning.
http://thelastmovement.blogspot.com/2008/12/cheney-admits-he-signed-off-on.html

[JohnXDoe]

"admits" makes it sound as if this makes him guilty of something. in my mind waterboarding is very uncomfy and may not be the best way of getting info from some people. but it may be very effective with others

torture is one thing, simulated "drowning" is another. and it really isn't even simulated drowning since the person being tended to has no real chance of being drowned and that isn't the intention. they just feel like they are and think maybe they will be. which i don't think is so bad

it sounds very unpleasant, but its hardly hot pins under the fingernails

[Shell]

It's mental torture.

But I did hear about this on the news. I don't remember which, but i'm sure it was a mainstream media source.

[JohnXDoe]

you know i thought about that...but is scaring someone really torture?

emotionally and mentally it can be very tough, but one persons "mental" torture is anothers walk in the park i figure. whether or not it is a mental torture may very well be up to the individual going through it

for instance if i were being waterboarded i might just go 'la dee da i know i am not going to die or be drowned.' if another is being waterboarded it may traumatize them a good deal. its just very gray area stuff

but its not a physical gray area. imho torture requires real and immense physical pain being involved. the infliction of tremendous pain and agony and possibly action that alters the physical being of the person being tortured. imo waterboarding doesn't reach that standard. its basically a very uncomfy scare tactic imo

[Already_Taken]

it's still stupid because people just say what you want them to say

[BassRevelation0]

torture is one thing, simulated "drowning" is another.
You'll be a great press secretary for the next thug in office.

Torture is psychological, usually achieved by physical means. Waterboarding, simulated drowning, enhanced interrogation, is torture. Torture is 1) immoral 2) ineffective.

I have this thought that torture is used more for punishment/fear/submission than information. It does not get anywhere as far as reliable or even true knowledge.

[Iskandar]

Psychological torture is torture. It's just as damaging mentally and emotionally which is the real purpose of torture.

[Shell]

you know i thought about that...but is scaring someone really torture?

emotionally and mentally it can be very tough, but one persons "mental" torture is anothers walk in the park i figure. whether or not it is a mental torture may very well be up to the individual going through it

for instance if i were being waterboarded i might just go 'la dee da i know i am not going to die or be drowned.' if another is being waterboarded it may traumatize them a good deal. its just very gray area stuff

but its not a physical gray area. imho torture requires real and immense physical pain being involved. the infliction of tremendous pain and agony and possibly action that alters the physical being of the person being tortured. imo waterboarding doesn't reach that standard. its basically a very uncomfy scare tactic imo

Well immense fear anxiety and stress can cause physical effects... Increased blood pressure and pulse, headache, heart palpitations. Depending on the severity to that person it could become worse... Seizure, heart attack, etc.

[JohnXDoe]

it's still stupid because people just say what you want them to say
i suppose that depends on what is being asked. idk know if its used for confessions, information, or both. but if it leads to something concrete in some cases its effective

i'm not sure if a confession under such circumstances can be used against an individual on its face without any sort of confirmation. IOW if someone confesses to something under that situation i would think it might be hard to convince others without following up the confession with facts or tangible evidence

so they question someone and he says "this and that." but thats not good enough imo. "this and that" should lead to something concrete. and if not, its no good imo

[Against Miik!]

In all fairness, the authorization to use waterboarding wasn't done out of bad intentions. I don't think you can say that they wanted to torture people. I read somewhere that it was done because the administration was told that this technique was almost 100% effective. So Cheney is still a bad person, but mostly just dumb.

[JohnXDoe]

Psychological torture is torture. It's just as damaging mentally and emotionally which is the real purpose of torture.
so in that case it achieves its goal without physical torture. which i think you will agree is uncalled for since we have waterboarding and such. which isn't exactly cutting off someones nut sac

[BassRevelation0]

but if it leads to something concrete in some cases its effective
Slavery was effective, but thats hardly our concern with it.

This is to say that torture is immoral, and thats what concerns some in the intelligence community.
In all fairness, the authorization to use waterboarding wasn't done out of bad intentions. I don't think you can say that they wanted to torture people. I read somewhere that it was done because the administration was told that this technique was almost 100% effective. So Cheney is still a bad person, but mostly just dumb.
This is bad intelligence in itself.

I'm not here to criticize their nuts off, but I refuse to give them another free pass for acting on poor intelligence.

[JohnXDoe]

i understand that. i also understand that waterboarding and such things kind of puts us that much closer to...torture. it can be a slippery slope and is cause for concern. however, in my mind it is what it is and isn't what its not, so to speak

is it immoral? idk thats a very subjective thing. its certainly not comfortable

[McP3000]

this isnt really news, of course we knew they did this and authorized it

[JohnXDoe]

yup and barking dogs, too

now some are trying to sue for being subjected to loud rock music

prolly got a headache or some tinnitus or somethin' :(

[Against Miik!]

I'm not here to criticize their nuts off, but I refuse to give them another free pass for acting on poor intelligence.

I'm not saying the intelligence justifies the act. I'm just saying these people are borderline retarded.

this isnt really news, of course we knew they did this and authorized it

But for Cheney to actually admit it...that's different.

[McP3000]

why would authorizing waterboarding make them retarded

[Shell]

Even so, just because it's effective doesn't mean it should be done.

[Against Miik!]

Because they authorized it based on the assumption that it was 100% effective.

[JohnXDoe]

But for Cheney to actually admit it...that's different.
Cheney actually wants credit for it. he was asked recently if laws can be circumvented if it keeps America secure and national security stable. he didn't blink and said most assuredly "yes"

he seems very pleased with himself

[Against Miik!]

Well I hope he had fun for eight years. Biden will certainly relinquish all the powers that Cheney thought he had, and history will remember Cheney as the worst vice president ever.

[BassRevelation0]

i understand that. i also understand that waterboarding and such things kind of puts us that much closer to...torture.
So close it is torture

is it immoral? idk thats a very subjective thing.
No its not.

[Iskandar]

so in that case it achieves its goal without physical torture. which i think you will agree is uncalled for since we have waterboarding and such. which isn't exactly cutting off someones nut sacWaterboarding and stuff isn't called for either.

The Administration has no business holding people in Guantanamo without trial to begin with, let alone practicing interrogation techniques on them.

[|~Iceb0x~|]

A man's gotta do what a man gotta do.

[Against Miik!]

The Administration has no business holding people in Guantanamo without trial to begin with, let alone practicing interrogation techniques on them.

Good point. People seem to forget about that.

[Iskandar]

A man's gotta do what a man gotta do.And we don't have to hold people in Guantanamo.

[JohnXDoe]

may very well be true. hindsight is 20/20, however

they say the US or some other place will come under a terrorist attack on a large scale by 2012 or '14 or so. thousands of innocents will die, could be "dirty bomb" stuff. and it will be America if possible to carry it out here

i wonder if we should just sit on our hands or offer flowers with them if and when it happens. its said to be an over 50% likelihood.

[Iskandar]

They've been saying crap like that since 9/11 happened. It's fearmongering, plain and simple.

[|~Iceb0x~|]

And we don't have to hold people in Guantanamo.

I am in no debt to those people.

[JohnXDoe]

They've been saying crap like that since 9/11 happened. It's fearmongering, plain and simple.
and they said it before 9/11 happened. just more fear mongering, i guess. except wait...it happened!

[Against Miik!]

and they said it before 9/11 happened. just more fear mongering, i guess. except wait...it happened!

Yes, its true, something like could always happen. But there are some things you first have to take into consideration.

One is the chicken or the egg argument. Which comes first? Do we resort to things like torture, increased security, and invasions of countries because we fear these things? Or do they happen because we do these things? It may be a little bit of both, but you have to stop and think for a second about whether or not the measures we take are actually doing anything to stop an attack.

Secondly, if you want to say that kinds of things we are doing are in order to stop a possible attack, where do you stop? We could completely stop all international travel, cut off citizens abilities to communicate outside the country, etc...all in the name of security. But when do you stop? Guys like Alex Jones and Lew Rockwell may be a little nuts, but they often refer to the quote, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither", and I think that rings pretty true in these times, and people will find that if you give up liberty for security, you will probably get neither as well.

[JohnXDoe]

yeah the chicken or egg argument. and i understand radical islam has a beef. some say legitimate. and they are....committed to a cause and blame us for many woes. but remember much of the islamic world has no beef with us. and they are considered "corrupt" by the more radical factions. so they always have an excuse

its just disheartening that we have new leadership and a new opportunity at peaceful relations but some in the world, a minority in fact, would like to kill us. no matter what

i saw the video released by Al-Queda after barack was elected. calling him a "house negro" and showing him embracing jews and a wearing a yamaka at the wailing wall. they called him a traitor to his fathers name and all of islam. said not to be fooled he is no MLK or Malcolm X. said their "war" would continue stronger then ever. do not be "deceived" by the black man with a muslim name. it sounded like they were stuck in the 60's with all that rhetoric. so...like it or not, that is what we are dealing with. people who don't deal. doesn't give me much hope :/

so far as what comes next for America and its security? i guess that depends on what comes next. the war in Iraq will come to a close, we will leave, our military will keep looking for Bin Laden and his guys. w/e we have to do i guess we will do it. but w/e it is its most likely not going to be perfect or plz everyone politically

[Against Miik!]

Al Qaeda (or whoever) isn't necessarily wrong on Obama.

[JohnXDoe]

well no of course not. he is an American. and America is evil

[Against Miik!]

I'm just saying, I wouldn't expect his policies toward the middle east or Israel to be radically different from Bush's.

Obama seem rather reluctant to take a stand on anything. Last March, the way he was talking, he seemed rather pro-Palestinian, claiming that nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.I guess the pressures of Washington have gotten to him over the last 9 months.

[JohnXDoe]

well he is an American President after all. so while he may be somewhat different and more flexible with policy, i think he wants to protect our interests, too. especially after getting national security briefings as the Pres elect that no one is privy to, even him as a Senator, until a person becomes President

so far as the Palestinians...and forgive me if i'm wrong because my history is not polished, but weren't they on a losing side of a war with Israel? and some other nations that took part in the Six Day War back in the day? usually when you go to battle with someone and lose you don't get to cry sour grapes because you lost but expected to win. and some in the islamic world would deny the jews the right to even exist, much less have a nation. so when dealing with all that one must tread smartly, i would think

perhaps we can help broker some peace, an arrangement, or a deal for peace and understanding with the Palestinians and Israel, but we won't take sides against Israel. because you're just flipping a switch there. going from one extreme to another. and the other isn't too fond of the US. so maybe its a lesser of two evils. but if thats the best we have to work with thats it

i was just taken aback by the video i saw of Al-Queda's number two man talking out his butt. he talked as if because Barack is a black man in America instead of seeking to be President he should fight the good fight for racial and economic justice by being on the outside rather then the inside. that in no way could he be honest and decent and well intentioned because he's not a revolutionary like others. it was just disheartening and sounded like very old thinking. like i said, like leftist political rhetoric from the '60's

i think this country would like to move on. and others as well. but some it seems do not understand the world and the way it works. so they will battle. and i guess we're caught up in that battle. what to do...what to do....

[maxwell_1888]

Hang on. People still don't think that waterboarding is torture?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58

[JohnXDoe]

i would like to torture that large bundle of sticks myself :p

no but seriously i've seen demonstrations before. and if it were in fact "torture" do you think people would be volunteering to demonstrate it? if it were...hot needles under the fingernails, genital mutilation, fingers being sawed off, and eyes being plucked out of your head?

why doesn't he volunteer for that? i'll tell you why. because no one in their right mind would volunteer to be tortured. waterboarding is without doubt humiliating and a form of control that is....unsavory. but if it were truly torture no one would volunteer to"demonstrate" it. nor would they have to

[maxwell_1888]

i would like to torture that large bundle of sticks myself :p

no but seriously i've seen demonstrations before. and if it were in fact "torture" do you think people would be volunteering to demonstrate it? if it were...hot needles under the fingernails, genital mutilation, fingers being sawed off, and eyes being plucked out of your head?

why doesn't he volunteer for that?

He's an investigative journalist and there was huge debate on whether or not waterboarding is really torture or not.

There is no debate about the others you brought up so that's just a pretty stupid thing to say.

[JohnXDoe]

well he's a raving liberal with an agenda also. and just the fact waterboarding is debatable as torture or not is a sure sign that it very well might not be

no debate about the others? of course not. those are clearly torture. waterboarding is not, apparently. otherwise why the debate?

i thought about this for awhile last night and was feeling bad that some people have to endure this form of interrogation. it is very demeaning and degrading, and having water poured down your face isn't the best thing in the world. but as you said there is no debate about the other things. there is debate about this. i have my reservations, but when all is said and done i find it an acceptable method to use in some circumstances. even if i am a bit torn...i just can't equate it with breaking bones and tongues being cut off or being forced to drink motor oil until you burst

[maxwell_1888]

well he's a raving liberal with an agenda also. and just the fact waterboarding is debatable as torture or not is a sure sign that it very well might not be

no debate about the others? of course not. those are clearly torture. waterboarding is not, apparently. otherwise why the debate?

i thought about this for awhile last night and was feeling bad that some people have to endure this form of interrogation. it is very demeaning and degrading, and having water poured down your face isn't the best thing in the world. but as you said there is no debate about the other things. there is debate about this. i have my reservations, but when all is said and done i find it an acceptable method to use in some circumstances. even if i am a bit torn...i just can't equate it with breaking bones and tongues being cut off or being forced to drink motor oil until you burst

Holy crap. There is no debate about the others because they are more involved in inflicting physical pain on the subject. Waterboarding is concerned with making the subject entirely disorientated and inflicting psychological damage on a subject. See how he says that he thought he was shouting the codeword, yet he wasn't? See how he says that he felt as if it lasted much longer than it really did? See how long he actually lasted?

If this was inflicted on a subject for long enough, I see no reason to think it would be any better than a broken bone or a sawn off finger. In fact, due to the extensive psychological effects it could have, it might even be worse. It's true that people will confess to absolutely anything having undergone waterboarding. Ignorance is all that stands in the way of someone accepting this as torture.

[JohnXDoe]

ignorance or making a reasonable distinction. they say the truest sign of intelligence is the ability to distinguish what is one thing and what is an other, even though they may appear the same to some. i choose to distinguish between so called "psychological" torture and physical because i think a distinction can reasonably be made. and i am not alone in that pov

for instance so called mental / emotional / psychological "torture" is not the same to all. and depending on who you are things like waterboarding may affect you differently then others. how do you measure a psychological scar when every individual scars differently, so to speak? a physical scar? that is apparent and obvious. brought about by something real and horrible. scaring someone by making them uncomfortable? torture for some? if they and others say so, i suppose. but its not torture for others and some have no permanent effects from it at all. if you blind someone with battery acid and another and another thats pretty much the same for all across the board. but because some react badly to the emotional / mental effects of waterboarding does not make it torture imo. because it may not have the same effect on others

Mr. Hitchens is an overweight, soft, middle aged man, for instance. he has a privileged, cushy life as the editor of a trendy magazine. of course he is going to say "oh how terrible." but i've seen demonstrations on people half his age and in better physical condition where they come through the "torture" fine and call it "unpleasant" or "scary." scaring someone or causing disorientation is not torture

looking at it from a different perspective however i may object to it on different grounds. someone said itt its "immoral." and i may tend to agree as i believe in most situations no one has a right to physically force anyone to do anything against there will in such a manner. so it may be a human rights issue for me, but not on the grounds of it being torture. just because it is in fact....a violation of a persons being and will somehow. but whether or not thats enough for it to be prohibited in ALL cases i'm on the fence about

[maxwell_1888]

Sure there can be a distinction made between psychological and physical torture. Although the two aren't really entirely separable. Enduring extensive psychological torture is bound to have a physical effect on someone, be it simply exhaustion or raised blood pressure, which can lead to strokes, heart attacks, heart failure etc.

Let's take a look at what the United Nations have to say ( http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm ):

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

You're argument against Hitchens (glad you corrected from Higgins :P) seems pretty much an ad hominem, and I'd be interested to take a look at the sources of the other demonstrations you mentioned.

[thedeadwalk!]

well he's a raving liberal with an agenda also. and just the fact waterboarding is debatable as torture or not is a sure sign that it very well might not be
Some of the debate over waterboarding comes from the sentencing to death of Japanese interrogators who used it against Americans during WWII, and whether we should be allowed to get away with it now.

We thought it was torture when it was used against us.

[JohnXDoe]

i would like to elaborate more on this after giving it some more thought. but i am tired so bbl

just wanted to say....

[peeted]

It doesnt matter weather its torture or not, its illegitimate for the same reason that tourture is. Tourture is illegitimate because it forces people to say pretty much whatever you want them to say, as does waterbording. So it doesnt guarentee a true testimony.

Besides it is highley dangerous, it can cause dry drowning, brain damage, future mental health issues, loads of crap. Methods of interogation shouldnt cause those things.

[JohnXDoe]

unless you aren't telling them what to say and they say something of use / value that can be followed up on and confirmed. whereas before they may not have said anything at all

[peeted]

Well i assume they would have been asked questions before they started the waterbording, so they wil have some idea what answers are expected. They dont just start waterbording people as soon as they land in guantanimo.

[JohnXDoe]

yeah i know. but the waterboarding (and again i have some new thoughts on this but have to go to sleep) so far as i understand is not to extract confessions for the most part. its to extract information that can then be followed up on to see if it holds any value. so stating "expected answers" isn't really helpful or relevant in many cases

so its like this: "where are the terrorist cells in your town back home." no waterboarding and its like "what cells i have no idea what you are talking about." and so then "we have information that leads us to strongly believe you have this knowledge." and then "i have no idea what you are talking about"

so you waterboard for awhile. and after the person gets tired of it they say "ok ok they are THERE (w/e that may be)"

and then you go check it out and they are there

so that is effective imo

but like i said i have some new thoughts on this. and while i don't want to defend it i do want to understand it without outright dismissing it or calling it torture on the same scale as more severe....actions

[maxwell_1888]

Sorry, but I disagree that waterboarding ceases to be torture if it's effective.

[peeted]

yeah i know. but the waterboarding (and again i have some new thoughts on this but have to go to sleep) so far as i understand is not to extract confessions for the most part. its to extract information that can then be followed up on to see if it holds any value. so stating "expected answers" isn't really helpful or relevant in many cases

so its like this: "where are the terrorist cells in your town back home." no waterboarding and its like "what cells i have no idea what you are talking about." and so then "we have information that leads us to strongly believe you have this knowledge." and then "i have no idea what you are talking about"

so you waterboard for awhile. and after the person gets tired of it they say "ok ok they are THERE (w/e that may be)"

and then you go check it out and they are there

so that is effective imo

but like i said i have some new thoughts on this. and while i don't want to defend it i do want to understand it without outright dismissing it or calling it torture on the same scale as more severe....actions

And if they dont know where the terrorist cells or whatever are?

[Super Batman]

Then we try the next person. It is simple and efficient. There is nothing wrong with torture.

[Knifeboy]

yeah i know. but the waterboarding (and again i have some new thoughts on this but have to go to sleep) so far as i understand is not to extract confessions for the most part. its to extract information that can then be followed up on to see if it holds any value. so stating "expected answers" isn't really helpful or relevant in many cases

so its like this: "where are the terrorist cells in your town back home." no waterboarding and its like "what cells i have no idea what you are talking about." and so then "we have information that leads us to strongly believe you have this knowledge." and then "i have no idea what you are talking about"

so you waterboard for awhile. and after the person gets tired of it they say "ok ok they are THERE (w/e that may be)"

and then you go check it out and they are there

so that is effective imo

but like i said i have some new thoughts on this. and while i don't want to defend it i do want to understand it without outright dismissing it or calling it torture on the same scale as more severe....actions

You must be severely braindamaged if you think waterboarding ever works that well

[Mr. Ron]

you know i thought about that...but is scaring someone really torture?

emotionally and mentally it can be very tough, but one persons "mental" torture is anothers walk in the park i figure. whether or not it is a mental torture may very well be up to the individual going through it

for instance if i were being waterboarded i might just go 'la dee da i know i am not going to die or be drowned.' if another is being waterboarded it may traumatize them a good deal. its just very gray area stuff

but its not a physical gray area. imho torture requires real and immense physical pain being involved. the infliction of tremendous pain and agony and possibly action that alters the physical being of the person being tortured. imo waterboarding doesn't reach that standard. its basically a very uncomfy scare tactic imo
yes

[maxwell_1888]

Then we try the next person. It is simple and efficient. There is nothing wrong with torture.

This statement is irrelevant. The United States are signatories of the Geneva Conventions. Torture and inhumane treatment are breaches of the Geneva Conventions (Part III of the Third GC) and are considered war crimes.

[Super Batman]

This statement is irrelevant. The United States are signatories of the Geneva Conventions. Torture and inhumane treatment are breaches of the Geneva Conventions (Part III of the Third GC) and are considered war crimes.

Let's rephrase for the slow of mind.
--I think there is nothing wrong with torture--
Breaking the Geneva Convention?
Yes, that was wrong. You sign it, you stick to it.
War crimes? Yes.

Thanks for nothing.

[Foehammer]

There is a theory of becoming friends with the person being interrogated
making them feel secure and then they will open up to you

Wtf kind of bullshit is that

[Already_Taken]

stockholm syndrome noob

[THE_KING]

It is not acceptable to torture my people!

[Super Batman]

It is not acceptable to torture my people!

As I read your post I : http://www.edinburghsucks.com/graphics/councillors/milligan_pinky.jpg

[THE_KING]

No my people!
Do not make your finger tired!
Rest it, and let mine take it's place

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/advanced-yo-yo-tricks-7.jpg

I'm sorry i did not do this sooner my people!

[thedeadwalk!]

There is a theory of becoming friends with the person being interrogated
making them feel secure and then they will open up to you

Wtf kind of bullpoop is that
Yeah, what do interrogators know, anyway?

http://www.amazon.com/How-Break-Terrorist-Interrogators-Brutality/dp/1416573151/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230579841&sr=1-8

[maxwell_1888]

Let's rephrase for the slow of mind.
--I think there is nothing wrong with torture--
Breaking the Geneva Convention?
Yes, that was wrong. You sign it, you stick to it.
War crimes? Yes.

Thanks for nothing.

Then I'll simply outline the irrevelance. Not to mention the delusion many seem to suffer of torture being efficient. Especially against those who are proud to die for their cause, or see life on Earth as simply the beginning, or the precursor to a perfect existence.

[Super Batman]

Yeah, what do interrogators know, anyway?

http://www.amazon.com/How-Break-Terrorist-Interrogators-Brutality/dp/1416573151/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230579841&sr=1-8

First of all, stop advertising.
Second of all....Screw numbering these.
I could link you to a book saying 'How the most brutal men broke a brutal man with brute strength, not brains'. And it wouldn't sell. Why? People view 'intelligence' as elegant, worthy to read, worthy to buy, worthy to praise. I don't see that as the only viable thing. Violence works. Pain works. Torture works.

[Mr. Ron]

****, even the Spanish inquisitors saw that torture wasn't a good means to extract confessions.

[Super Batman]

****, even the Spanish inquisitors saw that torture wasn't a good means to extract confessions.

You're right. It's much easier to just kill them straight out.:chug:

[THE_KING]

Oh, how I hate the burden of this seagull!

[Mr. Ron]

You're right. It's much easier to just kill them straight out.:chug:
The Spanish inquisition wasn't as bad as most people think. Very little people were ever really tortured/killed

[Super Batman]

The Spanish inquisition wasn't as bad as most people think. Very little people were ever really tortured/killed

Cited in Will Durant, The Reformation (1957):
Juan Antonio Llorente, General Secretary of the Inquisition from 1789 to 1801, estimated that 31,912 were executed, 1480-1808.
In contrast to the high estimate cited above, Durant tosses his support to the following low estimates:
Hernando de Pulgar, secretary to Queen Isabella, estimated 2,000 burned before 1490.
An unnamed "Catholic historian" estimated 2,000 burned, 1480-1504, and 2,000 burned, 1504-1758.
PGtH: 8,800 deaths by burning, 1478-1496
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (1910): 8,800 burnt in 18 years of Torquemada. (acc2 Buckle and Friedländer)
Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic: 10,220 burnt in 18 years of Torquemada
Britannica: 2,000
Aletheia, The Rationalist's Manual: 35,534 burned.
Fox's Book of Martyrs, Ch.IV: 32,000 burned
Paul Johnson A History of the Jews (1987): 32,000 k. by burning; 20,226 k. before 1540
Wertham: 250,000
Rummel: 350,000 deaths overall.
MEDIAN: 8,800 under Torq.; 32,000 all told.
Punished by all means, not death.
Fox: 309,000
P. Johnson: 341,000
Motley: 114,401

----------------------------------------------------------------


There's a reason that people find tons of amazing torture devices from this time period. After all, when God is helping torture--He makes some damn good machines.

[Mr. Ron]

oh, you took me seriously

[Super Batman]

Oh, how I hate the burden of this seagull!

You're an idiot.



"oh, you took me seriously"


I did. My fault. Then I looked at your avatar and felt much better.

[THE_KING]

I'm sorry for being an idiot my people!
I will try harder!

I did not mean to disgrace you!








For my people!

[Super Batman]

I'm sorry for being an idiot my people!
I will try harder!

I did not mean to disgrace you!








For my people!

Are you some self-loathing king?

[THE_KING]

I care too much for my people!
No, not enough!

You wouldn't be upset had I been there for you!

I'm so sorry!

[Super Batman]

I care too much for my people!
No, not enough!

You wouldn't be upset had I been there for you!

I'm so sorry!

So that's a yes.
What if I'm saying I'm perfect--I'm happy. I am your people. I'm not upset, and my life is 100% good?

[THE_KING]

It is not good enough!

Here, have my house!
My money!

Be happier!

[Foehammer]

Yeah, what do interrogators know, anyway?

http://www.amazon.com/How-Break-Terrorist-Interrogators-Brutality/dp/1416573151/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230579841&sr=1-8

You're an idiot.

That guy is an idiot.

[Amit]

you know i thought about that...but is scaring someone really torture?

are you retarded

extreme exposure to fear-causing stimuli is what causes PTSD and i'm fairly certain everyone considers PTSD to be a big deal

for instance so called mental / emotional / psychological "torture" is not the same to all.

i could inject you with a completely safe dose of bradykynin (the active component for the horrifying pain in many animal venoms, including bee venom, although it's not inherently toxic by itself) right now

i would love for you to tell me that's not torture even though that searing and horrifying pain you feel is completely mentally derived

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradykinin

how do we know this? people signed up for neurological studies researching the pain effects of bradykynin...in that case, it can't be torture right??! dur hur!