Obviously it is a form of torture. It was outlawed by Obama in January this year. But still, should it be allowed or not, and why. Khalid Sheikh Mohmmed was waterboarded 183 times (Within 1 month), outside of the parameters allowed by the CIA. Yet, as far as I know, nobody was prosecuted for it. Our bill of rights protects us from torture, so why was he allowed to be tortured to extensively.
I really don't think the Bill of Rights protects us. If anything we protect it and a degree of respect from our elected officials is placed unto it by our willingness to participate in the electoral process. Remember, the Bill of Rights is just paper. It doesn't mean anything and has no authority unless you give it to it. Which is exactly why these people were treated the way they were.
I have to disagree with this statement. The Bill of Rights was created to protect the people and the states from the authority of the Federal Government. When the Declaration of Independence was written, nothing was mentioned about the rights of the people or the states, so the Bill of Rights fixed that. In fact, the Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Declaration of Independence, so saying it means nothing is saying that the whole basis of our country and the ideals of its Founding Fathers are all naught. Source- an 8th grade history textbook To Waterboarding- Its not physical torture, its mental. It does nothing to harm your body, it only messes with your mind. More specifically, makes you think you are drowning. So if its illegal, I dont really care, but i dont think it is ethical at all.
I have to disagree. It is rumoured to be extremely painful and damaging to your lungs, and is one of the most terrifying and long-term affecting torture methods. Victims are known to be terrified of showers and rain for the rest of their lives. You have to remember that some people induced into these torture methods are prepared to die for their cause, and yet the American government will go to any length to get the information they want. And to clarify, the Bill of Rights could not protect you from the government. If you believe they can, then they have succeeded in providing you with a false sense of protection.
Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. If your captors do not listen to the words the Bill of Rights cannot save you, if your countrymen do not trust the words then the Bill of Rights cannot justify you and if you cannot find the words they might as well not exist. Words have only the power you give to it. The Bill Of Rights will not save you unless their is equal trust confided in them by both parties. I.e. the Bill of Rights are powerless and cannot save you from anything. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Nitrous- you misunderstood me I agree that words have no authority to a certain extent. I disagree that words mean nothing This is what i believe to be false- Since meaning is arbitrary we can assign a meaning to anything At matty- Ya I believe your right There is a risk of drowning, or heart attack from the stress of perceived death.
Sorry, but I'm with Nitrous on this one, words inherently mean nothing, we give them their meaning in even the smallest sense. The common failure to understand this principle is the root of many false conclusions and difficulties in interaction from the smallest issues right up to some of the largest. You can assign any meaning you like, but when you are at the mercy of another, if they don't assign the same meaning to words, or even just ignore the words' existence outright, then, as Nitrous said, the words effectively mean nothing. They protect you from nothing, just as words alone 'can never hurt you', conversely they alone can never help you. They are a vessel for meaning, not meaning within themselves.