Uh oh! McKamey's Manor again! (Haunted House)

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Anything that inflicts injury to another person can be considered "assault".

I know how the law works and if this were a court of law, maybe what qualifies as "assault" can be argued either way.

But for you to claim this is black and white and that waterboarding and pulling of fingernails is not against the law then you are just pushing the legal line.

My claim was, in fact, that these things DO NOT HAPPEN at McKamey manor and the claims are BS.

a reply to: recrisp

You know what is really scary?

Not this haunted house that we all have the freedom to go to or not.

What is really scary is that people are willing to take away any shred of freedom that remains. Yes even entertainment freedom.
I would never in a million years frequent this place. It is obvious some people love it. It seems like the guy that runs
it is also helping animals shelters while running it. Bravo to him.

BTW> It is 21 years and older.(18-20 with parents consent in TN).

originally posted by: toolgal462
Anything that inflicts injury to another person can be considered "assault".

Only if they file a report saying they were assaulted, do you not get the whole consensual part?

I know how the law works...

That's a questionable statement at best.

But for you to claim this is black and white and that waterboarding and pulling of fingernails is not against the law then you are just pushing the legal line.

The Federal Government has no laws against BDSM activity, so if you want Mistress Kitty to put a cigarette out on your tongue she can as long as it's consensual.

My claim was, in fact, that these things DO NOT HAPPEN at McKamey manor and the claims are BS.

And even if they were they're most likely not illegal in Tennessee.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I have repeatedly and specifically cited the acts of A. Waterboarding and B. pulling of fingernails.

You have responded repeatedly citing anything BUT the specifics acts I am talking about.

McKamey denies these things occur and I concur, seeing as they are indeed against the law.

You think you could win in court? Again, good on you. I am still confident you would not win.

Unless the waiver specifically mentions these things will happen if you consent to it, and even then, the law would argue a person has the right to change their mind at any point.

This argument is not based in reality, it's stupid. These thing would not be okay to do in McKamey Manor.

originally posted by: toolgal462
I have repeatedly and specifically cited the acts of A. Waterboarding and B. pulling of fingernails.
You have responded repeatedly citing anything BUT the specifics acts I am talking about.

Because you haven't produced any links saying they are illegal, just your opinion. That's not how the law works despite your claims to knowing how the law works.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Good thing we aren't in court then isn't it?

originally posted by: toolgal462
Good thing we aren't in court then isn't it?

Not relevant in helping you to show this is anything more than your opinion. I've provided several links to the law, you, not so much.

how about these laws then? provided from a Politifact article:




Is torture illegal under U.S. law?

Yes, under several different portions of the law.

• A provision of U.S. law (18 U.S.C. 2340) that took effect in 1994 makes torture a crime.

The law defines torture as "an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control."

• A different provision on war crimes addresses torture as well (18 U.S.C. 2441).

The provision reads, "Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death. … As used in this section, the term ‘war crime’ (includes) … torture ..."

• Finally, as we noted here, two days after taking office, Obama issued a detailed executive order on torture and related issues.

The executive order said that prisoners "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment)." It also specifically nullifies interpretations of federal law on interrogations "issued by the Department of Justice between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009" under President George W. Bush.

The executive order brings the CIA into line with U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogation, said said Tom Malinowski, Washington director for Human Rights Watch. This limits interrogators to humane techniques, a standard that already applies as a matter of law to the U.S. military, he said.

Is torture illegal under international law?

This is also a correct statement.

• The Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment of Punishment (the Torture Convention) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on Dec. 10, 1984 and entered into force on June 26, 1987, after it had been ratified by 20 states. The United States ratified the convention on Oct. 21, 1994.

It defines torture as "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."

• The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This United Nations agreement -- approved on Dec. 16, 1966, and entered into force on March 23, 1976 -- says in part that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The United States ratified it in June 8, 1992.

• The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. This convention entered into force on Oct. 21, 1950, and the United States ratified it on Feb. 8, 1955. It bars "at any time and in any place whatsoever" all "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture" of "persons taking no active part in … hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause."

• Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. This convention, This convention was entered into force on Oct. 21, 1950, and the United States ratified it on Feb. 8, 1955 and is virtually identical to the separate Geneva convention above.

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration, drafted by a committee that included former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, is not technically a treaty, but it does carry some weight in international law. It was ratified by the United Nations General Assembly on Dec. 10, 1948, by a vote of 48-0 with eight abstentions. The United States was one of the nations voting in favor of the declaration, which says that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

What constitutes torture?

So Paul is on solid ground when he says that "torture is illegal … by our laws. It's illegal by international laws." But as we indicated, there’s a significant caveat -- not everyone agrees on what constitutes torture.

"No one will dispute Rep. Paul’s statement," said Steven Groves, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation. "What is in dispute is whether certain interrogation techniques are considered ‘torture’ under either the U.S. or international definition of that term."

This is an especially important point given that Paul’s comment came in the context of a discussion of waterboarding. Many legal experts believe that waterboarding qualifies as torture under many if not all of the legal definitions cited above. But the Bush administration and its supporters strongly disagreed, calling waterboarding an "enhanced interrogation technique" and thus falling outside of the definition of torture.

An Aug. 1, 2002, memo by Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee and another memo dated the same day by Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo sought to "set a very high threshold as to what constitutes severe ‘pain or suffering,’" said Anthony Clark Arend, professor of government and foreign service at Georgetown University.

These interpretations were overturned by Obama’s Jan. 22, 2009, executive order. But the controversy rages on -- as the Republican debate in South Carolina demonstrates.

We won’t seek to referee this question here, but we do think it’s important to note that some -- though by no means all -- observers would consider Paul’s comment to be a non-sequitur because of their position that waterboarding is not torture.

Our ruling

Paul's comment came immediately after a discussion of waterboarding, and we’ll note that there is not a consensus that waterboarding constitutes torture. That said, Paul’s statement is 100 percent correct: There is no question that torture is barred in both U.S. and international law. We rate Paul’s statement True.

a reply to: toolgal462

It was only a matter of time before you derp-failed into that. Those laws are specific to United States military and intelligence personnel and their treatment of prisoners.

Try again.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Sure, where does it say that?

a reply to: toolgal462

and what is with the "derp failed"? If you want to interpret the actual law differently than me that is certainly your right, however it doesn't mean you are in fact, right.

You just like to argue, don't you? And apparently insult others for no other reason than you are a know-it-all on an anonymous message board.

originally posted by: toolgal462
Sure, where does it say that?

Seriously? Do you not even read your own sources before you post them? Wow.

It defines torture as '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."

See anything about prohibiting consensual behavior? No? See all that verbiage about prisoners, interrogations and extracting confessions? Yeah? You starting to catch on yet?

a reply to: toolgal462

Please find a participant whose fingernails are actually missing. How about a participant who actually experienced waterboarding. My guess is you will not. A quick cursory search led me to a participant interviewed after his 2 hour experience which was as long he lasted.

They do sign nondisclosure agreements but he did reveal that he had some bruises and small cuts on his hands and knees, acquired by crawling around in the dark on rocks. It is apparently performed in 3 stages at different locations. The young army reservist says he wants to try again. He says that they go to extreme lengths to make sure you are not harmed.

They do research of social media of participants to learn of their fears. Fear snakes, you can bet that the experience will 8nvolve snakes, both real and perceived real. Local police are aware and say they have never had an official complaint and sometimes have participated themselves. The ordeal usually begins in a local parking lot with your "abduction " and is where local police are involved. A kidnapping gets attention so police are on hand to prevent any errant observers getting involved and provide sirens to make it a realistic experience like a police chase which is actually an escort.

Involves lots of water, strobe lights, hypnosis and WILLING participants. As for waterboarding being legal or not...plenty of YouTube videos showing people willingly undergoing the technique so if I want to be waterboarded then tough noughies buddy...its legal and I can do it in my home and nothing you can do about it. Personally I dont wish too, and McKamey Manor is smoke and mirrors, theater of the absurd, and hypnotic suggestion. Want to live in a nanny state, move

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That is in describing of one law, the first one posted lists no such specifics. You are a sneak.

originally posted by: toolgal462
and what is with the "derp failed"?

Because you posted a law dealing with military and intelligence personnel and tried to pass it off as dealing with the public.

originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: toolgal462

Please find a participant whose fingernails are actually missing. How about a participant who actually experienced waterboarding. My guess is you will not. A quick cursory search led me to a participant interviewed after his 2 hour experience which was as long he lasted.

They do sign nondisclosure agreements but he did reveal that he had some bruises and small cuts on his hands and knees, acquired by crawling around in the dark on rocks. It is apparently performed in 3 stages at different locations. The young army reservist says he wants to try again. He says that they go to extreme lengths to make sure you are not harmed.

They do research of social media of participants to learn of their fears. Fear snakes, you can bet that the experience will 8nvolve snakes, both real and perceived real. Local police are aware and say they have never had an official complaint and sometimes have participated themselves. The ordeal usually begins in a local parking lot with your "abduction " and is where local police are involved. A kidnapping gets attention so police are on hand to prevent any errant observers getting involved and provide sirens to make it a realistic experience like a police chase which is actually an escort.

Involves lots of water, strobe lights, hypnosis and WILLING participants. As for waterboarding being legal or not...plenty of YouTube videos showing people willingly undergoing the technique so if I want to be waterboarded then tough noughies buddy...its legal and I can do it in my home and nothing you can do about it. Personally I dont wish too, and McKamey Manor is smoke and mirrors, theater of the absurd, and hypnotic suggestion. Want to live in a nanny state, move

This is what I have been saying all along. Why are you asking me. I have repeatedly said these things are NOT happening at McKamey Manor.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The law does not say that, you did.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: toolgal462
Anything that inflicts injury to another person can be considered "assault".

Only if they file a report saying they were assaulted, do you not get the whole consensual part?

I know how the law works...

That's a questionable statement at best.

But for you to claim this is black and white and that waterboarding and pulling of fingernails is not against the law then you are just pushing the legal line.

So stupid really really bothers me, inflicts very painful headaches and disorientation effects. Laziness also erupts painful and discomforts in me....can I file a police report and file charges ? ATS would be a really lonely place if I could...




The Federal Government has no laws against BDSM activity, so if you want Mistress Kitty to put a cigarette out on your tongue she can as long as it's consensual.

My claim was, in fact, that these things DO NOT HAPPEN at McKamey manor and the claims are BS.

And even if they were they're most likely not illegal in Tennessee.

Sorry y'all, I posted this for entertainment, I didn't know it was going to be a lot of arguing.
I am not one that likes to argue, but feel free to talk amongst yourselves.

I see now that Halloween means different things for different people.

a reply to: toolgal462

You are arguing that it would be illegal if it did occur and it would not be if consensual. If I ask someone to handcuff me and whip me with a bull whip, waterboard me while blindfolded and pull my finger nails out, there is nothing illegal about it. What someone does in their home is their business. Now if I kidnap someone and do all that, of course it's illegal. 50 shades of grey for crying out koud