Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime - More hypocrisy from the U.S.

[go_disc_golf]

Originally Posted by SBSpartan

I don't need to. My point still stands. The party making the decision has never been constant. It's been going on for decades.


Ok, discussion. Toture has been around for a long time. I don't condone it but I can tell you this. If charged with a secret. I am probably going to give it up if someone wants to cut off my toe.

Your point is incorrect. It is hypocritical that the United States shifts back and forth on a topic like this. Very recently the U.S. stance was to "scold" other nations for water boarding, now when it fits our purpose, it is OK... You are basically saying we aren't being hypocritical because we are hypocritical about other issues. It makes no sense.


Now, why wouldn't you just lie to avoid having your toe cut off?

[SBSpartan]

Originally Posted by go_disc_golf

Your point is incorrect. It is hypocritical that the United States shifts back and forth on a topic like this. Very recently the U.S. stance was to "scold" other nations for water boarding, now when it fits our purpose, it is OK... You are basically saying we aren't being hypocritical because we are hypocritical about other issues. It makes no sense.


Now, why wouldn't you just lie to avoid having your toe cut off?

Where did you get the second hypocritical? I never said anything like that. I just said a goverment as a whole can't be hypocritical because the decision makers change all the time.

I am guessing the guy doing the cutting can spot a lie. The arguement is that they do these things (not toe cutting) to gain the good info. If they couldn't tell the difference between a lie and the truth we might as well not even question them right? I am condoning torture here. Just trying to answer your question.

[oscar novak]

Follow the link below to read letters from Navy pilots who were subjected to waterboarding and what they think of the technique. Note that one of the pilots was waterboarded in the 1970s when it was allegedly illegal. If waterboarding is torture, why are veterans' organizations not calling for the elimination of torture for military personnel, which has apparently been going on for more than 30 years?

Here is a quote from the commentary in the blog post:

There is room for legitimate disagreement about when interrogation techniques may become too harsh. But I think an easy standard to apply is that if we do it to our own troops in training, we ought to be able to do it to the leaders of al Qaeda.

Democrats "Wary" of Military Commissions Compromise

[go_disc_golf]

Originally Posted by oscar novak

Follow the link below to read letters from Navy pilots who were subjected to waterboarding and what they think of the technique. Note that one of the pilots was waterboarded in the 1970s when it was allegedly illegal. If waterboarding is torture, why are veterans' organizations not calling for the elimination of torture for military personnel, which has apparently been going on for more than 30 years?

Here is a quote from the commentary in the blog post:


Democrats "Wary" of Military Commissions Compromise

So if it's no big deal, why use it in the first place?

[oscar novak]

Originally Posted by go_disc_golf

So if it's no big deal, why use it in the first place?

Who said it's not a big deal? It sounds awful. But is it torture? If it IS torture why is it 'not a big deal' to you if military folks are being tortured? It seems no one cared until terrorists were being waterboarded.

I have yet to see a single waterboarding 'victim' from the military testify to Congress or even submit an editorial to a newspaper calling for an end to using 'torture' in training.

To me, it's the same old thing...it is being made a political issue. I just hate to think these politicians are concerned more about the comfort of terrorists than the folks who risk their lives to keep them free. Yeah, gotta be politics since they aren't terrorist sympathizers.

[go_disc_golf]

Originally Posted by oscar novak

Who said it's not a big deal? It sounds awful. But is it torture? If it IS torture why is it 'not a big deal' to you if military folks are being tortured? It seems no one cared until terrorists were being waterboarded.

I have yet to see a single waterboarding 'victim' from the military testify to Congress or even submit an editorial to a newspaper calling for an end to using 'torture' in training.

To me, it's the same old thing...it is being made a political issue. I just hate to think these politicians are concerned more about the comfort of terrorists than the folks who risk their lives to keep them free. Yeah, gotta be politics since they aren't terrorist sympathizers.

Well then why, when other countries use this method against Americans, does America go nuts?

[go_disc_golf]

Pentagon distances military from waterboarding






Associated Press - November 2, 2007 3:23 AM ET
PENTAGON (AP) - Officials at the Pentagon are distancing the military from waterboarding.
Both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen say American troops shouldn't have anything to do with waterboarding. Gates says the army field manual specifically bans the interrogation method.
The controversial technique simulates drowning. It's believed that the CIA has used it in the past against so-called "high value" terror suspects. And the issue is currently holding up the nomination of Michael Mukasey (myoo-KAY-zee) to be attorney general. He's declined to call it torture.
Even though the Pentagon bans it, Gates won't say whether he thinks waterboarding is torture either. He says that's a legal thicket he's going to avoid.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[go_disc_golf]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3115549.ece




Waterboarding is torture - I did it myself, says US advisor

By Leonard Doyle in Washington

Published: 01 November 2007



When the US military trains soldiers to resist interrogation, it uses a torture technique from the Middle Ages, known as "waterboarding". Its use on terror suspects in secret US prisons around the world has come to symbolise the Bush administration's no-nonsense enthusiasm for the harshest questioning techniques.
Although waterboarding has been considered torture for over a century and the US military is banned from using it, controversy over its continuing use by the CIA may be about to derail the appointment of President Bush's candidate for US Attorney-General.
Michael Mukasey, a retired federal judge from New York and a veteran of several al-Qa'ida trials, was questioned by a Senate committee on Tuesday and refused to say whether waterboarding was illegal.
Instead, he called the technique "repugnant to me" and promised to investigate further if he was confirmed in the job. He explained that he could not say yet whether the practice was illegal because he had not been briefed on the secret methods of US interrogators and he did not want to put the CIA officers who used it in "personal legal jeopardy".

ven though Congress banned waterboarding in the US military in 2005, it did not do so for the CIA. As a result, Mr Mukasey told senators, it was uncertain whether this technique or other harsh methods constituted "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment. His answers did not satisfy the Democrats, however, and his approval now hinges on whether he is willing to say the torture method is against US law. In a further embarrassment for Mr Bush yesterday, Malcolm Nance, an advisor on terrorism to the US departments of Homeland Security, Special Operations and Intelligence, publicly denounced the practice. He revealed that waterboarding is used in training at the US Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School in San Diego, and claimed to have witnessed and supervised "hundreds" of waterboarding exercises. Although these last only a few minutes and take place under medical supervision, he concluded that "waterboarding is a torture technique – period".
The practice involves strapping the person being interrogated on to a board as pints of water are forced into his lungs through a cloth covering his face while the victim's mouth is forced open. Its effect, according to Mr Nance, is a process of slow-motion suffocation.
Typically, a victim goes into hysterics on the board as water fills his lungs. "How much the victim is to drown," Mr Nance wrote in an article for the Small Wars Journal, "depends on the desired result and the obstinacy of the subject.
"A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience to horrific, suffocating punishment, to the final death spiral. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch."
The CIA director Michael Hayden has tried to defuse the controversy. He claims that, since 2002, aggressive interrogation methods in which a prisoner believes he is about to die have been used on only about 30 of the 100 al-Qai'da suspects being held by the US. Meanwhile, a CIA official told The New York Times waterboarding had only been used three times. The Bush administration has suggested that the interrogation of al-Qai'da's second-in-command, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was a success thanks to the technique, and used this to justify continued aggressive interrogations of suspects in secret CIA prisons.
While US media reports typically state that waterboarding involves "simulated drowning", Mr Nance explained that "since the lungs are actually filling with water", there is nothing simulated about it. "Waterboarding," he said, "is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration. When done right, it is controlled death."
Mr Nance said US troops were trained to withstand waterboarding, watched by a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a backup team. "When performed with even moderate intensity over an extended time on an unsuspecting prisoner – it is torture, without doubt," he added. "Most people cannot stand to watch a high-intensity, kinetic interrogation. One has to overcome basic human decency to endure watching or causing the effects. The brutality would force you into a personal moral dilemma between humanity and hatred. It would leave you to question the meaning of what it is to be an American."
Mr Mukasey's nomination goes before the Senate next week. Three Democratic presidential candidates, including Hillary Clinton, have already said they will not support him. However, the White House said yesterday that it did not believe his nomination was in jeopardy.
'I felt I was drowning and I was in terrible agony'
Henri Alleg, a journalist, was tortured in 1957 by French forces in Algeria. He described the ordeal of water torture in his book The Question. Soldiers strapped him over a plank, wrapped his head in cloth and positioned it beneath a running tap. He recalled: "The rag was soaked rapidly. Water flowed everywhere: in my mouth, in my nose, all over my face. But for a while I could still breathe in some small gulps of air. I tried, by contracting my throat, to take in as little water as possible and to resist suffocation by keeping air in my lungs for as long as I could. But I couldn't hold on for more than a few moments. I had the impression of drowning, and a terrible agony, that of death itself, took possession of me. In spite of myself, all the muscles of my body struggled uselessly to save me from suffocation. In spite of myself, the fingers of both my hands shook uncontrollably. 'That's it! He's going to talk,' said a voice.
The water stopped running and they took away the rag. I was able to breathe. In the gloom, I saw the lieutenants and the captain, who, with a cigarette between his lips, was hitting my stomach with his fist to make me throw out the water I had swallowed."

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by oscar novak

This is the stupidest, most disingenuous argument for waterboarding I've seen. It's so incredibly obvious that the torture line is crossed dependent on how rigorously the technique is applied. If you think the technique experienced by our pilots during training is the same level that may be applied in captivity ... well, then you're an idiot.

Mental and physical effects of Waterboarding

In an open letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Human Rights Watch claimed that waterboarding can cause the sort of "severe pain" prohibited by 18 USC 2340 (the implementation in the US of the United Nations Convention Against Torture), that the psychological effects can last long after waterboarding ends (another of the criteria under 18 USC 2340), and that uninterrupted waterboarding can ultimately cause death.

Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, has treated "a number of people" who had been subjected to forms of near-asphyxiation, including waterboarding. An interview for The New Yorker states, "[He] argued that it was indeed torture, 'Some victims were still traumatized years later', he said.

One patient couldn't take showers, and panicked when it rained. 'The fear of being killed is a terrifying experience,' he said."Keller also stated in his testimony before the Senate that "Water-boarding or mock drowning, where a prisoner is bound to an inclined board and water is poured over their face, inducing a terrifying fear of drowning clearly can result in immediate and long-term health consequences. As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia, rapid heart beat and gasping for breath.

There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water. Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD. I remind you of the patient I described earlier who would panic and gasp for breath whenever it rained even years after his abuse."

BTW, you do understand that when Assistant Attorney General Lavin went thru a trial waterboarding, as research, and was in the process of officially classifying the technique as torture, based on his experience .... he was fired by the W admin ... right?

[SBSpartan]

What about covering someone in banana slugs? Is that torture? Or is it just gross?

[oscar novak]

Originally Posted by Jack78

This is the stupidest, most disingenuous argument for waterboarding I've seen. It's so incredibly obvious that the torture line is crossed dependent on how rigorously the technique is applied. If you think the technique experienced by our pilots during training is the same level that may be applied in captivity ... well, then you're an idiot.

Uhhh, the author of the quote said if it's the same. Can't we assume that he also thinks it shouldn't be used if it is not the same? Am I still and idiot? Please, oh please tell me I'm not - it is very important to me that you think I'm not an idiot!

Originally Posted by Jack78

BTW, you do understand that when Assistant Attorney General Lavin went thru a trial waterboarding, as research, and was in the process of officially classifying the technique as torture, based on his experience .... he was fired by the W admin ... right?

Did not know that. Would appreciate a link so I can read for myself what happened and what his current position is. I Googled "attorney general lavin" and got no results. A first name will help, I can look from there. TIA

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by oscar novak

Uhhh, the author of the quote said if it's the same. Can't we assume that he also thinks it shouldn't be used if it is not the same? Am I still and idiot? Please, oh please tell me I'm not - it is very important to me that you think I'm not an idiot!



Did not know that. Would appreciate a link so I can read for myself what happened and what his current position is. I Googled "attorney general lavin" and got no results. A first name will help, I can look from there. TIA

I misspelled Levin.

ABC News: White House Blocked Waterboarding Critic

[John Deere]

Originally Posted by Fletch

It's pathetic that a few of you still defend the guy soley because he has an "R" next to his name on the ballot. He's an embarrassment to the word "Republican." Then again, so are you, so I guess it makes sense that you still support him.

Actually, I was not defending Bush. I was ridiculing your inane comment.

Don't confuse parody with laughing at you.

"Centuries of damage". Classic.

[John Deere]

Originally Posted by SBSpartan

No it wasn't. It was spot on.

Let me break it down.

Waterboard made illegal 40 years ago.

GWB's admin made it legal in 2003.

Two different parties, with two different thoughts.

NOT hypocritical.

Your problem, SB, is that you make sense.

When you make sense the Demms have to twist it to fit into their "America sucks and if it didn't we'd have to make somethiing up to whine about philosophy."

It also discusses (rationally, I might add) that a change occurred. Demms have lots of problems understanding change. In their simplistic world things never change. They simply cannot handle it in their pea-sized-brains.

[Fletch]

Originally Posted by HubbardHall85

Actually, I was not defending Bush. I was ridiculing your inane comment.

Don't confuse parody with laughing at you.

"Centuries of damage". Classic.

Great post. You should teach a debate class.

[Other Mike]

November 5, 2007, The Wall Street Journal reported that its "sources confirm...that the CIA has only used this interrogation method against three terrorist detainees and not since 2003."

This is the second major media release supporting my claim that this isn't a real practice, and simply a political powerplay against the approval of a Bush appointee.

Go, its your thread, if you have proof stating otherwise, please post it.

[FC Juventus]

maybe "we" are just trying to give these dirty troglodyte terriorists a sponge bath? BFD.

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by Other Mike

November 5, 2007, The Wall Street Journal reported that its "sources confirm...that the CIA has only used this interrogation method against three terrorist detainees and not since 2003."

This is the second major media release supporting my claim that this isn't a real practice, and simply a political powerplay against the approval of a Bush appointee.

Go, its your thread, if you have proof stating otherwise, please post it.

You wouldn't suppose they're exactly the same sources, would you? Did you think the first media outlet misquoted the source?

[Other Mike]

Jack, you are calling into question the integrity of two of the major media outlets of this country. All the while, not one source in this entire thread indicating anything to the contrary.

The only conclusion is that this whole debate is not about torture or what is or isn't acceptable. Rather it is a political power play aimed at taking down a Bush appointee.

Given that no evidence has been supplied to counter my documented point that it isn't a widely practiced procedure, i earn the right to speculate on what i think Go's motive is.

[go_disc_golf]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if government sources claim that water boarding has only been used 3 times over that last several years. I would be surprised if people just took them at their word, especially given evidence to the contrary.

[go_disc_golf]

Originally Posted by Other Mike

Jack, you are calling into question the integrity of two of the major media outlets of this country. All the while, not one source in this entire thread indicating anything to the contrary.

The only conclusion is that this whole debate is not about torture or what is or isn't acceptable. Rather it is a political power play aimed at taking down a Bush appointee.

Given that no evidence has been supplied to counter my documented point that it isn't a widely practiced procedure, i earn the right to speculate on what i think Go's motive is.

My "motive" is spelled out in the title of the thread.