Cheney defends Gitmo and Water Boarding

[JimH52]

Actually, the Waterboarding was one of the smaller instances of moral violations that this administration undertook. Shipping "terrorist" to foreign countries to be tortured was probably one of their "classier" moves.

Our moral standing around the world has been badly damaged. I am not sure if the Obama administration can recover it. It may take decades.

 

[JimH52]

And oddly enough, it is many of the religious right that are the biggest advocates of Gitmo and torture...Go Figure?

 

[Frolicking Dino]

I was wondering if this board was going to be a good place to discuss politics when I read oreo's misguided 'facts'. I remember that we did indeed hang some Japanese nationals for various forms of torture and the simulated drowning (now called water-boarding) was one of them.

As for the reliability of information obtained by using torture - it isn't very reliable.

Al Qaeda has said a number of times in videos released since 9/11 that the US's taking of prisoners without just cause, invasion of Iraq without just cause and mistreatment of the prisoners for all the world to see has helped solidify them with their Muslim brothers and has brought them new recruits. It has certainly made it easier for them to sell the message that the US is attacking Islam instead of terrorism to the Arab world.

 

[Grismonda]

I was wondering if this board was going to be a good place to discuss politics when I read oreo's misguided 'facts'. I remember that we did indeed hang some Japanese nationals for various forms of torture and the simulated drowning (now called water-boarding) was one of them.

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime

By Evan Wallach
Sunday, November 4, 2007; B01 (Wahsington Post)






As a JAG in the Nevada National Guard, I used to lecture the soldiers of the 72nd Military Police Company every year about their legal obligations when they guarded prisoners. I'd always conclude by saying, "I know you won't remember everything I told you today, but just remember what your mom told you: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." That's a pretty good standard for life and for the law, and even though I left the unit in 1995, I like to think that some of my teaching had carried over when the 72nd refused to participate in misconduct at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

Sometimes, though, the questions we face about detainees and interrogation get more specific. One such set of questions relates to "waterboarding."



That term is used to describe several interrogation techniques. The victim may be immersed in water, have water forced into the nose and mouth, or have water poured onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed. The media usually characterize the practice as "simulated drowning." That's incorrect. To be effective, waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death. That is,

the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut. The main difference is that the drowning process is halted. According to those who have studied waterboarding's effects, it can cause severe psychological trauma, such as panic attacks, for years.



The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.



After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

In this case from the tribunal's records, the victim was a prisoner in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies:

A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.

The United States (like Britain, Australia and other Allies) pursued lower-ranking Japanese war criminals in trials before their own tribunals. Here's the testimony of two Americans imprisoned by the Japanese:

They would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness.

And from the second prisoner: They laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air. . . . They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water.

As a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were not the only defendants convicted in such cases. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.

More recently, waterboarding cases have appeared in U.S. district courts. One was a civil action brought by several Filipinos seeking damages against the estate of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. The plaintiffs claimed they had been subjected to torture, including water torture. The court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that "the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation."

In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."

The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

We know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture. That's a lesson worth learning. The study of law is, after all, largely the study of history. The law of war is no different. This history should be of value to those who seek to understand what the law is -- as well as what it ought to be.

Evan Wallach, a judge at the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, teaches the law.

 

[oreo]

You are so ill-informed.

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime - washingtonpost.com

The Japanese were never hung for waterboarding, they used brutality to obtain information out of pow's. A good example of this was the battle of the Phillipines. When McCarthur left & the Japanese took control, there were actually over 600 very young healthy American soldiers that were held prisoners of war in the Japanese prison camps. When McCarthur returned 2 years later, only 160 of those men were still alive. Many had to be carted off because of starvation, malaria & other diseases. Some even died on the way home. This is how they managed their prison camps. That is, if one was fortunate enough to be taken prisoner by the Japanese. Many POW'S were shot on the spot. If one could not walk they were immediately killed.

An example of Japanese brutality: When the Japanese marched into China they would take Chinese infants & babies--throw them up into the air & banonett them on the way down.

The concept of even trying to compare waterboarding with what the Japanese did to POW's & enemies during WW2 is undeniable IGNORANCE. In the USA, President Bush tried to get a democrat congress to give a definition of "torture", because people like you were complaining that sleep deprivation & water boarding were torture. To this day, no one in congress has brought a bill to the floor for a vote that would consider these two tactics torture. Why? Because they know that both are very effective, & do not cause physical harm & or death. The politicians hoop & holler to attract people like you, but believe me--high value targets with information will be waterboarded.

Since Criss will not answer this question, I will ask it of you. And I bet like Criss, you won't answer it.

If terrorists captured one of your loved ones. A person you love more than life. The terrorists are going to kill your loved one within hours. One of them is caught & will not disclose where your loved one is. All the sweet-talking, donuts & coffee is not working. The terrorist is just sitting there, with the biggest grin on his face watching the clock tick down. Would you actually tell the interregators to not use any tactics, including waterboarding on this terrorist to save your loved ones life? IT'S A VERY SIMPLE YES OR NO ANSWER--so answer it.

If you won't answer this question, then I will assume that you are blowing smoke on this issue. In other words, you're just complaining about something that you would do-- "waterboarding"-- in order to save your own ass, or that of a loved one, while complaining about the exact same tactic being used by someone else in order to save innocents other than you or a loved one.

 

[Chris]

The Japanese were never hung for waterboarding, they used brutality to obtain information out of pow's. A good example of this was the battle of the Phillipines. When McCarthur left & the Japanese took control, there were actually over 600 very young healthy American soldiers that were held prisoners of war in the Japanese prison camps. When McCarthur returned 2 years later, only 160 of those men were still alive. Many had to be carted off because of starvation, malaria & other diseases. Some even died on the way home. This is how they managed their prison camps. That is, if one was fortunate enough to be taken prisoner by the Japanese. Many POW'S were shot on the spot. If one could not walk they were immediately killed.

An example of Japanese brutality: When the Japanese marched into China they would take Chinese infants & babies--throw them up into the air & banonett them on the way down.

The concept of even trying to compare waterboarding with what the Japanese did to POW's & enemies during WW2 is undeniable IGNORANCE. In the USA, President Bush tried to get a democrat congress to give a definition of "torture", because people like you were complaining that sleep deprivation & water boarding were torture. To this day, no one in congress has brought a bill to the floor for a vote that would consider these two tactics torture. Why? Because they know that both are very effective, & do not cause physical harm & or death. The politicians hoop & holler to attract people like you, but believe me--high value targets with information will be waterboarded.

Since Criss will not answer this question, I will ask it of you. And I expect an ANSWER: If you refuse answer it, like Criss--then go blow off.

If terrorists captured one of your loved ones. A person you love more than life. The terrorists are going to kill your loved one within hours. One of them is caught & will not disclose where your loved one is. All the sweet-talking, donuts & coffee is not working. The terrorist is just sitting there, with the biggest grin on his face watching the clock tick down. Would you actually tell the interregators to not use any tactics, including waterboarding on this terrorist to save your loved ones life? THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH TODAY, IN THE 21ST CENTURY. IT'S A VERY SIMPLE YES OR NO ANSWER--so answer it.

Waterboarding is the greatest recruiting tool AQ has.

If you waterboard, you are helping the terrorists.

Of course, Bush and Cheney are the best friends any terrorist ever had. Obama is their worst nightmare.

 

[oreo]

Waterboarding is the greatest recruiting tool AQ has.

If you waterboard, you are helping the terrorists.

Of course, Bush and Cheney are the best friends any terrorist ever had. Obama is their worst nightmare.

Criss are you a coward? This is the 6th time I have asked you this question. Here it is again.

If terrorists captured one of your loved ones. A person you love more than life. The terrorists are going to kill your loved one within hours. One of them is caught & will not disclose where your loved one is. All the sweet-talking, donuts & coffee is not working. The terrorist is just sitting there, with the biggest grin on his face watching the clock tick down. Would you actually tell the interregators to not use any tactics, including waterboarding on this terrorist to save your loved ones life?

1. Would you approve of waterboarding to save your loved ones life?
2. Would you disaprove of waterboarding to save your loved ones life--because you are more concerned that you would be creating another terrorist by using waterboarding on the terrorist that knows where your loved one is.

So let me make it easier for you: Just reply with 1 or 2. I am not going to leave you alone until you answer this question.

 

[Tech_Esq]

During World War II both Japanese troops, especially the Kempeitai, and the officers of the Gestapo,[54] the German secret police, used waterboarding as a method of torture.[55] During the Japanese occupation of Singapore the Double Tenth Incident occurred. This included waterboarding, by the method of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach.[56][57]

Chase J. Nielsen, one of the U.S. airmen who flew in the Doolittle raid following the attack on Pearl Harbor, was subjected to waterboarding by his Japanese captors.[58] At their trial for war crimes following the war, he testified "Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I’d get my breath, then they’d start over again... I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death".[30]
Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The explanations of waterboarding above are not the methods used by the US. In the US method, practically no water is ever ingested.

You anti-waterboarding folks are aware we do this to nearly every service member in Survival, Escape, Evasion and Resistance (SEER) training right? It would be too bad if the only people the US waterboards is its own troops.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Waterboarding is the greatest recruiting tool AQ has.

If you waterboard, you are helping the terrorists.

Of course, Bush and Cheney are the best friends any terrorist ever had. Obama is their worst nightmare.

I got to hear more from Matthew Alexander today, he's apparently making the rounds of all the DC radio stations selling his book. This morning he spoke specifically on this point.

He said when he got to Iraq, the predominant method of obtaining information was through harsher methods. Not really "torture" but harsher than his method. He said that it worked but the ratio was like 1 in every 10 of those interrogated would give information. Naturally, they were not waterboarding these guys, just giving them a rough way to go. Using his methods which are pretty much what you get at the police station if you are arrested and don't ask for a lawyer, he said the results were normally 2 or 3 in 10 would provide information in roughly the same amount of time.

One thing he said he did notice was when they questioned foreign fighters, they said it was the images of Abu Garhab and the reports that detainees were being tortured in Gitmo that motivated them to come to Iraq.

Having said that Alexander has an agenda. He doesn't think that harsh methods are as effective and he wants the policy to be what he did. OK. So, while he may be accurately reporting that "torture" was ONE of the things they said brought them to Iraq, I don't think it was the ONLY thing. To me it sounds like pretty thin soup to get people to go die in a foreign country.

After all, Americans were very pissed off about the Rape of Nanking, but we didn't run off to fight the Japanese.

In the end, I'll stick to my position. We should do the most effective thing to obtain the information first. If that is Mr. Alexander's method that is battlefield test, that's cool with me. I would not foreclose the option of waterboarding or any other method of obtaining information though. If we need to pass a law against torture including waterboarding for public consumption, fine, but we should leave a channel open in real life so we can do it if we need to.

I think the people who wish an end to it completely don't take this fight seriously. I think they do not believe this could be a fight for national survival. As is pointed out by the left constantly, there are a billion Muslims. Most of whom you believe do not agree with the bad guys. I would counter, what if you're wrong?

 

[Tech_Esq]

The Japanese were never hung for waterboarding, they used brutality to obtain information out of pow's. A good example of this was the battle of the Phillipines. When McCarthur left & the Japanese took control, there were actually over 600 very young healthy American soldiers that were held prisoners of war in the Japanese prison camps. When McCarthur returned 2 years later, only 160 of those men were still alive. Many had to be carted off because of starvation, malaria & other diseases. Some even died on the way home. This is how they managed their prison camps. That is, if one was fortunate enough to be taken prisoner by the Japanese. Many POW'S were shot on the spot. If one could not walk they were immediately killed.

An example of Japanese brutality: When the Japanese marched into China they would take Chinese infants & babies--throw them up into the air & banonett them on the way down.

The concept of even trying to compare waterboarding with what the Japanese did to POW's & enemies during WW2 is undeniable IGNORANCE. In the USA, President Bush tried to get a democrat congress to give a definition of "torture", because people like you were complaining that sleep deprivation & water boarding were torture. To this day, no one in congress has brought a bill to the floor for a vote that would consider these two tactics torture. Why? Because they know that both are very effective, & do not cause physical harm & or death. The politicians hoop & holler to attract people like you, but believe me--high value targets with information will be waterboarded.

Since Criss will not answer this question, I will ask it of you. And I bet like Criss, you won't answer it.

If terrorists captured one of your loved ones. A person you love more than life. The terrorists are going to kill your loved one within hours. One of them is caught & will not disclose where your loved one is. All the sweet-talking, donuts & coffee is not working. The terrorist is just sitting there, with the biggest grin on his face watching the clock tick down. Would you actually tell the interregators to not use any tactics, including waterboarding on this terrorist to save your loved ones life? IT'S A VERY SIMPLE YES OR NO ANSWER--so answer it.

If you won't answer this question, then I will assume that you are blowing smoke on this issue. In other words, you're just complaining about something that you would do-- "waterboarding"-- in order to save your own ass, or that of a loved one, while complaining about the exact same tactic being used by someone else in order to save innocents other than you or a loved one.

I would commend to you the book "Reprieve from Hell" by Samuel Moody on the subject of the Bataan Death march, the brutality of Japanese captivity both in the Philippines and after he was transported to Japan. I dare say you have some inaccurate facts there, although the general flavor is right.

 

[AllieBaba]

We sentenced Japanese soldiers to death and hung them for waterboarding americans.

I'm still amazed that Republicans can cheer for torture.

Bullshit. We sentenced Japanese soldiers to death and hung them (although I'm not sure we actually did do that....do you have evidence?) not for waterboarding Americans but for KILLING Americans in hideous ways.

 

[Chris]

Criss are you a coward? This is the 6th time I have asked you this question. Here it is again.

If terrorists captured one of your loved ones. A person you love more than life. The terrorists are going to kill your loved one within hours. One of them is caught & will not disclose where your loved one is. All the sweet-talking, donuts & coffee is not working. The terrorist is just sitting there, with the biggest grin on his face watching the clock tick down. Would you actually tell the interregators to not use any tactics, including waterboarding on this terrorist to save your loved ones life?

1. Would you approve of waterboarding to save your loved ones life?
2. Would you disaprove of waterboarding to save your loved ones life--because you are more concerned that you would be creating another terrorist by using waterboarding on the terrorist that knows where your loved one is.

So let me make it easier for you: Just reply with 1 or 2. I am not going to leave you alone until you answer this question.

I answered this question on another thread.

No waterboarding ever. It doesn't work.

 

[Steerpike]

I answered this question on another thread.

No waterboarding ever. It doesn't work.

That is actually a dodge, not an answer, given your second sentence. The scenario included in the question assumes it would work to save a loved one. That particular question remains unanswered.

 

[Chris]

That is actually a dodge, not an answer, given your second sentence. The scenario included in the question assumes it would work to save a loved one. That particular question remains unanswered.

For the third time...

No, not with a "loved one." Not ever.

It doesn't work.

 

[Steerpike]

For the third time...

No, not with a "loved one." Not ever.

It doesn't work.

LOL. You just can't bring yourself to answer it, can you?

Let's assume purely for the sake of argument that it will work at least in this one instance. And the person at stake is whoever is most dear to you in your life. Then would you employ it? This is answerable in either 'yes' or 'no' fashion, without qualifying it...

 

[Chris]

LOL. You just can't bring yourself to answer it, can you?

Let's assume purely for the sake of argument that it will work at least in this one instance. And the person at stake is whoever is most dear to you in your life. Then would you employ it? This is answerable in either 'yes' or 'no' fashion, without qualifying it...

For the fourth time...

Never, ever. No qualification.

 

[Tech_Esq]

For the third time...

No, not with a "loved one." Not ever.

It doesn't work.

Actually, if you want to be accurate Chris, Matthew Alexander didn't say that waterboarding doesn't work. He says that the rate of success using his methods are better.

His kick against waterboarding is that, in his opinion, it is torture and torture and claims of torture advantage the enemy by providing propaganda to use in recruiting. Given the illiteracy rates in the middle east, images are very effective in swaying popular opinion.

 

[Chris]

Actually, if you want to be accurate Chris, Matthew Alexander didn't say that waterboarding doesn't work. He says that the rate of success using his methods are better.

His kick against waterboarding is that, in his opinion, it is torture and torture and claims of torture advantage the enemy by providing propaganda to use in recruiting. Given the illiteracy rates in the middle east, images are very effective in swaying popular opinion.

So why use a less effective method that gives your enemy a propaganda victory?

You would have to be stupid to do that.

 

[Steerpike]

For the fourth time...

Never, ever. No qualification.

That was the first time, without qualification. Maybe you don't understand the difference, but I suspect you do.

I also think you are lying.

Any person (other than perhaps a pure, outright pacifist) who says they would refuse to employ it if it was 100% assured to save the person they care about most in the world is either lying or isn't close to anyone. You can tell me which it is if you like.

The correct (and honest) answer is that yes, either of us would likely employ it if we knew for a fact that it would save the person we care most about, and that's true regardless of our general opposition to it.

The additional part of the correct answer, of course, is that our reaction would be emotional and the product of the enormous stress of being in that position, and so the fact that we would employ it should by no means serve as a basis for the use of waterboarding as "policy," which should be determined in a more rational way.

 

[Tech_Esq]

So why use a less effective method that gives your enemy a propaganda victory?

You would have to be stupid to do that.

It seems to me in 99.99% of cases, you wouldn't. In the .01% of cases, the reason would be you have reason to believe the person holds information you need and the alternatives are continuing to do something that hasn't worked in the time it should have, giving up or trying waterboarding.

In such cases, it should be done with the utmost secrecy so that no propaganda material can be gained from it. It's a judgment call definitely. I think that it should not be foreclosed, but it should have many controls on it so it can't be used because one or two guys think it's a good idea. There should be a formalize process where somebody important places their ass squarely on the line for the decision and there should be a record of it. That should keep it sufficiently rare.