Proof that waterboarding is Torture: Calling on DogBert, Article_15, & StrollingBones

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

If it's not torture.

Then what is it ??

interrogation technique? I dunno thats why I asked those 3, they seem to be able to debate without resorting to bodecca style posts (yeah bodecca your last post was lame in the spirit of this thread).

 

[bodecea]

If it's not torture.

Then what is it ??

interrogation technique? I dunno thats why I asked those 3, they seem to be able to debate without resorting to bodecca style posts (yeah bodecca your last post was lame in the spirit of this thread).

Lame in what way? C'mon, you're just angry I made your excuse for you before you had a chance.

 

[Modbert]

Definition of Torture:

United Nations Convention Against Torture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

United Nations Convention Against Torture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The U.S. and the majority of the other countries have signed (145 others). Others who haven't include Iran and North Korea.

 

[Liability]

If it's not torture.

Then what is it ??

interrogation technique? I dunno thats why I asked those 3, they seem to be able to debate without resorting to bodecca style posts (yeah bodecca your last post was lame in the spirit of this thread).

Lame in what way? C'mon, you're just angry I made your excuse for you before you had a chance.

No. He pointed out (more politely than you deserved, skank) that you made no significant contribution in that post he was referencing. He was right.

You offer your one-liners without relying on honesty or facts; and your snide commentary is quite boring and unproductive.

Go back through your posts. When was the last time you actually cited a reference to any kind of non-opinion piece that supported a part of a meaningful debate?

You may have done it a few times in your history here, but it HAS to be pretty fucking rare.

 

[Liability]

Definition of Torture:

United Nations Convention Against Torture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

United Nations Convention Against Torture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The U.S. and the majority of the other countries have signed (145 others). Others who haven't include Iran and North Korea.

Dog:

Is THAT really the definition YOU would be willing to rely upon if you were to engage in an honest to goodness formal debate?

Do you see any reason to question whether or not it is a reasonable definition when applied to THIS discussion (i.e., OUR use of this interrogation technique to extract information from suspected terrorists which we require to prevent them from succeeding in any further planned terrorist attacks against our innocent civilian population)?

 

[Modbert]

Dog:

Is THAT really the definition YOU would be willing to rely upon if you were to engage in an honest to goodness formal debate?

Do you see any reason to question whether or not it is a reasonable definition when applied to THIS discussion (i.e., OUR use of this interrogation technique to extract information from suspected terrorists which we require to prevent them from succeeding in any further planned terrorist attacks against our innocent civilian population)?

You seem to think your opinion overrules legal precedent and signed treaties. Why, I have no idea.

 

[bodecea]

interrogation technique? I dunno thats why I asked those 3, they seem to be able to debate without resorting to bodecca style posts (yeah bodecca your last post was lame in the spirit of this thread).

Lame in what way? C'mon, you're just angry I made your excuse for you before you had a chance.

No. He pointed out (more politely than you deserved, skank) that you made no significant contribution in that post he was referencing. He was right.

You offer your one-liners without relying on honesty or facts; and your snide commentary is quite boring and unproductive.

Go back through your posts. When was the last time you actually cited a reference to any kind of non-opinion piece that supported a part of a meaningful debate?

You may have done it a few times in your history here, but it HAS to be pretty fucking rare.

DAMN! I've got to stop following you around like this.

 

[Liability]

Dog:

Is THAT really the definition YOU would be willing to rely upon if you were to engage in an honest to goodness formal debate?

Do you see any reason to question whether or not it is a reasonable definition when applied to THIS discussion (i.e., OUR use of this interrogation technique to extract information from suspected terrorists which we require to prevent them from succeeding in any further planned terrorist attacks against our innocent civilian population)?

You seem to think your opinion overrules legal precedent and signed treaties. Why, I have no idea.

That was a valuable insight into how you engage in "debate," there doggie.
And, of course, not only are you wrong, but more importantly, you dodged the questions.

So, let's see if you can be made to focus.

With regard to the UN Treaty definition of "torture" which you cited in a recent post, "is THAT really the definition YOU would be willing to rely upon if you were to engage in an honest to goodness formal debate?"

"Do you see any reason to question whether or not it is a reasonable definition when applied to THIS discussion (i.e., OUR use of this interrogation technique to extract information from suspected terrorists which we require to prevent them from succeeding in any further planned terrorist attacks against our innocent civilian population)?"

 

[Liability]

Lame in what way? C'mon, you're just angry I made your excuse for you before you had a chance.

No. He pointed out (more politely than you deserved, skank) that you made no significant contribution in that post he was referencing. He was right.

You offer your one-liners without relying on honesty or facts; and your snide commentary is quite boring and unproductive.

Go back through your posts. When was the last time you actually cited a reference to any kind of non-opinion piece that supported a part of a meaningful debate?

You may have done it a few times in your history here, but it HAS to be pretty fucking rare.

DAMN! I've got to stop following you around like this.

That WOULD be a good start. And again, let it be noted that you are still not focused on the topic.

You have problems focusing, eh?

 

[Modbert]

That was a valuable insight into how you engage in "debate," there doggie.
And, of course, not only are you wrong, but more importantly, you dodged the questions.

So, let's see if you can be made to focus.

With regard to the UN Treaty definition of "torture" which you cited in a recent post, "is THAT really the definition YOU would be willing to rely upon if you were to engage in an honest to goodness formal debate?"

"Do you see any reason to question whether or not it is a reasonable definition when applied to THIS discussion (i.e., OUR use of this interrogation technique to extract information from suspected terrorists which we require to prevent them from succeeding in any further planned terrorist attacks against our innocent civilian population)?"

I'm not dodging anything. I would be willing to rely on that definition of torture because THAT IS the definition of torture. The U.S. has signed the Convention Against Torture as has 145 other countries. The other countries that haven't include North Korea and Iran. Those are the facts. Now, if you're going to side with North Korea and Iran while disagreeing with me, be my guest.

And it is certainly a reasonable definition when all other countries who have signed are expected to follow the same rules as we are.

Also, extracting information from suspected terrorists can be done without torture. You seem to think we require torture to get information, that is a logical fallacy with no backing to support it.

 

[Liability]

That was a valuable insight into how you engage in "debate," there doggie.
And, of course, not only are you wrong, but more importantly, you dodged the questions.

So, let's see if you can be made to focus.

With regard to the UN Treaty definition of "torture" which you cited in a recent post, "is THAT really the definition YOU would be willing to rely upon if you were to engage in an honest to goodness formal debate?"

"Do you see any reason to question whether or not it is a reasonable definition when applied to THIS discussion (i.e., OUR use of this interrogation technique to extract information from suspected terrorists which we require to prevent them from succeeding in any further planned terrorist attacks against our innocent civilian population)?"

I'm not dodging anything. I would be willing to rely on that definition of torture because THAT IS the definition of torture. The U.S. has signed the Convention Against Torture as has 145 other countries. The other countries that haven't include North Korea and Iran. Those are the facts. Now, if you're going to side with North Korea and Iran while disagreeing with me, be my guest.

And it is certainly a reasonable definition when all other countries who have signed are expected to follow the same rules as we are.

Also, extracting information from suspected terrorists can be done without torture. You seem to think we require torture to get information, that is a logical fallacy with no backing to support it.

No. THAT is NOT "the" definition of "torture." It is, however, A definition of torture. It is not one which serves a truly useful purpose for present purposes, imho. I will explain that later.

I commend you for at least finally answering the direct question. We shall return to that matter after a while.

As to your (again!) rather straightforward response to my second question, I again commend you. Yes, I DO disagree with your position, but at least you GAVE a straightforward answer. ALthough I cannot go into much detail right now, I will preview my position for you. I believe that you are wrong. The alleged "reasonableness" of that defintion of "torture" in THIS context is beyond just dubious. My contention is that it is in fact NOT a reasonable defintional basis for purposes of this discussion.

I have to go, now. I may check in sometime later tonight.

I will pick up our discussion from here. As a matter of courtesy, I will address both of your answers to both of those questions as my next step in this discussion [bearing in mind that history offers many examples of negotiating things like the shape of the table that precede any actual negotiations].

I will address some of your other comments in due course, like your erroneous contention about what I believe regarding the utility of torture. For future reference, you are not actually permitted to state my position for me, especuially when you do so incorrectly. I throw that flag, now, for future reference.

 

[Modbert]

As for what you wanted Pilgrim (Prepare yourself):

United Nations Convention Against Torture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG2VF4a0LWs[/ame]



PolitiFact | History supports McCain's stance on waterboarding

"I forgot to mention last night that following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding," he told reporters at a campaign event.

"If the United States is in another conflict ... and we have allowed that kind of torture to be inflicted upon people we hold captive, then there is nothing to prevent that enemy from also torturing American prisoners."

- John McCain

McCain is referencing the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as "water cure," "water torture" and "waterboarding," according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning

R. John Pritchard, a historian and lawyer who is a top scholar on the trials, said the Japanese felt the ends justified the means. "The rapid and effective collection of intelligence then, as now, was seen as vital to a successful struggle, and in addition, those who were engaged in torture often felt that whatever pain and anguish was suffered by the victims of torture was nothing less than the just deserts of the victims or people close to them," he said.

In a recent journal essay, Judge Evan Wallach, a member of the U.S. Court of International Trade and an adjunct professor in the law of war, writes that the testimony from American soldiers about this form of torture was gruesome and convincing. A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps.

HowStuffWorks "What is water boarding?"

CIA members who've undergone water boarding as part of their training have lasted an average of 14 seconds before begging to be released. The Navy SEALs once used the technique in their counter-interrogation training, but they stopped because the trainees could not survive it without breaking, which was bad for morale

Many CIA officials see water boarding as a poor interrogation method because it scares the prisoner so much you can't trust anything he tells you. Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a POW during the Vietnam War, says water boarding is definitely a form of torture. Human rights groups agree unanimously that "simulated drowning," causing the prisoner to believe he is about to die, is undoubtedly a form of psychological torture. The international community recognizes "mock executions" as a form of torture, and many place water boarding in that category. In 1947, a Japanese soldier who used water boarding against a U.S. citizen during World War II was sentenced to 15 years in U.S. prison for committing a war crime.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/bush-memo-footnotes-defin_n_188008.html

A Bush administration memo from 2005, intended to establish a legal basis for aggressive interrogation techniques, contains a footnote that actually describes waterboarding as falling within the administration's definition of torture.

The footnote, found within one of the Office of Legal Council memos released by the Obama administration on Thursday, suggests that officials in the previous White House likely knew that they were torturing terrorism suspects at a time when they claimed to not be involved in such a practice.

Bush officials also acknowledged in a different footnote that for a period of time, waterboarding was "used with far greater frequency" and "intensity" than advised, so much so that medical personnel could not confirm the safety of the detainees. Authors of the memo said they instructed interrogators to change their use of the technique to make it more similar to its practice in Marine Corps training.

The May 10, 2005, memorandum from the attorney general's office to the CIA defines torture as -- among other things -- activity where a subject suffers prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from "the threat of imminent death." From there, waterboarding was justified as a technique that, while possibly qualifying as a "threat of imminent death," had "safeguards" in place "that make actual harm quite unlikely." The qualifier seemed to clear the Bush White House of illegality.

Mancow Waterboarded, Admits It's Torture | NBC Chicago

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkj9pjx3H0[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58[/ame]

I know waterboarding is torture - because I did it myself

As a former master instructor and chief of training at the U.S. Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, I know the waterboard personally and intimately. Our staff was required to undergo the waterboard at its fullest. I was no exception.

I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people. It has been reported that both the Army and Navy SERE school's interrogation manuals were used to form the interrogation techniques employed by the Army and the CIA for its terror suspects. What is less frequently reported is that our training was designed to show how an evil totalitarian enemy would use torture at the slightest whim.

Having been subjected to this technique, I can say: It is risky but not entirely dangerous when applied in training for a very short period. However, when performed on an unsuspecting prisoner, waterboarding is a torture technique - without a doubt. There is no way to sugarcoat it.

In the media, waterboarding is called "simulated drowning," but that's a misnomer. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning.

Is waterboarding effective? CIA did it 266 times on two prisoners / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

Waterboarding is Torture—and Ineffective, Military Witnesses Tell House Panel - News - ABA Journal

Two witnesses with substantial military experience told a U.S. House subcommittee in no uncertain terms today that waterboarding is not only torture but an ineffective method of obtaining information from terrorism suspects. A third military witness on active duty was expected to testify but was barred from doing so by the Pentagon.

Additionally, the two witnesses both attributed the U.S. decision to use waterboarding on some terrorism suspects to military higher-ups who have watched too many television dramas on the topic and have little real-life experience with conducting interrogations, reports CBS News.

Conclusion: There is signed treaties defining what torture is. From the Convention Against Torture to the Geneva Convention. There is prior legal precedent in the U.S. alone where people were killed by the U.S. for waterboarding.

Countless military officials who have had waterboarding used against them have testified that it is in fact torture. Those who say it is not torture are people like Dick Cheney who have never seen a battlefield or have had it used against them. Two Conservative writers underwent waterboarding, one to prove that it wasn't torture. By the end, both said beyond a doubt, it's torture.

It's not only torture but ineffective as testified countless number of times.

 

[Modbert]

No. THAT is NOT "the" definition of "torture." It is, however, A definition of torture. It is not one which serves a truly useful purpose for present purposes, imho. I will explain that later.

I commend you for at least finally answering the direct question. We shall return to that matter after a while.

As to your (again!) rather straightforward response to my second question, I again commend you. Yes, I DO disagree with your position, but at least you GAVE a straightforward answer. ALthough I cannot go into much detail right now, I will preview my position for you. I believe that you are wrong. The alleged "reasonableness" of that defintion of "torture" in THIS context is beyond just dubious. My contention is that it is in fact NOT a reasonable defintional basis for purposes of this discussion.

I have to go, now. I may check in sometime later tonight.

I will pick up our discussion from here. As a matter of courtesy, I will address both of your answers to both of those questions as my next step in this discussion [bearing in mind that history offers many examples of negotiating things like the shape of the table that precede any actual negotiations].

I will address some of your other comments in due course, like your erroneous contention about what I believe regarding the utility of torture. For future reference, you are not actually permitted to state my position for me, especuially when you do so incorrectly. I throw that flag, now, for future reference.

That's the definition that we and 145 other countries use. Including the U.S. So yes, that is the definition that should be used. Not the one that Iran or North Korea think is okay.

I'm not trying to state your position for you, rather who is on your side for your position. Let it be known, you cannot define torture in such a way that it's not even the common usage but rather your own opinion. We're not playing semantics, we're going by the legal and international definitions. If you don't like it, take it up with the UN and U.S.

 

[MaggieMae]

Is this The definition you are using bones "Torture is defined under the federal criminal code as the intentional infliction of severe mental pain or suffering"?

If I combine that definition with my description of the result of waterboarding: "The person's mind believes he is drowning, and his gag reflex kicks in as if he were choking on all that water falling on his face." we run into a problem.

The problem is we now have to define what is severe mental pain or suffering.

We know its intentional however, we would have to decide on if its severe. I need to be waterboarded now....hey article what you doing tommorrow ?

I think it's very probable that when waterboarding was routinely done that some who were subjected to it did actually die. Otherwise, why did all the videotapes of the, er, "enhanced interrogation" suddenly go missing?

Josh Gerstein: Interrogations - POLITICO.com

 

[Xenophon]

This thread appears to be torture.

You give Gunny Credit for that, you Unoriginal Bastard!...



peace...

I think Xeno may be upset with me for some reason, don't worry about him stealing gunny's line from another thread lets stick to the topic.

Get with the program, if I said it, i said it first.

 

[Modbert]

By the way Pilgrim and others, after tonight, I will be gone for what is likely an entire week. Depends how long it will take me to recover for what I'm going in for.

 

[rightwinger]

Well there you have it

Unmistakable evidence that waterboarding IS TORTURE

 

[saveliberty]

By the way Pilgrim and others, after tonight, I will be gone for what is likely an entire week. Depends how long it will take me to recover for what I'm going in for.

The man with two brains. Cool.

 

[bodecea]

By the way Pilgrim and others, after tonight, I will be gone for what is likely an entire week. Depends how long it will take me to recover for what I'm going in for.

The man with two brains. Cool.

Fascinating comment.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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.[110] 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."

Waterboarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in the Vietnam War.[115] On January 21, 1968, The Washington Post published a controversial front-page photograph of two U.S soldiers and one South Vietnamese soldier participating in the waterboarding of a North Vietnamese POW near Da Nang.[116] The article described the practice as "fairly common".[116] The photograph led to the soldier being court-martialled by a U.S. military court within one month of its publication, and he was discharged from the army.[115][117] Another waterboarding photograph of the same scene, referred to as "water torture" in the caption, is also exhibited in the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City.

In 1983 Texas sheriff James Parker and three of his deputies were convicted for conspiring to force confessions. The complaint said they "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal 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".[110] The sheriff was sentenced to ten years in prison, and the deputies to four years.

Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1st point. WRONG. He was subjected to WATER TORTURE. A totally different thing.
2nd Point. Generals are NOT allowed to write legislation in the field and if they issue a directive that says watrboarding is off limits it has NO MEANING OR ENFORCEMENT beyond the initial reason why the directive was written.
3rd point. Water torture and waterboarding are 2 entirely different things.