Waterboard Yoo Too

[Diuretic]

Does that differ from it being policy as this administration has written? "Anything short of organ failure or death."

Also what about all the scumbags that were tortured in Gitmo and then set free when they couldn't find any thing they had done? How many have been released from Gitmo without charges to date?



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801145_pf.html

Is a suspected terrorist a terrorist and loses all rights as a suspect or do we have any duty to first prove he is a terrorist before we torture him?

It's okay to imprison you for years and torture you even if you didn't commit a crime because we think you could be a terrorist?

What they have effectively done is create lifelong enemies for US.

And torture is wrong legally or morally without any fucking dependence on your party affiliation. That is bullshit, and you know it.

I made the point that it might sometimes be necessary. That suggests that the circumstances have to be explored and that I'm not just going to trot out an "I'm against all torture" statement. I would be faced with the obvious objection - would I approve of torture if it meant that thousands of lives were saved? My answer is, yes, of course I would. But that doesn't translate to me approving of torture as routine or even used occasionally.

 

[rayboyusmc]

The thing is "severe pain or suffering" is subjective.

To the tortured or the torturer?

Do we have the right to go right up to organ failure or death, before it is torture?

Is waterboarding torture? According to the one DOJ person who had them do it to him, it is. According to Mukasey, only if they did it to him.

Is hanging a person by their hands for hours, torture?

Sleep deprivation might be subjective, electric shock to your genital regions isn't subjective at all.

If you know that a person has information that can save a 1000 lifes and you torture him, how do you know you got the right information until it's too late for him or the victims?

Too many people have been watching 24 and confusing it with reality.

The issue here is that the Bush administration has made it policy, SOP, Souf of the Day and not the use for exceptional purposes. How is that different from what the Red Chinese, North Koreans or North Vietnamese did to our troops?

 

[Gunny]

Does that differ from it being policy as this administration has written? "Anything short of organ failure or death."

Also what about all the scumbags that were tortured in Gitmo and then set free when they couldn't find any thing they had done? How many have been released from Gitmo without charges to date?



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801145_pf.html

Is a suspected terrorist a terrorist and loses all rights as a suspect or do we have any duty to first prove he is a terrorist before we torture him?

It's okay to imprison you for years and torture you even if you didn't commit a crime because we think you could be a terrorist?

What they have effectively done is create lifelong enemies for US.

And torture is wrong legally or morally without any fucking dependence on your party affiliation. That is bullshit, and you know it.

Do you have a point here aside from the fact that you cannot rationally discuss the topic without going into a partisan frenzy, and making baseless accusations/assumptions?

Torture is wrong legally and morally. True. Now define torture. Again. Let's see if you can actually discuss an issue without your partisan hackery.

 

[Diuretic]

Which is the greater wrong - inflicting pain to avoid the deaths of thousands of innocents or refusing to inflict pain on one individual and allowing thousands of innocents to die?

 

[Gunny]

Yep, ever been to Madame Tussaud's Chamber of Horrors? I remember looking through the penal/punishment section and there was this thing called the "Algerian Hook".

They had an either 2-or-3 hour special on torture on the History Channel I watched. There were definitely some sick puppies out there. But it also made quite obvious that there were and are torture methods for differing desired outcomes.

As a means of execution, they were usually carried out in public with the end result desired being death.

As a means of extracting information/confessions. Usually carried out away from the public's view, and could last as long as the torturer desired. Death could be desired or irrelevant, and in some cases -- public humiliation/confession -- it was preferred they remained alive.

In almost all of the above circumstances, the torture was state/church sanctioned; therefore, condoned by the societies/religions that used them. Clearly the statement that it has never been legally or morally right is incorrect, based on attempting to judge peoples of a different time by the beliefs held by some today.

 

[Gunny]

Which is the greater wrong - inflicting pain to avoid the deaths of thousands of innocents or refusing to inflict pain on one individual and allowing thousands of innocents to die?

A complex question that would definitely depend on specific circumstances, IMO. If the risk was known or reasonably believed to be valid, I would say the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few; especially, that given in this circumstance the latter wishes to deprive the former of their very right to exist.

I always use this analogy when this argument comes up ... if I'm approaching an enemy position and capture and enemy combatant who can tell me specifics that will probably save some of my Marine's lives, I wouldn't hesitate to put a KaBar to his throat.

Torture? It can easily be argued that it is. Against the COde of Conduct for US Military Personnel? You betcha. I'll sleep just fine with the consequences of my decision. Maybe not so fine if I chose to not do so and it cost the lives of some of the Marines who are looking at me one and all to bring their asses home to momma.

 

[Diuretic]

They had an either 2-or-3 hour special on torture on the History Channel I watched. There were definitely some sick puppies out there. But it also made quite obvious that there were and are torture methods for differing desired outcomes.

As a means of execution, they were usually carried out in public with the end result desired being death.

As a means of extracting information/confessions. Usually carried out away from the public's view, and could last as long as the torturer desired. Death could be desired or irrelevant, and in some cases -- public humiliation/confession -- it was preferred they remained alive.

In almost all of the above circumstances, the torture was state/church sanctioned; therefore, condoned by the societies/religions that used them. Clearly the statement that it has never been legally or morally right is incorrect, based on attempting to judge peoples of a different time by the beliefs held by some today.

It's interesting that the use of torture in secret was to get information and the use of torture in public was to deter others. And yes, it was state-sanctioned (I take your point about religions but frequently the state and its religion (<--- shades of the reasoning for the 1st Amendment?) were tied together, no doubt the temporal powers looked to the spiritual powers for absolution of their methods.

Some legal codes had rules about how torture was to be used.

In the confessional form of torture it was necessary to keep the prisoner alive so he could front up to court and make his formal confession. There would even be evidence produced of how the torture was carried out to ensure that the rules were adhered to.

In Europe at least the move against torture was helped by Cesare Beccaria in is On Crimes and Punishments (1764), but it took a while to sink in.

You're right, different times, different ways of thinking.

A final thought - inflicting pain is just an act, of itself it has no morality, absent the context.

 

[Diuretic]

A complex question that would definitely depend on specific circumstances, IMO. If the risk was known or reasonably believed to be valid, I would say the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few; especially, that given in this circumstance the latter wishes to deprive the former of their very right to exist.

I always use this analogy when this argument comes up ... if I'm approaching an enemy position and capture and enemy combatant who can tell me specifics that will probably save some of my Marine's lives, I wouldn't hesitate to put a KaBar to his throat.

Torture? It can easily be argued that it is. Against the COde of Conduct for US Military Personnel? You betcha. I'll sleep just fine with the consequences of my decision. Maybe not so fine if I chose to not do so and it cost the lives of some of the Marines who are looking at me one and all to bring their asses home to momma.

That's an illustration of why we have to think about these things instead of lifting a slogan. Context is everything. But I do admit to having a bit of a utilitarian bent, not so much that it goes to ridiculous extremes but sufficient to be able to be a bit cold-eyed (I hope).

Your example of the knife at the throat is a good one. I didn't realise that it would be against the Code of Conduct for US Military Personnel, I would have thought it was a reasonable action given the circumstances, but that just goes to show what I don't know. Somewhere in my memory there's something stirring about rules-based against principle-based systems of conduct, but I probably need to allow my memory time to work on that one.

Not spinning off here but I was thinking the other day about how and why things can be so different in various countries.

For example, in the US it's permissible for a police officer to deceive a suspect during interrogation. I don't know the authority for that so I can't cite it but I read it elsewhere.

Here in Australia if a police officer even fails to disclose to suspect material facts known about an offence to which the interview relates, then the court will refuse to allow the evidence of the interview to go before the jury.

Everything depends on context.

 

[Swamp Fox]

The issue here is that the Bush administration has made it policy, SOP, Souf of the Day and not the use for exceptional purposes. How is that different from what the Red Chinese, North Koreans or North Vietnamese did to our troops?

We have waterboarded 3, that's 3, people. Excuse me, three dipshit terrorists who want to kill civilians. To compare that to the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese or Vietnamese is asinine.

 

[maineman]

We have waterboarded 3, that's 3, people. Excuse me, three dipshit terrorists who want to kill civilians. To compare that to the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese or Vietnamese is asinine.

hw many violations of a UN treaty does it take before a country has violated the terms of a UN treaty?

Do we only incarcerate murderers after they have murdered more than three innocent victims?

 

[BrianH]

We have waterboarded 3, that's 3, people. Excuse me, three dipshit terrorists who want to kill civilians. To compare that to the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese or Vietnamese is asinine.

I'm sure we've (really) waterboarded more than that...but if it gets the info. out, I'm all for it. I'd rather than waterboard than slowly rip them apart at the joints (like they did in the middle-ages).

BTW they just busted some more terrorists in London planning to blow up some planes bound for the U.S. and Canada, using 3 liter coke bottles filled with some hydrogen-based explosive. We'll see what kind of information they'll let go when they're waterboarded by the British.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm sure we've (really) waterboarded more than that...but if it gets the info. out, I'm all for it. I'd rather than waterboard than slowly rip them apart at the joints (like they did in the middle-ages).

BTW they just busted some more terrorists in London planning to blow up some planes bound for the U.S. and Canada, using 3 liter coke bottles filled with some hydrogen-based explosive. We'll see what kind of information they'll let go when they're waterboarded by the British.

They're on trial now in Crown Court. There won't be any waterboarding, and if there was then the evidence wouldn't be admissible. It will be interesting to watch the case. They're charge with conspiracy to murder and some specific terrorism charges.

 

[BrianH]

They're on trial now in Crown Court. There won't be any waterboarding, and if there was then the evidence wouldn't be admissible. It will be interesting to watch the case. They're charge with conspiracy to murder and some specific terrorism charges.

Fair enough, even if they were water-boarded, it's unlikely that we'd find out about it anyway.

 

[Swamp Fox]

hw many violations of a UN treaty does it take before a country has violated the terms of a UN treaty?

Do we only incarcerate murderers after they have murdered more than three innocent victims?

I'm not convinced it's a violation of a treaty. Since the North Vietnamese never got prosecuted for their treatment of American POWs it stands to reason what they did was not torture under the treaty. Since what they did is not torture under the treaty, waterboarding definitely isn't. So there is no violation.

 

[maineman]

I'm not convinced it's a violation of a treaty. Since the North Vietnamese never got prosecuted for their treatment of American POWs it stands to reason what they did was not torture under the treaty. Since what they did is not torture under the treaty, waterboarding definitely isn't. So there is no violation.

the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was not even signed until Reagan was in office. What happened in Vietnam is irrelevant.

 

[Swamp Fox]

the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was not even signed until Reagan was in office. What happened in Vietnam is irrelevant.

Tell that to John McCain and other Vietnam POWs. And the Genva Conventions were in place since 1949, what about them? Guess those treaties aren't worth the paper they were written on.

 

[Swamp Fox]

BTW, Vietnam ratified the Geneva Convention in 1957.

 

[rayboyusmc]

We have waterboarded 3, that's 3, people.

That we know of. I am sure that no one else has been tortured in any of the prisons we don't know about.

But you miss the point.

Yoo wrote that anything short of organ failure or death was not torture. So we have made it a policy that we can waterboard, hang from you fingers, shock your testicles or anything else that might be considered torture by other so called civilized countries, as long as no organs fail or you don't die. Seems to me that torture might fit under his definition.

So, do you think waterboarding is torture?

 

[Swamp Fox]

That we know of. I am sure that no one else has been tortured in any of the prisons we don't know about.

But you miss the point.

Yoo wrote that anything short of organ failure or death was not torture. So we have made it a policy that we can waterboard, hang from you fingers, shock your testicles or anything else that might be considered torture by other so called civilized countries, as long as no organs fail or you don't die. Seems to me that torture might fit under his definition.

So, do you think waterboarding is torture?

I didn't write that anything short of organ failure is not torture. I have been the one arguing that torture or not, we should not eliminate anything from the arsenal of our national defense because to do so is to weaken that defense.

And I don't care what the legal definition of torture is, or what definition we define it as, or what definiton the UN (in it's infinite wisdom) comes up with, I still that it should be listed as an option to be used in certain circumstances in the defense of my country. To eliminate any option is to show weakness to an enemy that loves to exploit those weaknesses.

 

[dread]

the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was not even signed until Reagan was in office. What happened in Vietnam is irrelevant.

Just curious...But you seem to think the UN is the end all be all...Tell me...Do you think a one world order is the way to go? And why do other countries get a say in American morals when they give NOTHING in return? Why have you placed what other countries think of America above that of Americans?