4 Former JAGs Speak Out About Waterboarding - Is It Torture?

[SMM]

Four former heads of their branches Judge Advocate Generals Corp have collectively written a letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, head of the Military Judiciary Committee. Read what they had to say (http://static.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/jag_letter.pdf).

For those who do not know, the JAG is similar to the Attorney General for civilian courts. There is only one of them (per branch) at any given time.

[solvs]

This is actually a pretty big deal, so I doubt it will get any play in the media.

The Dems on the committee have already caved though, and the rest of the Congress will join them. The current offering from GW is probably the best they'll get without a fight, which is the excuse they're using since for some reason they don't want to fight. Despite having a majority of the rest of the country behind them.

[Desertrat]

"Waterboarding" is not a lot different from what the Kempeitai did to survivors of the Bataan Death March, and to others in Cabanatuan Prison.

The Japs weren't as "humane", though. They just shoved a hose down your throat, turned on the water and after your stomach distended, started beating with iron rods. On occasion, they might use your stomach for a trampoline, which tended to be a one-time event.

I just know that our folks wouldn't be so cruel.

Sarcasm mode off.

'Rat

[skunk]

I just know that our folks wouldn't be so cruel.

Sarcasm mode off.

'RatYour cynicism is pleasing. :)

[Desertrat]

I dunno. I can see two hypothets: First, assume I lead a group in Indian Country with no friendlies. We catch some armed hostile. We need to know where his buddies are, and are very worried about ambushes.

Shame on his sorry butt. He'll talk or hurt. My men are infinitely more important to me than any other concern.

Next: In a prison. The prisoner is not merely somebody who's plotted some deal, or moved money around or any of that civilian-crime stuff. He's been taken in the POW sense, except no uniform and all those formal protections.

There's no immediacy, IMO. Okay, I want an MD who's expert in the use of psychotropic drugs. And, somebody smart who can think in the prisoner's language. We'll suck him dry and he won't even know he's spilled the beans. No pain, no shame, no damage.

"Rat

[skunk]

I dunno. I can see two hypothets: First, assume I lead a group in Indian Country with no friendlies. We catch some armed hostile. We need to know where his buddies are, and are very worried about ambushes.

Shame on his sorry butt. He'll talk or hurt. My men are infinitely more important to me than any other concern.What makes you think he won't lead you into the ambushes? Doesn't wash.
I want an MD who's expert in the use of psychotropic drugs. And, somebody smart who can think in the prisoner's language. We'll suck him dry and he won't even know he's spilled the beans.You're going to rely on information from someone who's off their head? Good plan. :rolleyes:

[samh004]

Is it torture ?

Well put it this way, if you downloaded a music file illegally, and the RIAA came after you for it, would you complain when they water boarded you ? Or would you say that it was acceptable as they needed to get the truth out of you.

Illegal file sharing doesn't compare to terrorism, blah blah, whatever... would it be acceptable if it happened to you for something to petty ?

[Desertrat]

skunk, while being led INTO an ambush might be a possibility, the odds are agianst it. There is a "why" for repetitive questions and pauses between. It's hard to keep one's lies consistent. It's hard enough without pain. Ask any cop or defense attorney.

As to "off his head"? He's not. He's just very happy and willing to tell everything he knows about anything, to all these new "friends". The difficulty is in getting the SOB to shut up. Done properly, the dude will tell you about his childhood and who his friends were and what life was like and who his friends are now--which is what's wanted--and where he lives and what his phone number is and what his friends' phone numbers are--which is more of what you want--and all about his wife or girlfriend and who their friends are--which is more of what's wanted--and on and on and on. And he'll not remember, afterwards...

'Rat

[mactastic]

I dunno. I can see two hypothets: First, assume I lead a group in Indian Country with no friendlies. We catch some armed hostile. We need to know where his buddies are, and are very worried about ambushes.

Shame on his sorry butt. He'll talk or hurt. My men are infinitely more important to me than any other concern.

Next: In a prison. The prisoner is not merely somebody who's plotted some deal, or moved money around or any of that civilian-crime stuff. He's been taken in the POW sense, except no uniform and all those formal protections.

There's no immediacy, IMO. Okay, I want an MD who's expert in the use of psychotropic drugs. And, somebody smart who can think in the prisoner's language. We'll suck him dry and he won't even know he's spilled the beans. No pain, no shame, no damage.

"Rat
Hypothet #3: American troops are captured, and their captors want information about US ambushes post-haste. GIs are waterboarded to get such information; as obviously American lives are worth less to the questioner than the lives of his own men. Information gained is then used to avoid, or even ambush the ambushers.

Any complaints from you about treatment of US prisoners? Any squaks if US boys are forced to "talk or hurt"?

[Desertrat]

mac, go back to my first post about my view of waterboarding as torture. I was sorta wondering when you'd show up and try to twist things all backwards.

In the "Let's guess..." department, I really doubt that our guys would be treated so benevolently as to merely be subject to waterboarding. That's certainly not current history, when the folks with whom we're dealing think dismemberment on video is the proper way to do things.

Overall, ugg is correct about the efficacy of torture inasmuch as the victim will tell whatever lies he thinks will stop the pain. Everything I've ever read, though, says that anybody will eventually break. The problem then is for the torturer to assess what's true from what's not true. And, again, everything I've ever read about the competent use of psychotropic drugs and skilled interrogation makes physical torture pointless. Physical torture is gratuitous physical violence, IMO.

An interesting article about true, "professional" torturers claimed that most of them regard it as just a job, and after the day's work they go home to Momma and the kids, unconcerned about the morality of their work. Dunno if that's totally true, of course. The author claimed to have talked to some guys in South America; I'm vague about whether or not he talked to any Iron Curtain countries' torturers, though. I dunno. This was some twenty or more years back when I read it.

'Rat

[mactastic]

mac, go back to my first post about my view of waterboarding as torture.

In the "Let's guess..." department, I really doubt that our guys would be treated so benevolently as to merely be subject to waterboarding. That's certainly not current history, when the folks with whom we're dealing think dismemberment on video is the proper way to do things.

'Rat
I didn't ask you whether you thought our guys would only be subjected to waterboarding. You're dodging the question. If one of your men was being waterboarded, would you shrug your shouders and say "that's acceptable to me", or would you raise holy hell to make it stop? I guess I shouldn't expect a straight answer. Pro-torture folks are generally loathe to discuss how they would feel should "enhanced interrogation techniques" be applied to our men and women.

You are unclear about your position regarding waterboarding. It sounds to me like you only think it's bad if done with a live hose and people stomping on your bloated stomach. Is that a correct assesment, or are you saying anytime someone is subjected to simulated drowning it is torture? Or, like Guilani, do you believe it has to do with who is administering the technique?

[obeygiant]

Hypothet #3: American troops are captured, and their captors want information about US ambushes post-haste. GIs are waterboarded to get such information; as obviously American lives are worth less to the questioner than the lives of his own men. Information gained is then used to avoid, or even ambush the ambushers.

Any complaints from you about treatment of US prisoners? Any squaks if US boys are forced to "talk or hurt"?

:confused: Is this a trick question?

I didn't know it was even in question what would happen to US soldiers of they're captured. "talk or hurt" doesn't seem to be the extent of it.

Of course I don't want our guys tortured or dunked into a tank. Do I mind that its been done to KSM and others like him?.. NO.

[mactastic]

:confused: Is this a trick question?

I didn't know it was even in question what would happen to US soldiers of they're captured. "talk or hurt" doesn't seem to be the extent of it.
I'm not questioning what would happen to American prisoners. I'm asking how YOU would react to hearing about it. Would you have the same level of complacency shown about foreign nationals being waterboarded if instead of foreign nationals it was American flesh and blood on the line? Or would you demand our government do something to prevent further such acts from being perpetrated on our men and women?

[gauchogolfer]

I didn't ask you whether you thought our guys would only be subjected to waterboarding. You're dodging the question. If one of your men was being waterboarded, would you shrug your shouders and say "that's acceptable to me", or would you raise holy hell to make it stop? I guess I shouldn't expect a straight answer. Pro-torture folks are generally loathe to discuss how they would feel should "enhanced interrogation techniques" be applied to our men and women.

I believe that waterboarding is torture and shouldn't be used by anyone. However, I often wonder at the link between our behavior and the behavior of others. If we put an outright ban on all forms of torture, even including things that are not currently categorized as such, how much of a difference do you think it would make in the way our captured soldiers are treated?

I know of anecdotal evidence from times in WWII when Germans tended to surrender rather than fight to the death, because of their expectation of good treatment. Do we know that German soldiers treated our POWs better because of our policy?

Again, I'm completely against torture, because I think it's not only morally reprehensible, but also ineffectual. I'm just not sure how much effect what we do has on what others do.

[mactastic]

I believe that waterboarding is torture and shouldn't be used by anyone. However, I often wonder at the link between our behavior and the behavior of others. If we put an outright ban on all forms of torture, even including things that are not currently categorized as such, how much of a difference do you think it would make in the way our captured soldiers are treated?

I know of anecdotal evidence from times in WWII when Germans tended to surrender rather than fight to the death, because of their expectation of good treatment. Do we know that German soldiers treated our POWs better because of our policy?

Again, I'm completely against torture, because I think it's not only morally reprehensible, but also ineffectual. I'm just not sure how much effect what we do has on what others do.
You at least have the moral high ground to demand that American troops are being treated with dignity - even if they aren't.

Plus we signed the Geneva Conventions. If we don't abide by our word, why should anyone else?

[Desertrat]

mac, as long as we're playing silly games: Let's say you know from hard evidence that a suitcase nuke has been smuggled into your city. You have hard evidence that a person in your custody knows its location.

You have, say, four hours total time before it detonates.

How nice are you gonna be?

'Rat

[gauchogolfer]

You at least have the moral high ground to demand that American troops are being treated with dignity - even if they aren't.

Plus we signed the Geneva Conventions. If we don't abide by our word, why should anyone else?

I agree with you, mactastic. I'm just trying to communicate my thoughts about this. We should categorically ban torture, full stop. I'm trying to not be naive about what that means to our 'enemies'.


Rat, these kind of hypotheticals are always brought up, but I'm not sure how much sense it makes. How would we know that whatever information we got would be actionable? With only 4 hours to verify, I'm not sure that any solution is possible. Torture doesn't seem to be the answer in your case.

[saltyzoo]

I have a hard time calling anything we do to our own (volunteer) special forces as training, torture. Severely unpleasant, sure. Long term physical or emotional damage? Nope.

[Mac OS X Ocelot]

mac, as long as we're playing silly games: Let's say you know from hard evidence that a suitcase nuke has been smuggled into your city. You have hard evidence that a person in your custody knows its location.

You have, say, four hours total time before it detonates.

How nice are you gonna be?

'Rat

I don't watch 24, so I missed that one. Sorry.

[mactastic]

mac, as long as we're playing silly games: Let's say you know from hard evidence that a suitcase nuke has been smuggled into your city. You have hard evidence that a person in your custody knows its location.

You have, say, four hours total time before it detonates.

How nice are you gonna be?

'Rat
Ha! I knew you would never answer my question. Didn't I call that out before you even responded? Your only defense is to ask another question of me. Typical.

I have a hard time calling anything we do to our own (volunteer) special forces as training, torture. Severely unpleasant, sure. Long term physical or emotional damage? Nope.
The difference is that during training you know it will end with you alive. Your state of mind in a torture situation is critical to the question of whether something is torture or not. Being waterboarded for a few minutes during a SEER event is not the same as the real thing.

[Much Ado]

mac, as long as we're playing silly games: Let's say you know from hard evidence that a suitcase nuke has been smuggled into your city. You have hard evidence that a person in your custody knows its location.

You have, say, four hours total time before it detonates.

How nice are you gonna be?


While we're on the topic of silly games, you have to make a choice between sacrificing 3 million people or subjecting the entire human race to imprisonment by a...

Oh, yes- of course. This is a situation that would never occur. We do not live in an episode of 24. There are no nukes hidden in US cities, and yet the Water-boarding continues. Where do you draw the line? A terrorist sympathizer? A reformed terrorist?

[saltyzoo]

The difference is that during training you know it will end with you alive. Your state of mind in a torture situation is critical to the question of whether something is torture or not. Being waterboarded for a few minutes during a SEER event is not the same as the real thing.

Yeah, I see your point. But then it's impossible to engage in war without torturing your opponent if the fear of death is the issue.

Personally I think we should take the high road, but I'm still not convinced that water boarding is torture.

[Mac OS X Ocelot]

Yeah, I see your point. But then it's impossible to engage in war without torturing your opponent if the fear of death is the issue.

Personally I think we should take the high road, but I'm still not convinced that water boarding is torture.

Drowning someone and then resuscitating them isn't torture? If you believe what the media tells you, then you believe it's "simulated drowning." It's not. It's real drowning. If that's not torture, then anything goes.

EDIT: On a happier note, after WWII the U.S. convicted Japanese officers for the very same torture technique.

[mactastic]

Yeah, I see your point. But then it's impossible to engage in war without torturing your opponent if the fear of death is the issue.

Personally I think we should take the high road, but I'm still not convinced that water boarding is torture.
Fear of death is not the sole ingredient. The fact that you are doing violence intended to instill an immediate fear of death to a restrained captive pushes the behavior into the unacceptable area for me. That's different from managing fear in a combat situation where you have means and willingness to defend yourself at your disposal.

[Mac OS X Ocelot]

The reason this whole dispute (whether or not waterboarding is torture) is happening is not because anyone in the world actually thinks it isn't. The problem is that if the government admits it is, anyone that authorized its use is in huge trouble. Losing jobs trouble. Imprisonment trouble. That includes military officers, Administration officals, and even the President himself! Personally, if they could just admit that it's torture and stop I'd be content, but the law says otherwise. I don't think even the President can weasle out of that one.

[saltyzoo]

Drowning someone and then resuscitating them isn't torture? If you believe what the media tells you, then you believe it's "simulated drowning." It's not. It's real drowning. If that's not torture, then anything goes.

EDIT: On a happier note, after WWII the U.S. convicted Japanese officers for the very same torture technique.

Well, if people are going further than the description agreed to then telling them they can't do what is described isn't going to stop them from doing it either. That's a bad argument. What you are saying is like saying that we can't lock people up for crimes because sometimes people mistreat prisoners.

But, really we agree and I'm just quibbling about terminology. I think we should just avoid it. I seriously doubt we'd ever be in the situation where it would help.

[Mac OS X Ocelot]

Well, if people are going further than the description agreed to then telling them they can't do what is described isn't going to stop them from doing it either. That's a bad argument. What you are saying is like saying that we can't lock people up for crimes because sometimes people mistreat prisoners.

But, really we agree and I'm just quibbling about terminology. I think we should just avoid it. I seriously doubt we'd ever be in the situation where it would help.

What description agreed to? What the agreement over what it is is describing is exactly drowning. There's no instance where it's not drowning. Waterboarding is drowning. You're drowning someone then resuscitating them. No one is simulating drowning. Maybe simulation in this case means "actually drowning them, but since you resuscitate them it's not killing them," but that's still drowning. The only case where you don't (can't believe I'm using these words) "finish" drowning them is when they agree to talk before you actually drown them. If they don't talk, they finish drowning them then resuscitate them. Rinse, repeat. So if by "we don't torture" they mean "we start to drown them but if they don't talk we actually drown them, so really they're torturing themselves," they've redefined the word torture altogether.

[saltyzoo]

What description agreed to? What the agreement over what it is is describing is exactly drowning. There's no instance where it's not drowning. Waterboarding is drowning. You're drowning someone then resuscitating them. No one is simulating drowning. Maybe simulation in this case means "actually drowning them, but since you resuscitate them it's not killing them," but that's still drowning. The only case where you don't (can't believe I'm using these words) "finish" drowning them is when they agree to talk before you actually drown them. If they don't talk, they finish drowning them then resuscitate them. Rinse, repeat. So if by "we don't torture" they mean "we start to drown them but if they don't talk we actually drown them, so really they're torturing themselves," they've redefined the word torture altogether.

I don't have any idea what you are talking about. The definition of waterboarding that has been used commonly in the media is not drowning. I'm not aware that anyone has said, yeah "drown" them and hope we can revive them and that's not torture. Come on. Where did you get that we are drowning people and then resuscitating them? What is the evidence of this? Or are you just saying since the Japanese did it that way, then obviously we are doing it that way?

We agree. Drowning people is torture. The common waterboarding discussed in the modern media is not drowning people. But, even then I don't think we should do it.

[hulugu]

What description agreed to? What the agreement over what it is is describing is exactly drowning. There's no instance where it's not drowning. Waterboarding is drowning. You're drowning someone then resuscitating them. No one is simulating drowning...

As I understand it, from the myriad descriptions of it, is water-boarding induces the feeling of drowning, but doesn't actually induce water into the lungs.
You'll notice in several of the videos of water-boarding, the victim's head is held below their chest, so that while the nasal passages may fill with water, this makes it difficult for the victim to aspirate moisture and actually drown.
The Germans and Japanese used this technique, but were also known to just hold the victim's head under water until they actually drowned.

Now, I may be accused of splitting hairs, but one simulates drowning and the other actually does it. Both are torture, but let's be clear about the techniques.

[takao]

As I understand it, from the myriad descriptions of it, is water-boarding induces the feeling of drowning, but doesn't actually induce water into the lungs.
You'll notice in several of the videos of water-boarding, the victim's head is held below their chest, so that while the nasal passages may fill with water, this makes it difficult for the victim to aspirate moisture and actually drown.
The Germans and Japanese used this technique, but were also known to just hold the victim's head under water until they actually drowned.

well there still can get water easily into the lungs (which isn't healthy by any means)

it's simply beyond everything a free democracy stands .. unless a democracy thinks it's fine to use tactics refined by the spanish inquisition, gestapo etc.

[walangij]

Here's a link from current.com where one of the correspondents (former SEAL) undergoes waterboarding so that the general public who otherwise wouldn't know what it is can see it (as the US does it somewhat):

http://current.com/items/86509751_getting_waterboarded_uncut_version

25 min long, but you watch 1-2 minutes and get the idea. Just a link to further discussion.

[hulugu]

well there still can get water easily into the lungs (which isn't healthy by any means)

it's simply beyond everything a free democracy stands .. unless a democracy thinks it's fine to use tactics refined by the spanish inquisition, gestapo etc.

I won't disagree with you. Torture is incompatible with Democracy, regardless of under what circumstances we try to justify it.

[Desertrat]

I don't see how anybody could read post #3 and say that I don't consider waterboarding to be torture.

From Post #10, "Physical torture is gratuitous physical violence, IMO."

For folks ftrom Rio Linda, "gratuitous" is commonly used to mean unnecessary and wrongful. "Gratuitous" when coupled with "violence" = Wrong; don't do that."

I guess "24" is a TV show?

Given the publicity over the last fifteen years about the venality in Russia and the shoddiness of physical security within their nuclear weapons systems, I would not be surprised if a suitcase or "tactical" nuke or six is loose somewhere. For that matter, the relatively-easily-built "dirty bomb" isn't a fig-newton of my imagination, either.

A hundred pounds of C4 and just enough radioactive material to make radiation counters go "Click" and you'd have a panic that would have every insurance company in North America refusing automobile wreck claims on account of war/terrorism or whatever excuse they could find. A million or so people in total panic is something nobody wants to see or be caught up in.

[hulugu]

...Given the publicity over the last fifteen years about the venality in Russia and the shoddiness of physical security within their nuclear weapons systems, I would not be surprised if a suitcase or "tactical" nuke or six is loose somewhere.

The 'suitcase' nuke is almost an urban myth. In reality, the smallest nuclear weapon is a steamer trunk that would require something like a full-size pickup truck to cart around. And, remember that nuclear weapons have a limited shelf-life, so a suitcase nuke built around the height of the Cold War may be completely inactive by now. Unfortunately shows like 24 and movies like The Peacemaker have brought the 'suitcase' nuke into the American imagination.

For that matter, the relatively-easily-built "dirty bomb" isn't a fig-newton of my imagination, either.

A hundred pounds of C4 and just enough radioactive material to make radiation counters go "Click" and you'd have a panic that would have every insurance company in North America refusing automobile wreck claims on account of war/terrorism or whatever excuse they could find. A million or so people in total panic is something nobody wants to see or be caught up in.

Dirty bombs are also overstated, spreading a toxic cloud in a wide area is harder than it looks, however this doesn't make it a dangerous event. This is a more likely scenario, as the elements are relatively easy to assemble.

However, if Al Qaeda really wanted to get us to flip our lid again, they don't need a spectacular attack using chemical/biologics. They just need car bombs in two major cities, and we'll completely lose our collective wit.

[Marble]

I think that causing a defenseless person pain in order to motivate some particular behavior is torture. That's the only way you can define it without the luxury of being able to debate where to draw the line.

[SMM]

Originally Quoted By mactastic


Quote:
Originally Posted by Desertrat

mac, as long as we're playing silly games: Let's say you know from hard evidence that a suitcase nuke has been smuggled into your city. You have hard evidence that a person in your custody knows its location.

You have, say, four hours total time before it detonates.

How nice are you gonna be?

'Rat



Ha! I knew you would never answer my question. Didn't I call that out before you even responded? Your only defense is to ask another question of me. Typical.



Quote:
Originally Posted by saltyzoo

I have a hard time calling anything we do to our own (volunteer) special forces as training, torture. Severely unpleasant, sure. Long term physical or emotional damage?



The difference is that during training you know it will end with you alive. Your state of mind in a torture situation is critical to the question of whether something is torture or not. Being waterboarded for a few minutes during a SEER event is not the same as the real thing.

Originally Quoted by saltyzoo




Originally Posted by Mac OS X Ocelot

What description agreed to? What the agreement over what it is is describing is exactly drowning. There's no instance where it's not drowning. Waterboarding is drowning. You're drowning someone then resuscitating them. No one is simulating drowning. Maybe simulation in this case means "actually drowning them, but since you resuscitate them it's not killing them," but that's still drowning. The only case where you don't (can't believe I'm using these words) "finish" drowning them is when they agree to talk before you actually drown them. If they don't talk, they finish drowning them then resuscitate them. Rinse, repeat. So if by "we don't torture" they mean "we start to drown them but if they don't talk we actually drown them, so really they're torturing themselves," they've redefined the word torture altogether.



I don't have any idea what you are talking about. The definition of waterboarding that has been used commonly in the media is not drowning. I'm not aware that anyone has said, yeah "drown" them and hope we can revive them and that's not torture. Come on. Where did you get that we are drowning people and then resuscitating them? What is the evidence of this? Or are you just saying since the Japanese did it that way, then obviously we are doing it that way?

We agree. Drowning people is torture. The common waterboarding discussed in the modern media is not drowning people. But, even then I don't think we should do it.



These are common points I read here and on other forums/threads. Few Americans are comfortable with the thought of our Country practicing acts of torture against another country, even when their own fear provides them with rationalism for doing so.

I have not contributed too much to the debates, even though I have considerable first-hand knowledge on the subject. It has been more interesting just reading what others are thinking, and writing. It seems like the debates are mainly focused on two issues:


What is torture, and where do we draw the line?
Are we justified in doing it, even if we could all agree on a single definition?


Right now, what I see is a great deal of confusion as both of these questions are being intertwined during debate. Neither question is being answered for the understanding, and agreement for the moderate majority, and a great deal of political polarization is the end result. I suspect this is by design, not by accident.

The Administration (domestic affairs, State Department, CIA, FBI, NSA, Justice Department, etc.) keep the definition of torture from being agreed upon. They prevent Congress from doing the same thing. Therefore, no one is accountable, because there is no definition. You cannot investigate and prosecute a crime, if the statute for the crime is undefined. So, we discuss it on-line. Maybe we can reach a group consensus, but that does not solve the problem. Until there is a clear definition to what is torture, this Country will continue to spin its wheels.

If we did have a clear definition of torture (and we easily could), then the 'hawks' could explain why we should ignore the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Finally, they would have to come clean for having trampled on the Geneva Convention, which we were a leader if drafting. That is where the trouble really lies.

People like Cheney, Bush, Rove, Armitage, Kristol, Perle, etc. only accept these laws when it works in their favor. They are all very dangerous authoritarians. They have been in power for ~8 years. They have enjoyed the aid of a compliant forth estate to help them, and the top corporate CEOs to finance them. The courts have turned a 'blind-eye'. So has much of the American public.

There is nothing particularly difficult to understand about what basic torture is, or is not. You have/know something the other side wants. If you decline to give it to them, they do mean things to you to get it. This has probably been going on since there were two sides. The Geneva Convention set limits as to what could be done to enemy combatants.

Ever since we invaded Afghanistan and began to taking prisoners, the US has been changing the rules and redefining terminology, while still maintaing we have been acting within the law(s). The fact is, the Bush Regime is no better than many of the other despotic authoritarian regimes, we reputably are saving the world from.

[saltyzoo]

Originally Quoted By mactastic
People like Cheney, Bush, Rove, Armitage, Kristol, Perle, etc. only accept these laws when it works in their favor. They are all very dangerous authoritarians.

Laura Bush. "Why did I have to see what was behind door number three?"

The fact is, the Bush Regime is no better than many of the other despotic authoritarian regimes, we reputably are saving the world from.

Your words would have a lot more weight if it weren't for statements like these. If you really believe that last statement, I'm afraid I can't grant anything you say any stock whatsoever. As bad a President Bush may be, and as much as you may disagree with him and what he's done, the statement is ridiculous.

[solvs]

Of course I don't want our guys tortured or dunked into a tank. Do I mind that its been done to KSM and others like him?.. NO.
You don't see this as a contradiction? If we do it, especially to people we aren't sure are actually guilty (which has been the case), we have no moral authority to say we don't like it when it's done our people. Kinda the issue here.

I'm just not sure how much effect what we do has on what others do.
Doesn't matter. We should just be the good guys no matter what the other side does. It would be preferable if they followed the Geneva Convention, but even if this group doesn't, who's to say the next group won't? And even if they don't, how does that makes us the better side if we do the same things those we call terrorists do.

I get what you're saying, but abiding by the rules so the other side is should is only part of it.

I have a hard time calling anything we do to our own (volunteer) special forces as training, torture. Severely unpleasant, sure. Long term physical or emotional damage? Nope.
Besides the fact that it's in a more controlled environment they're fully aware of while it's happening, the few that get it done to them usually have it done to see what it's like if the other side does it to us to train against it. More important though, so we know what it feels like if we want to do it to them. Every person who has had it done that are talking about it on the news shows call it torture, flat out. Call it wrong. Also point out that it's unreliable. Anyone who has had it done to them can tell you it's not something anyone should do to anyone else, no matter what.

Yeah, I see your point. But then it's impossible to engage in war without torturing your opponent if the fear of death is the issue.
That's ridiculous. We're in an occupation, we should have better rules of engagement. We shouldn't be torturing anyone. This shouldn't even be an issue. We're the United States of America. This is completely against everything we're supposed to stand for, something only the completely inexperienced who care nothing for our moral standing, who are either oblivious or simply don't care why they hate us so much, would order.

Personally I think we should take the high road, but I'm still not convinced that water boarding is torture.
Try it once and you'll see that it is.

(can't believe I'm using these words)
Can't believe we're even arguing over this at all. They've taken things that shouldn't even be in question, and turned them into the debatable. There is no debate. No "what ifs". This is not what we should be doing. This is not what we do. It just isn't.

[Desertrat]

"They've taken things that shouldn't even be in question, and turned them into the debatable. There is no debate. No "what ifs". This is not what we should be doing. This is not what we do. It just isn't."

Yup.

hulugu, it's not the physical damage from a dirty bomb that would be the problem. It would be the panic, the efforts to escape the perceived "inevitable death from that evil Devil, radiation!" I say that from reading people's commentary about how low-level nuke waste disposal sites will ruin vast areas, or phrasings indicating folks believe the movie "The China Syndrome" was a documentary.

Back to solvs' point: You start out with VIPs saying, "They do it, why can't we do it?" solvs responds, "We don't torture, period."

Then you get into the Hollywood-induced VIP view that torture means blood and broken bones and bad smells. (Or dental tools, per "Three Days of the Condor") The sales-job rationalization for water-boarding is that no bruising, no broken bones, no blood makes it okay, 'cause it's not really torture.

Homo sap's not a rational animal; he's a rationalizing animal.

'Rat

[SMM]

Your words would have a lot more weight if it weren't for statements like these. If you really believe that last statement, I'm afraid I can't grant anything you say any stock whatsoever. As bad a President Bush may be, and as much as you may disagree with him and what he's done, the statement is ridiculous.

I am really not asking you to grant any stock to anything I write - nothing personal. I have read your posts. You and I are miles apart politically.

You still fundamentally believe Bush is a good guy. Perhaps he is a bad president and as such our recourse is to disagree with him. I think Bush is evil, and he is one of the better people in his administration. That should tell you how I feel about the rest.

I have recently read Conservatives Without Conscience, Worse Than Watergate, American Fascists, The Authoritarians and Blackwater. There is no question in my mind that this current administration is by far the most corrupt one we have ever had. Whether you choose to accept that, is really not my concern. The truth is out there for anyone who wants to take their blinders off.

[hulugu]

The Administration (domestic affairs, State Department, CIA, FBI, NSA, Justice Department, etc.) keep the definition of torture from being agreed upon. They prevent Congress from doing the same thing. Therefore, no one is accountable, because there is no definition. You cannot investigate and prosecute a crime, if the statute for the crime is undefined. So, we discuss it on-line. Maybe we can reach a group consensus, but that does not solve the problem. Until there is a clear definition to what is torture, this Country will continue to spin its wheels.

I totally agree with this. The administration's waffling on this issue has everything to do with covering their collective assets.

[hulugu]

hulugu, it's not the physical damage from a dirty bomb that would be the problem. It would be the panic, the efforts to escape the perceived "inevitable death from that evil Devil, radiation!" I say that from reading people's commentary about how low-level nuke waste disposal sites will ruin vast areas, or phrasings indicating folks believe the movie "The China Syndrome" was a documentary.
'Rat

I understand that such an event would be a serious detriment, but I think the case of a dirty bomb is overstated. I'm convinced that Al Qaeda doesn't need the relatively exotic weapons like a nuke or a chemical attack, rather a few car bombs in select cities will work just fine.

As you said, man isn't a rational animal.

[skunk]

Your words would have a lot more weight if it weren't for statements like these. If you really believe that last statement, I'm afraid I can't grant anything you say any stock whatsoever. As bad a President Bush may be, and as much as you may disagree with him and what he's done, the statement is ridiculous.It most certainly is not "ridiculous", especially when talking of his actions abroad. How many tinpot despots have actually gone as far as to launch an illegal war, carry out an illegal occupation, destroy two entire countries and cause the deaths of half a million people in revenge for fewer than three thousand dead?

[Desertrat]

Sorry, skunk, but your're offering, "...in revenge for fewer than three thousand dead?" as a demonstrable and proven fact--when that's not the case.

Sure, it's your opinion, your belief. Fine. But, "Your saying doesn't make it so."

'Rat

[Iscariot]

This shouldn't even be an issue. Torture isn't a rational or worthwhile endeavor, regardless of morality. It lacks any kind of credible ground.

[SMM]

Sorry, skunk, but your're offering, "...in revenge for fewer than three thousand dead?" as a demonstrable and proven fact--when that's not the case.

Sure, it's your opinion, your belief. Fine. But, "Your saying doesn't make it so."

'Rat

Are you going to offer an actual rebuttal? Exactly what is the case, in your opinion?

[solvs]

Sorry, skunk, but your're offering, "...in revenge for fewer than three thousand dead?" as a demonstrable and proven fact--when that's not the case.
Well, technically it isn't revenge, since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But that was the reason given, so if you have an issue with it, take it up with those who attempted to link the 2. I have to admit, attempting to remove the protections of the Constitution, waging war over dubious reasons, then torturing people who may not even be guilty of anything, and everything else we know this administration has done, does seem a little despotic, to say the least.

But it's hard to imagine any of our leaders doing it, even while we watch them do it, not to mention all of those who still agree with the administration (even though it's probably done nothing for them really) so there you have that last ~30% or so (actually less that that though in most polls).

[SMM]

This shouldn't even be an issue. Torture isn't a rational or worthwhile endeavor, regardless of morality. It lacks any kind of credible ground.

A good point, which few seem to understand, or agree with. As I said before, "..I have considerable first-hand knowledge on the subject... ".

In 1969, I received orders to become a helicopter door gunner in Vietnam. I was not thrilled about it. I had joined the Navy to keep away from that POS place. If I wanted to go there, I could have become a Marine and shaved a couple years off my enlistment. But, who knew, right?

Anyway, all combat aircrews, SEALS, UDT, Marine Force Recon, Army LURPS, PBR/Swiftboat crews and Air force Combat SAR Crews had to go through a training called SERE school. It was put on by the Navy and was very intense. Leading up to POW camp, we had been constantly moving and trying to forage off the land. Every two weeks a new class went through, so the pickings were pretty slim. By the time we were captured, we had been deprived of food, water and sleep. We were broken down.

Interrogation in the POW camp was brutal. They beat us and (yes) tortured us. It was nearly a month afterward, where I could comfortably turn my head to the right (left-handed interrogator). The water-boarding was very bad. I will never forget it, and I still have my certificate (attached) for passing. From what I watched on the video, the procedure has changed. I was restrained and tilted backwards. They poured water down my nose, and when I opened my mouth, it got the treatment too. When you started to gage, and vomit, you were tilted side-ways to prevent actual drowning. Then they would begin anew. I would rather have a good ass-whooping than happen any time.

For someone to say this is not torture is bu********. What I learned was to never get captured.

http://images.macrumors.com/vb/images/attach/jpg.gif
http://images.macrumors.com/vb/images/attach/jpg.gif

Note: Name is removed to protect the innocent. :rolleyes:

[Iscariot]

A good point, which few seem to understand, or agree with. As I said before, "..I have considerable first-hand knowledge on the subject... ".

I'm sure I won't be the last to fail to grasp just what you went through. It's unfortunate that you even need to make an appeal to authority in this case. That a) waterboarding is torture, and b) torture is absolutely an unnacceptable practice no matter the real or hypothetical scenario, shouldn't even bear mention.

[solvs]

As mentioned, some can rationalize it somehow. Either through the fear of some unknown threat, or thinking of the ones we torture as somehow, not human. Or at least, not like us. Which somehow makes it ok. I don't know how we ever let ourselves get to this point, it shouldn't be acceptable at all, but the bar has been moved and it's been turned into a debate so those who are already guilty of it won't get persecuted when it all comes out.

It's already illegal BTW, for those who don't know or think we need laws to clarify, as we've prosecuted others in the past already for doing it.

[mactastic]

Still haven't gotten a straight answer from those who support this particular technique's use about whether they would be demanding that such treatment not be used on our troops by other groups who feel that their guys lives are more important than any American life.

Of course that doesn't surprise me.

[SMM]

Still haven't gotten a straight answer from those who support this particular technique's use about whether they would be demanding that such treatment not be used on our troops by other groups who feel that their guys lives are more important than any American life.

Of course that doesn't surprise me.

Mr mactastic,

You are unlikely to get an answer to that question, especially one that makes any sense. As you said, "Of course that does not surprise me".

Leading up to the Vietnam War, we were able to take the moral high-ground with our actions, especially when comparing them to holocaust, and other atrocities of the Third Reich, during WWII, and the brutal techniques, used against American troops during Korea. In Vietnam, things began to change.

We violated countless requirements of the GC. The most famous is (of course) the slaughter of innocents at My Lai. Yet prior to that, we were running a program name the Phoenix. We were assassinating, kidnapping and torturing, those believed to be aiding the Viet Cong. We also used illegal weapons; flachette warheads on rockets, and ones with white phosphorous (Willie Pete). WARNING: Only those of you, able to handle graphic pictures of was, and its aftermath, should follow this link (http://reprehensor.gnn.tv/blogs/10442/Fallujah_the_Hidden_Massacre). It shows pictures of the US still using this god forsaken weapon today.

[hulugu]

...
We violated countless requirements of the GC. The most famous is (of course) the slaughter of innocents at My Lai. Yet prior to that, we were running a program name the Phoenix. We were assassinating, kidnapping and torturing, those believed to be aiding the Viet Cong. We also used illegal weapons; flachette warheads on rockets, and ones with white phosphorous (Willie Pete).

Not to be pedantic, but are you sure that flechettes are illegal according to the Geneva Convention? If so, this seems like a strange restriction given that HE rounds just make their own, so to speak.

As for the use of white phosphorous, the use of WP rounds in Fallujah might be legal according to the Convention, because while Protocol III is very clear about the use of incendiary weapons against civilians, it does not prohibit the use of incendiaries against military targets.

[SMM]

Keith puts this topic to bed. I wish I could watch the face of Bush as he listens (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/05/special-comment-george-bushs-criminal-conspiracy-of-torture/) to it. There is no question of how Keith thinks. This is a bare-butt willow stick spanking and justly deserved.

Fine job, Keith!

[SMM]

Not to be pedantic, but are you sure that flechettes are illegal according to the Geneva Convention? If so, this seems like a strange restriction given that HE rounds just make their own, so to speak.

As for the use of white phosphorous, the use of WP rounds in Fallujah might be legal according to the Convention, because while Protocol III is very clear about the use of incendiary weapons against civilians, it does not prohibit the use of incendiaries against military targets.

There are a new draft to the JC in (1977 I think), which may have changed some of the rules. But in 1969-1972, flechettes were definitely banned. The only thing we could legally use them for was defoliating (creating an LZ). No one would use a 2.75" rocket for that task, so that application was questionable. We removed the contact fuse, and installed a proximity fuse. We also did not talk about it.

WP was illegal to use against human targets. We COUD use them to mark targets, and that was their primary purpose. The small 2.75" warhead did not make them suitable for much else. There was a squadron of OV-10's that used 5" WP warheads in their 'bunker bustin' operations. Nasty stuff. If you got it on, you pulled out your canteen, poured it on the dirt, stirred it around, then slapped the mud over it. Then you waited for it to burn itself out. Thank God I missed that. :eek:

[Desertrat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_convention:

"They chiefly concern the treatment of non-combatants and prisoners of war. They do not affect the use of weapons in war, which are covered by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the Geneva Protocol on the use of gas and biological weapons of 1925."

[hulugu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_convention:

"They chiefly concern the treatment of non-combatants and prisoners of war. They do not affect the use of weapons in war, which are covered by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the Geneva Protocol on the use of gas and biological weapons of 1925."

Protocol III of the GC refers specifically to incendiary weapons and their use against civilians.

[hulugu]

Keith puts this topic to bed. I wish I could watch the face of Bush as he listens (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/05/special-comment-george-bushs-criminal-conspiracy-of-torture/) to it. There is no question of how Keith thinks. This is a bare-butt willow stick spanking and justly deserved.

Fine job, Keith!

:eek:

I'd like to think that Bush would flinch at such a fusillade, but I can't imagine he would exposed himself to such outright criticism; if he did watch Olbermann's rant, Bush would just dissemble his way to a sound sleep.

Olbermann appears within a hair's breadth of becoming completely unglued, it's energizing to see someone do so on camera in such an articulate manner.

[Evangelion]

Damn straight it's torture and anyone who claims otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about. And if USA resorts to torture, then it begs the question: How exactly are Americans different from those terrorists they are fighting against? We are painted a picture that Americans have higher moral standards than the terrorists do. Yet reality might be that their moral standards are more or less identical. "It's OK to torture people we don't like".

[solvs]

I wish I could watch the face of Bush as he listens (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/05/special-comment-george-bushs-criminal-conspiracy-of-torture/) to it.
This is Bush we're talking about. He wouldn't listen to it. Kinda part of the problem.

Protocol III of the GC refers specifically to incendiary weapons and their use against civilians.
We shouldn't even need that, but here we are.

And if USA resorts to torture, then it begs the question: How exactly are Americans different from those terrorists they are fighting against?
A question we shouldn't have to ask, and yet, here we are.

Comeon conservatives, how do you defend this? Seriously. I'd like to hear it. Anyone?

[Desertrat]

:) "The 'suitcase' nuke is almost an urban myth. In reality, the smallest nuclear weapon is a steamer trunk that would require something like a full-size pickup truck to cart around."

I"m sure glad nobody ever got a pickup truck load of dope across the Rio Grande. I'm also glad nobody ever smuggled a ton of cocaine into Mexico. Way too bulky. Must be an urban myth. :D:D:D Sorry; couldn't help it.

Remember the "atomic cannon" of the 1950s? 280mm. The Army had them at Fort Sill when I was stationed there in 1956. 25.4 mm per inch, so we're talking about 11 inches in diameter. Put it in a dirty, greasy piece of oilfield pipe with some junky old pumps and car parts. Drive the pickup to the appropriately-located parking meter and insert coins...

Shame mac won't answer hypothetical questions. :D:D:D

'Rat

[mactastic]

Shame mac won't answer hypothetical questions. :D:D:D

'Rat
Yeah, sure is, isn't it? The hypocrisy coming from you is pretty thick today...

[takao]

Remember the "atomic cannon" of the 1950s? 280mm. The Army had them at Fort Sill when I was stationed there in 1956. 25.4 mm per inch, so we're talking about 11 inches in diameter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition

i especially like the RPG nuvlear weapon hehe

[hulugu]

:) "The 'suitcase' nuke is almost an urban myth. In reality, the smallest nuclear weapon is a steamer trunk that would require something like a full-size pickup truck to cart around."

I"m sure glad nobody ever got a pickup truck load of dope across the Rio Grande. I'm also glad nobody ever smuggled a ton of cocaine into Mexico. Way too bulky. Must be an urban myth. :D:D:D Sorry; couldn't help it.

Remember the "atomic cannon" of the 1950s? 280mm. The Army had them at Fort Sill when I was stationed there in 1956. 25.4 mm per inch, so we're talking about 11 inches in diameter. Put it in a dirty, greasy piece of oilfield pipe with some junky old pumps and car parts. Drive the pickup to the appropriately-located parking meter and insert coins...


I didn't say it was impossible to smuggle a weapon into the US, I said that the "suitcase" nuke didn't exist.

Also, remember that nuclear weapons require specific kinds of maintenance and many of them have a very short shelf-life, so AFAIK the rounds from the M-65 won't go nuclear. In many cases, the nuclear material simply degrades.

[hulugu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition

i especially like the RPG nuvlear weapon hehe

Yes, but it's been widely discussed in certain circles that these weapons were ridiculously unreliable and therefore never went much beyond the design-board. The Russians had similar devices, but couldn't ever field them, except in large devices.

Remember, it's not that it's impossible, just unlikely. And, you don't draw up an entire strategy to fight a war in another country because of the possibility that yourself or someone else might have designed a weapon that could be used in the right circumstances.
Instead, you train NEST agents, you keep a close eye on nuclear material, and you loudly create a detection program that works.

[Iscariot]

:) "The 'suitcase' nuke is almost an urban myth. In reality, the smallest nuclear weapon is a steamer trunk that would require something like a full-size pickup truck to cart around."

I"m sure glad nobody ever got a pickup truck load of dope across the Rio Grande. I'm also glad nobody ever smuggled a ton of cocaine into Mexico. Way too bulky. Must be an urban myth. :D:D:D Sorry; couldn't help it.

Remember the "atomic cannon" of the 1950s? 280mm. The Army had them at Fort Sill when I was stationed there in 1956. 25.4 mm per inch, so we're talking about 11 inches in diameter. Put it in a dirty, greasy piece of oilfield pipe with some junky old pumps and car parts. Drive the pickup to the appropriately-located parking meter and insert coins...

Shame mac won't answer hypothetical questions. :D:D:D

'Rat

Isn't driving the discussion towards the possibility of small nuclear weapons a divergence from addressing the point at hand?

[solvs]

Isn't driving the discussion towards the possibility of small nuclear weapons a divergence from addressing the point at hand?

What else is new. The current topic is indefensible. I'm surprised it isn't somehow Clinton's fault.

[SMM]

From Crooks and Liars: (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/09/a-navy-interrogater-waterboarding-is-torture/)

Another Military expert testifies before Congress.

[Iscariot]

What else is new. The current topic is indefensible. I'm surprised it isn't somehow Clinton's fault.

But it is. Clinton actually invented waterboarding because he is a sexual pervert and deviant. Also, I'm pretty sure he invented war, terrorism, and everytime he smiles it kills puppies. Also he crushes rainbows with his penis.

[obeygiant]

But it is. Clinton actually invented waterboarding because he is a sexual pervert and deviant. Also, I'm pretty sure he invented war, terrorism, and everytime he smiles it kills puppies. Also he crushes rainbows with his penis.

You had me until the crushing rainbow part, because no one can do that.