CNN’s Anderson Cooper pushed down hard on the totalitarian analogies in a Monday night segment on Bush "torture" policy, comparing our handling of terrorist interrogations to the Nazis (stress positions) and the Khmer Rouge (waterboarding). In a debate with former Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer, Paul Begala brought his furrowed eyebrows and moral outrage to the set:
Our country executed Japanese soldiers who waterboarded American POWs. We executed them for the same crime that we are now committing ourselves. How do you defend that?
Over at The Corner on National Review, Mark Hemingway suggested Begala was mangling the historical facts:
What Begala said isn't true. Begala appears to be referencing Yukio Asano, a Japanese soldier convicted of war crimes. His case was popularized — in the context of waterboarding — by Ted Kennedy. See this Washington Post article from 2006:
"Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. "We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II," he said.
Not only was Asano not executed, but his 15-year sentence was for a host of crimes besides waterboarding. According to the U.C. Berkeley War Crimes center:
Docket Date: 53/ May 1 - 28, 1947, Yokohama, Japan
Charge: Violation of the Laws and Customs of War: 1. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture PWs. 2. Did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for PWs.
Specifications: beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward
So Asano beat people with clubs and burned them with cigarettes — and I think there's no real debate about whether that consitutes torture. But wait, there's more. Asano practiced a much more severe form of waterboarding, according to the Post:
Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.
In waterboarding as it is practiced by the U.S., cellophane or cloth is placed over the subject's mouth to keep water out of nose and mouth. Asano was pouring water directly into the mouths and noses of subjects which is considerably more harsh and dangerous.
I don't think that any of this settles the debate over whether waterboarding as it was practiced by the CIA is or is not torture, but Begala certainly doesn't know what he's talking about. And it's certainly not accurate to say that the U.S. punished war ciminals from other countries for the same enhanced interrogation techniques we committed in the wake of 9/11.
For his part, after a pregnant pause (perhaps Fleischer was waiting for Anderson Cooper to make another Nazi comparison), Fleischer responded strongly:
Well, again, Paul, I guess you already are the jury, the prosecutor, the judge, and a citizen all rolled into one. You have already pronounced judgment that it is a crime.
So, if it is a crime, my question goes back to. Which Democrat members of Congress who sat in on the briefings, were authorized, were told about it, while -- particularly at a time when the Democrats had the majority in the Senate, would you say need to be prosecuted, Paul?
Hemingway noted a bloggers at the Daily Kos loved Ari's pause, as if he was utterly dumbfounded by Begala's brilliance. But his retort hit right where Mark Levin was focusing on his radio show last night: who will be prosecuted? Levin expressed the hope that he would get to represent a target of these prosecutions, so he can put the legal thumbscrews on the Democrats who apparently let all of this "torture" commence.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
So Begala is equating the abuse of....
April 24, 2009 - 10:40 ET by Prester John....a unifomed POW and a civilian detainee, both of who are protected persons under the Geneva Convention, with rough interrogation of terrorists/war criminals?
Makes sense to me.
I caught this segment and
April 24, 2009 - 10:39 ET by bigtimerI caught this segment and was very glad I did...Ari is becoming a hero to me...I wished he would run for something, personally I wished he was the head of the RNC...he made a complete fool out of Begala, and Cooper too as far as I am concerned.
Job well done Ari, and as an American out here I am thankful we have you out there speaking out for us and our military, intelligence officers and all else involved that have sacrificed so much for us all to keep us safe.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Deliberate
April 24, 2009 - 10:46 ET by slickwillie2001'Mangle the facts' sounds too much like it could have been accidental due to incompetence. I believe Begala purposely misstated history in order to make the US look bad.
"A lie told often enough becomes truth" Vladimir Lenin.
April 24, 2009 - 19:05 ET by Tjexcitent
The next time that unhinged
April 24, 2009 - 10:53 ET by fitzfongThe next time that unhinged windbag Paul Begala says something truthful will be the first time.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
fitz... Which will be the
April 24, 2009 - 11:45 ET by bigtimerfitz...
Which will be the 12th of Never.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Water torture!
April 24, 2009 - 11:01 ET by billburzWho knows more about water torture than Teddy boy Kennedy. LOL
Billburz
Badda-BING!
April 24, 2009 - 11:10 ET by GalvanicSwim call!
→ billburz
April 24, 2009 - 11:13 ET by Cool ArrowDang, I wish I'd thought of that one.
Obama - A whole new dementian
Oh - how great
April 24, 2009 - 11:14 ET by kdizzydazeWhat a line - I need a new keyboard and another cup of coffee.
God made man, but he used a monkey to do it -- DEVO
Yea but..
April 24, 2009 - 11:52 ET by sam12663..waterboarded prisoners SURVIVE!
President Obama is nothing more than a lying empty suit; a Hollywood style special effects smoke and mirrors show that has shown itself to be a total fraud.
WAKE UP AMERICA! SAVE OUR CONSTITUTION!
billburz
April 24, 2009 - 12:19 ET by AnotherFedUpOneThanks for that one.....
a spew alert would have been good to have tho!
It could be us now.
April 24, 2009 - 11:38 ET by jackie3I believe George Washington once remarked something along the lines of: "When you torture a prisoner, you make yourself and your country a disgrace."
America doesn't torture prisoners! That is what made us different in past wars from our enemies. That was our "high road," something we could later rub in the bad guy's face. That we wouldn't torture, wouldn't harm or hurt the prisoners even during interrogations.
When did "thuggery" become acceptable? Waterboarding is still thuggery. Sure it doesn't kill the prisoner for the most part but still it's torture nevertheless.
When did America allow the bad guys to get the better of us? When did we become thugs? Taking "suspected terrorist" against their will, holding them with no trial, no charges for undetermined amount of time. At one point in time we had detained over 3,000 "suspected terrorist" shortly after 9/11. By the time Bush left office only 12 prisoners were still in custody.
Where is American Justice in that? That Patriot Act has become a tool of dictators. And now, we have a illegal president and a HLS that has labeled the majority of American's "terrorist."
That Patriot Act can be turned on us. We are the new "Terrorist." Yet, we don't seem to understand that we could end up being taken from our homes, sent to a government detention center for god knows how long and waterboarded many times a day till we confess to whatever Obamamainia wishes us too.
The shoe is on the other foot now. That Waterboarding could happen to us. Our government could turn on us and there is nothing we can do about it.
Perhaps America never really had a code of honor. Perhaps the reason why Japanese and German POW's moved here was not because we treated them better than their own.
The tales of Andersonville seems alive and well in modern times. It's just it seems okay as long as the person being waterboarded is Muslim.
Alexander Hamilton: "We are a Republican government. Real liberty is
never found in the despotism or in the extremes of a Democracy."
Jackie, put down your AK47!
April 24, 2009 - 11:48 ET by billburzJackie, if you insist on remaining a terrorist, than you too can be waterboarded. But ONLY for that ta-reason! Get your trunks ready!
Billburz
jackie3... The shoe is on
April 24, 2009 - 11:49 ET by bigtimerjackie3...
The shoe is on the other foot now. That Waterboarding could happen to us. Our government could turn on us and there is nothing we can do about it.
Keep your powder dry.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Good enough for me.
April 24, 2009 - 11:56 ET by Ran56OK Jackie, I'll go for that idea. By the By, ya ever see the remains of what they did to our soldiers? Bet they wished they had been waterboarded instead.
Sir, (or Madam or comrad as
April 24, 2009 - 12:10 ET by Captain RepusSir, (or Madam or comrad as appropriate)
Waterboarding is short of torture.
Torture can more accurately be defined as being forced to jump 1,000 feet or more to your death to avoid being burned alive.
Torture can more accurately be defined as the 60 seconds or so of sheer terror grasping your seat as your airliner plunges head-first to the ground with a muslim freedom fighter at the controls
Torture can more accurately be defined as having to listen to the piercing noise of a 100 story tower crumbling on you from above you as you and your fellow patriots try to save civilian victims of terror
Torture can more accurately be defined as desparately trying to call your loved ones for a final goodby as you see the pentagon full of thousands of patriots innocently doing their jobs growing larger in front of your airplane
Torture, my friend, is having to read and listen to the rantings of folks like you who's most significant contribution to our society was probably nothing more than casting an uninformed vote.
P.S. I forgot one more
April 24, 2009 - 12:54 ET by Captain RepusP.S.
I forgot one more example:
Torture can also more accurately be defined as being in a nice, warm, comfortable place looking forward to getting your first glimpse of your loving mother, who's warm voice has nurtured you for months on end of being jostled, poked and poked on, only to suddenly feel the excrutiating pain of your skull being crushed and your brain matter being sucked from it in order to prevent being an inconvenience to someone who very likely voted for Barak Obama.
I salute you, Captain
April 25, 2009 - 17:20 ET by BO STINKSThank you for such a comprehensive definition of REAL torture. The sickness and depravity that has become the norm in our country is breathtaking. May God reward them all according to their works.
The great Socio/Economic Experiments of the 20th cent. (communism, socialism, fascism) only killed a few hundred million. Let's give 'em another try! - me
I believe George Washington
April 24, 2009 - 14:24 ET by Dan The Man 2I believe George Washington once remarked something along the lines of: "When you torture a prisoner, you make yourself and your country a disgrace."
And what was torture in Washingtons time? Mental anguish is not torture in the sense the person has no lasting physical effects. We must think when we talk about these terms. If we listen to some yoyo's when we spank our children or deprive them of whatever it is torture.
You are far from the beam on this one.
Another facet is these terrorists are spies and sabatuers, they have no uniforms and therefore not subject to the normal rules of war. The UN Convention deals with these and says they are subject to being incommucado and the offended country can dispose of them at their leisure.
You need to stop listening to the pundits of the MSM and do some independent reading on this one.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I believe your history is,
April 25, 2009 - 20:36 ET by HockeyKidI believe your history is, at best, inaccurate. Cite a source, please.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Crime
April 24, 2009 - 11:56 ET by JDWPunishment for waterboarding terrorists for vital information to save American lives v abortion (legal).
JDW
DAILY WAVE
The government works for me, not the other way around
Yes
April 24, 2009 - 12:24 ET by Ran56I agree JDW.. but we won't hear much about that will we.
No we won't. The silence
April 24, 2009 - 12:31 ET by bigtimerNo we won't.
The silence will be the same as the abortied babies.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
New News
April 24, 2009 - 12:38 ET by JDWWaiting for ACLU's reaction to the 44 photographs.
GTHFY
JDW
DAILY WAVE
The government works for me, not the other way around
On Man's Torture
April 24, 2009 - 12:37 ET by lareeWeek in Review - The Tortured Edition ;)
A lot of talk about waterboarding, and
defining what is and isn't torture. No one brought up in the news cycle
that the American People, are tortured daily by their own government. Defining torture, this one is like shooting fish in a barrel. How about we start with what the Speaker of the House,
and what she had to say about American Citizens, who attended Tax Day
Tea Partys. Can the C.I.A.'s enhanced interrogation techniques match up
to, what an out of control Government Beauracrat can do to the citizenry?
There
is an old story, if you put a frog, in a pot of cold water. Slowly turn
the heat up, the frog doesn't jump because it gets acclimated slowly to
the temperature of the water slowly rising, and eventually is boiled to
death.
keep reading below.
http://youhavetobeth...
Torture:
April 24, 2009 - 13:33 ET by Red JeepAny form of interrogation that causes the prisoner to bleed.
So waterboarding, sleep deprivation, loud music and bugs in cells are not torture.
if it bleeds...
April 24, 2009 - 13:50 ET by MrShy... it leads. Well, at least that's USUALLY the case with the MSM.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Waterboarding
April 24, 2009 - 15:53 ET by Buzzywouldn't harm or hurt the prisoners even during interrogations.
Look at what you wrote jackie3. Please explain how waterboarding the way the US did it harmed or hurt anyone. I don't think scaring the sh!t out of our foes is close to torture, those that wish to do the USA harm should be afraid, very very afraid.
The sad part is they look at the USA as being a bunch of fools, weak and unwilling to stand up to their war against us.
What about Janet Reno???
April 24, 2009 - 16:39 ET by bpjamIf Janet Reno did to KSM what she did to the people at that compound in Waco, she would be a war criminal.
Notice how nothing she did to them was considered or even mentioned as 'torture'? And then it was all swept under the rug.
If you deprived me of sleep, put floodlights on me all night, played Nancy Sinatra on loudspeakers along with the sounds of animals being tormented or killed, I'd believe you were trying to torture me. and the FBI had a guy right there on site at Waco advising the ATF as to what to do to get 'the crazies' to give up their will to resist.
What is the difference between that and what we did to KSM?
bp.... Bulls-Eye
April 24, 2009 - 16:47 ET by bigtimerbp....
Bulls-Eye buddy!
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Mark is wrong, Tim
April 24, 2009 - 16:50 ET by nicholas nicklebyTim,
a) Asano is not the only person prosecuted for waterboarding; the list includes many others. More importantly,
b) yes, some of those prosecuted for waterboarding were executed ( http://www.politifac... .
c) Also, the Japanese interrogators in question did wrap cloth over the person's face; Charles J. Nielsen testified to that effect ( http://en.wikipedia.... ), and
d) the Bradbury memo specifically states that the cloth / cellophane cover is not meant to (and does not) prevent water being swallowed: "The wet cloth creates a barrier through which it is difficult - or in
some cases not possible - to breathe. … Either in the normal
application, or where countermeasures are used, we understand that
water may enter — and may accumulate in — the detainee’s mouth and
nasal cavity, preventing him from breathing."
In other words, Begala is right on all counts, and Mark is wrong on all counts. Could you please update your post to reflect these facts?
Academic BS
April 24, 2009 - 18:17 ET by ozarkapeI'm getting tired of all this academic philosophical [maybe didn't spell that right, blue collar yu know] BS about what is and what isn't torture. Who cares?
Someone comming after me or my family I'm going to kill him----common sense
Someone knows who is comming after me or my family I will do anything to get that information from them---common sense
Torture? I don't give a damn. I want to protect my family,myself and my fellow citizens
What the hell happened to common sense?
Blue collar and proud of it
the difference between the two situations
April 25, 2009 - 08:19 ET by nicholas nicklebyhi ozarkape,
you have a point: if someone is coming after you/your family, you have some rights of self-defense. But there's a difference between stopping someone from doing immediate action and torturing terrorist suspects for information--and that is, while you can be sure the man coming after you with a knife(for example) actually presents a threat, you can't know that your terrorist suspect actually knows anything or that torturing him will give you the information you need.
That's the problem with the ticking time-bomb scenario: outside of movies and tv shows, it's impossibile to know that the only way to stop the bomb is by torturing the person.
Or, to put it in perspective, KSM was waterboarded 183 times in one month--if he had information that we really needed, but it took 183 times to get it out of him, then, if this were a ticking time-bomb scenario, the bomb would already have gone off. That's what makes the two cases (man coming after you, terrorist in custody) different.
If someone is coming after
April 25, 2009 - 09:42 ET by BDIf someone is coming after my family I will torture them unmercifully to ensure my families safety.
"and that is, while you can be sure the man coming after you with a knife(for example) actually presents a threat,"
I have written before about Strong AMerica and Weak America. Currently, the law emphasizes Weak America rather than Strong America when it comes to self-defense. THe current law says that you can only use deadly force as long as an imminet threat is offered to you or someone else. What this means is that if a person with a weapon engages you and during the engagement sees that you are armed or have a superior positional advantage, and turns to flee - you must cease engaging that person.
A very weak position particulalry when that person might simply be seeking a superior positional advantage. Only an ACLU attourney could desire such a law.
Strong America says shoot the repositioning felon in the back and empty the entire magazine into him to assure he is dead. Reload if necessary and bayonet him if possible. He would do it to you and likely has done so to others in the past.
Regarding your appraisal of the ticking time bomb scenario. All information gathered in an interogation is useful. The act of processing this combat information into intelligence key. Even the smallest bit of information gathered can be vital to the defense of a nation.
THose not well versed in intelligence view TV programs where a subject spills the beans and based on that one peice of information the good guys race off to hammer the bad guys. It is not that simple or easy. The use of all-source information makes it vital that we have confirmatory information to make assessments.
The ticking time bomb scenario is key, as ANY information you can glean from a hostile detainee can be vital. The only thing is - the detainee MUST be willing to communicate for the conversation to occur.
Several years ago about the time the news was reporting on AQ efforts to purchase small portable nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union there was a TV series on the History Channel that showed several civilians who volunteered to be interogated by former British Interogators.
None of the volunteers had any special or even generic military training in how to face an interogation - unlike US forces or even AQ members. THey were given details of a supposed plot to try and keep from the interogators at all costs.
Differing interogators used differing approaches to each of the detainees based on the detainee personality with varying success. All but one attemted to talk their way out of the situation and information was gathered to uncover much of the supposed plot.
But the head guy, probably selected for his personality, refused to even look at the interogators in the cell with him. He simply played wooden indian and the final small bits of key information were locked away from the interrogators.
At that time as I recall the interogators had to make the interrogation harsher to get him to communicate. First they tried stress positions on him. to No effect. Then they tried stress positions on others in front of him to guilt him into communicating. No effect. I recall they used several of the lesser techniques specifically stated in the recently released report. NO effect.
In other simultaneous interogations, when the supposed bad guys attempted to lie (Because as we all have been told by liberals, such interogations only provide false information), trained intelligence analysts in another room processed and analyzed the information presented by the supposed detainee and informed the interogators who confronted the bad guy on it (or not depending on approach) and gathered even more information which was again analyzed.
In the end, the detainees were brought in and the information they divulged allowed the analysts to foil the plot (mostly). But the key take away was when the Intelligence team was asked to imagine what would happen if everyone played wooden indian and the results were not pretty. Particualrly if the only person in the cell who had key information did it (KSM).
the fallacy of the set-up
April 25, 2009 - 10:07 ET by nicholas nicklebyBD, you and I agree on that tv/movies give a false idea of information gathering, which is why I think it ridiculous that Scalia mentions the show 24 in one of his accounts.
But here's the problem in your example: you report that people were given information, and then had to try to keep it hidden from the interrogators. In real life, there's no test to show whether someone has the information or not. Do you see the difference? In this History Channel example, the people being interrogated were given info--but there's no way to 100% say that the suspect in custody has any information.
Do you see the problem? You might be torturing someone who doesn't have any information in the first place.
Now, I know, torture doesn't take place in a vacuum, and that there are hopefully ways to identify people who have key info and people who don't--but there's even arguments about that aspect going on. If we had a foolproof way to a) identify people who have information, and b) get usable information from them c) without giving the enemy a propaganda tool to recruit against us, then I would be all for it. Until then, a history channel show is just a tv show--and as you pointed out, tv is not real life.
nick
April 25, 2009 - 10:14 ET by botgyou must be single and jobless
after all by your criteria why ask a woman on a date if you don't know ahead of time she will accept (ie has info) or why put in a job app if you don't know you'll get the desired outcome?
better yet why are these persons in battle zones not in uniform in violation of the Geneva Convention and why do you wish to defend them?
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
UN Convention Against Torture
April 25, 2009 - 10:27 ET by nicholas nicklebyhi botg,
Come on, botg, the situation is not comparable: asking a woman out on a date or applying for a job are not against the UN Convention Against Torture. The UN Convention against Torture does state that the signatories should not torture under any condition--it doesn't just cover soldiers in uniform.
Do you know who signed UNCAT? Ronald Reagan, with this note attached:
"The United States participated actively and effectively in the
negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the
development during this century of international measures against
torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the
Convention by the United States will clearly express United States
opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still
prevalent in the world today."
the UN? the UN? gawd if the
April 25, 2009 - 10:34 ET by botgthe UN? the UN? gawd if the UN had done it's job and enforced the ceasefire and sanctions against Sadaam we wouldn't be having this conversation. the UN is bs plain and simple, over half of it's official 'business' is anti-semite propaganda, and yeah lets get gahdaffis opinions on human rights...........
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
who cares about the UN?
April 25, 2009 - 10:42 ET by nicholas nicklebyBotg,
If the UN said you can't have cheese on your hamburger, it wouldn't much matter to me--they can say what they want to say.
But the UN Convention Against Torture was signed by the US president--which means that it's more than just something the UN put together, it's something we agreed to. If you don't like the UNCAT, argue with Reagan, not me.
and we are back at the start
April 25, 2009 - 10:49 ET by botgthere are no authorized techniques of interrogation designed to cause harm to the prisoner. Do prisoners get hurt when they struggle and fight? well yes of course.
and the whole 'mental anguish' line you bring up makes you guilty of torture.
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
During the spin up process
April 25, 2009 - 10:27 ET by BDDuring the spin up process for the show, the different supposed detainees were each given differing amounts of the information. Each tried to conceal the information as best they could.
I really recommend you read "THe Interogators" by Chris MacKey, it will provide an excellent schooling on the process which will quiet nearly ALL of your concerns.
You over epemphasize the actual interogation in the process. The Interogator needs information to start the process, and entire classes are taught in this necessary skill.
For instance, a detainee is brought in, and the capture tag says "Captured at 12RSV12005200 post firefight with 1/65 SF Group ODA 522 with backpack containing Russian manufacured detonation cord and 100 rounds of 7.62mm x 39mm rounds." Generally, the Team from the battlefield interogators will also provide additional information that is applicable to the subject.
His pocket litter is then examined to gather information to assist the interogator.
THen the detainee is observed prior to the interogation to gather information on his state of mind.
Only then the interogator begins planning his approach to the detainee. THe best approach is selected and used. If it fails, further analysis is performed and another is selected.
I know the ACLU, Amnesty International, and the rest of the Lib world would have you believe that everyone at Gitmo was simply "Seeking the true Islamic Life" and doing chairty work in the mountains near Takur Ghar when the big bad americans came and grabbed them, but the guys in our possession today with only a couple of exceptions were processed in this manner.
And there is no quesiton that the three guys who were rigorously interogated using the techniques in question were previously identified as AQ leaders. All three.
Regarding the propaganda tool question. It is nonsense. We are restrained. Others, especially arabs are NOT. Yet, the main source of AQ recruits does not seem particularly concerned with Jordan or Syria's use of incredibly worse techniques against people. In fact, the Arabic world RESPECTS such shows of overwhelming strength.
In fact, you never hear of hoards of arabic teenagers blowing themselves up in downtown Gaza attempteing to kill the Hamas leadership, right?
Pakistanis' hunting the Taliban for its atrocities?
Hell no.
You do not understand the Arabic World, you assume they think like Norwegians which they most assuredly do not.
nicotine nicostain is a LIAR.
April 25, 2009 - 00:40 ET by JWFa) sources please you whiny little liar.
b) waterboarding was classified until this month. Japanese were convicted under a constitution wrote up specifically for war crimes during WWII. Not the U.S Constitution. And they were charged with water torture, not waterboarding which was a classified procedure until April 2009. LIAR!
This is waterboarding - Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers tbe mouth and nose, air now is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence ofthe cloth. This causes an increase in carbon dioxide level in the individual's blood. This increase in the carbon dioxide level stimulates increased effort to breathe. This effort plus the cloth produces tbe perception of "suffocation and incipient panic," i.e.,the perception of drowning. tbeindividual does not breathe any wa.ter into his lungs. During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty four inches. After this speriod, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths. The sensation of drowning is immediately relieved by the removal of the cloth. (1)
c) LIE LIE LIE LIE! Read the memo. The Bradbury memo also says a time limit of 40 seconds. So the detainee cannot breathe for 40 seconds. He is then free to spit out any accumulated water out of his mouth or nasal cavity you disingenous little liar.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
(1) http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/olc_08012002_bybee.pdf
eh?
April 25, 2009 - 08:49 ET by nicholas nicklebyJWF,
Once again, your post just seems to confirm everything I said, while asserting that it doesn't.
a) Hemingway assumed Begala was talking about Asano, but there were many other soldiers and officers charged. This isn't a contentious point; see Evan Wallach's "Drop by Drop" in The Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 45 (2). Or, you know, any history book of WWII and the Tokyo trials. (Now, you also ask for sources, but I gave sources for two of my four points, and the Bradbury memo is easy enough to get information about online, so I don't understand your tantrum re: sources.)
b) Actually, while some of the Japanese water torture differed from waterboarding (some, for instance, including jumping on the water-full stomach of prisoners), some of it matched our recent practice of water-boarding perfectly.
For instance, here is airman Nelsen's account of his waterboarding: "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".
c) What's your point? The CIA had a legal memo saying they could only torture a guy for 40 seconds and that somehow makes it not torture? Think of how ridiculous that defense would be in any other circumstance: "Well," the Japanese officers could say, "we only raped Nanking for 6 weeks, so it's like we didn't really rape it at all."
Anyway, JWF, you're getting me off the original point of this post, which is that Mark Hemingway is wrong. You haven't actually denied any of that, you've just thrown a tantrum. My suggestion for calming down: go teabag something.
~Hello Squeers
April 25, 2009 - 08:58 ET by choselife3xMy suggestion for calming down: go teabag something.
Did you just suggest to my friend the Navy vet that he go commit a homosexual act?
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
sex info you missed in class
April 25, 2009 - 09:06 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi Choose,
just so we all know what the word means, "teabagging" involves at least one pair of testicles--there's nothing inherently homosexual about it.
(In fact, the correct use of the verb implies that the one doing the teabagging is the one with the testicles. So, for instance, a man could teabag another man or a man could teabag a woman--which would be heterosexual. But you couldn't say that a woman teabagged a man--you'd have to say that she was teabagged by him. In that way, teabag is different from the verb "blow" used for oral sex, since the person who is the blower doesn't need a penis, while the person who gets blown does have a penis.)
Next time you're unsure of something, feel free to ask. Or, you know, just Google it.
and this oh troll
April 25, 2009 - 09:12 ET by botgis pertainent to the discussion just how exactly?
what the hellz are you even bringing this up for?
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
clarifying for Choose
April 25, 2009 - 09:25 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi botg,
I'll explain: Choose asked if I was suggesting that JWF engage in a homosexual act when I suggested he "go teabag something"; so, I pointed out that a) there's nothing inherently homosexual about teabagging; and b) the form of my advice "go teabag something" was not inherently homosexual.
So, is this related to torture? No. Does this help inform Chooselife3x? Yes. It's a tangent from the original topic, but it's what teachers would call a teachable moment. Hopefully we've all learned a little bit.
Um, no
April 25, 2009 - 09:30 ET by BlondePathetic dodge.
You brought it up as an insult to JWF, quit lying about the subsequent post.
If this is all you have....you're worse than Maddow & the MSNBC crew.
I hope he fails, too.
ah, no.
April 25, 2009 - 09:46 ET by nicholas nicklebyBlonde,
a) yes, you're close, I originally brought up teabagging because I thought JWF's response was ridiculous.
b) but my at length comment on teabagging was not to insult, but to inform cl3x that teabagging isn't inherently homosexual.
and c) that was not all I have--you must have missed the thoughtful,
well-documented, and--if i may say so myself--life-changing post above the final "teabagging" comment.
(p.s. just so we're all on the same page, I'm being sarcastic re: "life-changing"--I don't know that anything we do here is life-changing.)
Thank you ever so much
April 25, 2009 - 10:27 ET by BlondeWe needed a smut contributor here...you're filling the bill nicely.
I hope he fails, too.
clarifying??
April 25, 2009 - 09:32 ET by botgyour original bringing up of the topic?
my question for the logic impaired is why did you bring it up to begin with?
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
heh
April 25, 2009 - 09:41 ET by nicholas nicklebyyeah, I was clarifying for Choose, since she--like a few other right-wing commentators (see Scott Johnson at Powerline)--doesn't seem to know that it's not homosexual. (And that "kinky" does not equal "homosexual.")
As for why I brought it up in the first place, Blonde was kind of right--I brought it up to suggest something that JWF would fine more profitable than arguing, since he's never been right, and his tantrums are ridiculously misplaced. So I gave him something to have a tantrum over if he wanted, while the adults here go on discussing what's really at stake here: Begala was right--the US did convict and execute Japanese soldiers and officers for waterboarding in the precise manner that waterboarding was carried out by our military and intelligence. The fact that we're now supporting something that we used to consider torture is quite disgusting if you love the rule of law that our country is founded on.
No one is above the law, and for what it's worth, I agree with the last thing Ari Fleischer said: if there are any democrats who authorized this torture, they need to be held accountable.
~Adults?
April 25, 2009 - 09:59 ET by choselife3xYou bring a sexual reference into a discussion on the legality of waterboarding and you have the gall to imply that you are acting like an adult? What a joke. Then you go on in detail about sexual anatomy like a sniggering 14 year old in a treehouse with his buddies. You gonna bring out some stolen cigarettes and your daddy's bottle of Jack next? Pathetic loser.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
come on, choose
April 25, 2009 - 10:22 ET by nicholas nicklebyaccording to your account, any discussion of sex would mark one as a sniggering 14-year old.
But I agree with some subtext of your post below, we should get back to the main issues of the day, which are not about sex, but about torture.
~Actually Squeers,
April 25, 2009 - 11:52 ET by choselife3xyour detailed descriptions have nothing to do with the act of procreation, but with alternate activities that teenage boys find titillating.
Very poor dabate tactic. If you can't win the argument, throw out a demeaning sexual reference. Classic liberal tactic again. See MSNBC for further reference.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
ha!
April 25, 2009 - 13:55 ET by nicholas nicklebysex isn't always about procreation--sometimes it's about growing together as a couple, CL.
~Again, willfully obtuse
April 25, 2009 - 15:47 ET by choselife3xI didn't say it was always about procreation. Only a complete idiot would assume that I was saying that sex is only for when one intends to get pregnant. I'm going to assume you are not an idiot, which means you are being dishonest.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
~Oh goodie
April 25, 2009 - 09:32 ET by choselife3xSqueers responded rudely and crudely. I am now fully justified to lay a cosmic b!tchslap on the little puke.
Squeers, not everyone has your intimately familar knowledge of this act. While we Puritans are grateful for the tutorial, I'm afraid you will have to draw us a picture, as we are illiterate. Or perhaps you could get together with Knucklehead Death Wish or Ragamuffin and give us a demonstration. I'm sure that you would love to demonstrate your tolerance and diversity in this manner and we all thank you in advance for your willingness to be open about your sexuality. All that we ask is that you refrain from any 'pillow talk' and please, for the love of Obama man, don't scream out your real name. Some things are better left unsaid.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
CL, just google it
April 25, 2009 - 09:35 ET by nicholas nicklebyWhile I was rude, I think my account, using adult words, was hardly crude. :)
by "google it," I don't mean to get you in trouble with NSFW stuff at work, but I mean: it's not like it's a secret known only to those who try it.
~It was a secret
April 25, 2009 - 09:40 ET by choselife3xAs far as I was concerned, until April 15th.
"While I was rude" Go teabag something, you'll feel better.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
i always do.
April 25, 2009 - 09:55 ET by nicholas nicklebyI suppose I shouldn't tell you about the Easter bunny and Santa--those are secrets too (unless, of course, you use Google). do you come from the Peggy Noonan school of "maybe it's better for some things to remain mysterious... keep walking"? You could always try that the next time you get pulled over for a ticket: "but officer, the speed limit was a secret as far as I knew."
~Squeers
April 25, 2009 - 10:08 ET by choselife3xYou are revealing yourself to be not only a sex-addled punk but a sore loser. I see you have completely stopped debating JWF to make vulgar sexual references and pathetic attempts to put down a woman. Excuse me, while I PM some people to come watch the train wreck.
You want to know about the Easter bunny and Santa?
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
hi cl
April 25, 2009 - 10:21 ET by nicholas nicklebyCl,
JWF didn't respond to my argument--last time I checked, I had the last word with him.
As for making sex jokes, I believe you were the one who made a joke about me yelling out my real name in the throes of passion--now, come on, who is making sex jokes? We all are. Does it make any of us right about torture? No. So, let's go back to the main argument about torture:
How can I be a sore loser when I'm right about torture? I didn't see you denying any of my points--in fact, you only showed up when I made a sex joke. But let's put that behind us, let's move forward to important issues.
Do you believe that torture is illegal? That we engaged in torture? And that those responsible, R and D alike, should be prosecuted?
~Squeers
April 25, 2009 - 10:39 ET by choselife3x1. JWF works third shift. He went home. I'm sure he'll catch up with you later. You'll wish he hadn't.
2. You didn't make a joke, you insulted. We are all sorry that you are incapable of doing it in a funny way.
3. You aren't right. You couldn't be further from right. I know right, and you sir, are not right. You are left. Left behind, left out, left hanging out in left field.
4. See my post below.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
sup nicholas
April 25, 2009 - 16:11 ET by candanceFirst of all, choselife3x doesn't have "choose" anywhere in her name.
Secondly, teabagging has nothing to do with torture. Some of us come here to discuss politics, not to be insulted with dirty jokes.
You are very wrong sir.
April 25, 2009 - 08:55 ET by billburzIn San Diego, before deploying to Nam Can VietNam for River Patrol duty we had to attend Naval SERE Survival School. During that process we were treated as American POW's and both held and 'tortured' by Viet Cong guards.
We were starved, forced to choose racism over additional 'persuasion', and waterboarded. The waterboarding was very difficult to withstand, but all of us did, and none of us cracked with that process alone. We were fastened to a board with our head tipped downward and a wet towel was placed over our face. Water was then poured over the face creating the illusion of drowning. Not fun, but hardly torture. And to be sure, both gravity and the towel totally prevented water from being swallowed, ingested or inhaled. I had it done to me so this is a first hand account, not some regurging of facts that you pulled up on lefty sites.
Billburz
thank you billburz
April 25, 2009 - 09:00 ET by botgfor your service and clarification of this politicized 'torture'
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
any act you agree to does not count as torture
April 25, 2009 - 09:19 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi billburz,
Thanks for the first-hand perspective of the SERE program--now, if you went through the CIA interrogation process first-hand, you might have a good argument to make comparing the two. But waterboarding is different from SERE training; first, "the IG investigation found that the waterboarding technique
used on the CIA's detainees was significantly different from that used
in the SERE program: most notably, the Agency's interrogators used much
larger volumes of water." ( http://www.time.com/... ).
Second, according to the Bush OLC, "Individuals undergoing SERE training are obviously in a very different
situation from detainees undergoing interrogation; SERE trainees know
it is part of a training program, not a real-life interrogation regime,
they presumably know it will last only a short time, and they
presumably have assurances that they will not be significantly harmed
by the training."
(Let me ask you honestly: when you were being waterboarded by people who you knew were on your side, did you ever forget that they were on your side? Did you ever forget that you could stop the process at any time? Did you ever forget that you were there for a purpose, that you chose to be there?)
See billburz--the two situations are very different: if you agree to something, it's not torture. So, I thank you for your service, I thank you for your first-hand account of the SERE program, but I disagree with your argument for the simple fact that SERE is not the same thing as the practices engaged in by the CIA.
well nicky
April 25, 2009 - 09:24 ET by botgperhaps you can catalogue for us all the broken bones, missing body parts, joint damage, muscle tears, cuts, bruises etc from this 'torture'
no equivicating just the facts
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
according to the US Code 18.1.113C.2340
April 25, 2009 - 09:32 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi botg,
According to the US Code, "physical or mental pain or suffering" ( http://www.law.corne... ); so, I don't have to show physical pain to prove torturing...
but just to show you how easy it is to prove physical pain, here's one case: "Final Autopsy
Report: DOD 003164, (Detainee) Died as a result of asphyxia (lack of
oxygen to the brain) due to strangulation as evidenced by the recently
fractured hyoid bone in the neck and soft tissue hemorrhage extending
downward to the level of the right thyroid cartilage. Autopsy revealed
bone fracture, rib fractures, contusions in mid abdomen, back and
buttocks extending to the left flank, abrasions, lateral buttocks.
Contusions, back of legs and knees; abrasions on knees, left fingers
and encircling to left wrist. Lacerations and superficial cuts, right
4th and 5th fingers. Also, blunt force injuries, predominately recent
contusions (bruises) on the torso and lower extremities. Abrasions on
left wrist are consistent with use of restraints. No evidence of
defense injuries or natural disease. Manner of death is homicide.
Whitehorse Detainment Facility, Nasiriyah, Iraq."
That's not originally from some lefty site--that's originally from the US military's autopsy report (released thanks to FOIA). ( http://www.commondre... )
and that
April 25, 2009 - 09:37 ET by botgis from waterboarding? sounds more consistent with a terrorist fighting against capture and restaint
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
waterboarding and mental pain
April 25, 2009 - 09:51 ET by nicholas nicklebybotg,
one more time: torture doesn't mean physical pain only--it can mean mental pain too. torture doesn't necessarily mean life-long physical pain--usually, it's the mental pain that lasts. (See John Conroy's acount of the Irish tortured by the British in "Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People.") As for the autopsy that showed what someone suffered before he died, I'm not sure what to say--if you think "Manner of death is homicide" means that this happened in the heat of battle, then you have amazing powers of ignoring-the-facts.
heat of battle?
April 25, 2009 - 10:04 ET by botgyou get that from fighting against capture AND restraint (ie after capture)
sorry nick but if i have a terrorist who i think has info that can save the lives of Americans, he will be restained evne if he injures himself fighting the restraint and if he bites, throws feces urine and food to antagonize well even our highly trained military will on occassion react. it's the nature of the conflict that the dems signed up for when they voted to authorize force.
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
homicide
April 25, 2009 - 10:14 ET by nicholas nicklebyYou don't get an autopsy ruling of "homicide" due to heat of the battle fighting or struggling against restraints. "Homicide" implies some action on the part of the interrogators involved. That was the official military conclusion on this action: this man was killed while in custody, not because he was struggling against restraints. You asked me to recount some physical damage done to a suspect in custody--I've given you that evidence, mostly relying on the fact that this military file lists this as "homicide."
Although I like your Marx bros. sig line, I don't think there's much more to say about this. But maybe I'll say it again: homicide.
according to geneva
April 25, 2009 - 10:22 ET by botgun-uniformed combatants are considered spies and can be killed after capture as spies. this is geneva i don't know if any more can be said except, geneva
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
~Homicide
April 25, 2009 - 10:28 ET by choselife3xGo here and tell them what you think about this or this or this or this, or shut up. Quit sh!tting on your own countrymen and worry about what will happen if they don't do their job.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
oh, wonderful argument choose
April 25, 2009 - 10:34 ET by nicholas nicklebyBecause Iran is a bad place, we should become as bad a place? Because Iran treats people poorly, it's ok if we treat people poorly?
Whatever happened to "two wrongs don't make a right"?
As for my countrymen, some of my countrymen are criminals--you don't go protest outside of prisons, yelling "Quit sh!tting on your own countrymen," do you?
~Hypocrite
April 25, 2009 - 10:49 ET by choselife3xMy point is that if you don't have a problem with what they do then you have no business quibbling about what we do. If we do not prevail against them they will do those things to us, HERE.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
and let's ignore
April 25, 2009 - 10:54 ET by botgthe examples of actual intentional torture as a comparison to a technique which of itself does not cause injury
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
but I do have a problem with what they do
April 25, 2009 - 10:56 ET by nicholas nicklebyChoose,
I do have a problem with what they do there--and I have a problem with what we do here. Holding one position doesn't preclude holding the other. I
f you could prove that the only way we could prevent torture and injustice throughout the world was to torture and be injust here, then I might consider this a valid argument--but you can't make that claim. Torture is torture.
I could flip it around on you: if you don't like what they do there because it's torture, then shouldn't you be equally strong against us torturing?
~It's "unjust"
April 25, 2009 - 11:06 ET by choselife3xAnd unlike you, I can see the difference between evil, and the struggle against evil.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
ha! a spelling correction
April 25, 2009 - 11:17 ET by nicholas nicklebythanks CL--you'll also notice where I had a typo when I added a new line between "I" and "f."
I'm not sure I just heard you correctly: did you just say that in the struggle against evil, it is okay to commit evil? Or are you saying that if we do it, then it can't be evil?
~More of a grammer correction, actually
April 25, 2009 - 11:28 ET by choselife3xThis is your last chance to be honest and to the point.
Your entire family is being held by a gang. They will be burned alive in a matter of hours. You have a gang member in your custody who has the knowledge you need to save your family from an horrific death. He will not divulge this information willingly. This is your only opportunity to save your family. What do you do?
Before you wander off into some drivel about handing him over to the 'authorities', stop. In this scenario, you are the authority. It is up to you to get the information you need to stop the murderers from killing your family.
And if you beat him up till you get the information you need, thereby saving your children from being roasted to death, are you a "bad guy" now because of the way you treated the man who intended to murder your wife and children?
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
I am a "bad guy" who will
April 25, 2009 - 11:34 ET by BDI am a "bad guy" who will sleep very soundly afterwards.
Choose your own adventure!
April 25, 2009 - 12:17 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi CL3X,
Let's catalog everything I need to know here, and then I'll tell you my answer:
1) My family is being held by a gang, and the threat of immolation is imminent. How do I know this? Let's just assume I know it. Maybe they told me they have my family and that they would burn them alive, and I have no reason to think they're lying.
2) I have a gang member in custody--I know that this gang member belongs to the gang holding my family--how do I know this? Let's just assume I know it. Maybe he's got a gang sign on him which could not be faked.
3) For some reason, I can't bring this matter to the authorities. Why? Let's just assume I can't--because it makes this hypothetical situation more to the point.
4) Now, I also know that this gang member has information that I need to rescue my family. How do I know that? Let's just assume I know it.
5) And the only way the gang member will tell me this information is if I beat him up. How do I know that he'll tell me the information if I beat him up? Let's just assume I know that he'll tell me the information if I beat him up.
--So, I have to assume or somehow know that I have a guy who knows info who will give up info if I beat him up and I need this info (and only this info--there's no other source of info in this scenario) to save my family? Do I beat him up to save my family?
Of course I do, Chooselife3x.
But look at all the assumptions that I had to accept to make this scenario work out. In the real world, such a perfect situation would be impossible to know beforehand. (Or, if you prefer--you know I do--"unpossible.")
In a situation where both the means and the ends were beyond a shadow of a doubt, we could weigh one against the other (I save my family, I beat up one gang member--the math is simple there).
But in the real world, where both the ends are uncertain (what if the guy you got doesn't have the info you need?) and the means are uncertain (what if the guy doesn't give up the information when you beat him up? do you progress to cutting his fingers off? or what if there's another way to get him to give up this information? or what if there's another source of info?)--in that case, Choose, the math is much more uncertain, and I think ends don't justify means. Do you believe the ends justify the means, not just in hypothetical situations, but in real life?
(Have you ever read Le Guin's story "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas"? I know, politically, we disagree, but there's no reason we can't read the same books/stories.)
~Again you overlook the point
April 25, 2009 - 12:27 ET by choselife3xYou have been arguing that we should not 'torture' on the premise that it makes us no better than them. My analogy was meant to illustrate the moral difference between our motives and actions, and their motives and actions.
You just admitted that there IS a moral difference between inflicting harm on an evil person for a good cause (saving innocent lives, what we do), and inflicting harm on an innocent person for the sheer sake of being evil (what they do). Thank you, you may go now.
(Now watch the little worm try to wriggle out of it and say he meant no such thing.)
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
No, Choose, you missed my point
April 25, 2009 - 12:54 ET by nicholas nicklebyChoose,
Why the name calling? I thought we were having fun!
In your scenario, Choose, where I could assume that good was going to result from my beating up a gang member, I agreed that I would beat up the gang member for the greater good. Speaking in terms of hypotheticals, you and I may agree: the greater good is, well, greater.
(However, if you really wanted to make your hypothetical situation prove that there's a moral difference between our actions and the actions of those who are evil, you should've made those actions equal: let's say this guy is threatening to immolate my family just for fun, and the only way for me to stop him is to immolate his family first... Now, Choose, that would be a hypothetical situation where we could start to talk about moral intent making actions different.)
But in the real world, where all these factors can't be assumed--well, I'll ask you again, do all evil means get justified by good ends? Even if those good ends don't actually happen? What if you torture a guy for information that he doesn't have? What if your information about a ticking time bomb was inaccurate? What if there was another way to get the information?
Sorry, Choose, all your hypothetical situation proves is that means and ends are very easy to talk about in terms of hypotheticals where you can assume a perfect state of background information.
So, I've asked you twice now, and all I want is a yes or no answer. I mean, you asked me if I would beat one person up to save many people, and--eventually!--I answered yes.
Now, I hope will you do me the same courtesy.
Do you believe that the ends always justify the means?
always?
April 25, 2009 - 12:58 ET by botgyou make it too easy and the answer meaningless...
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
~It's painful to be right, sometimes
April 25, 2009 - 13:30 ET by choselife3xWhy the name calling? I thought we were having fun!
Whines the guy who brought "teabagging" into a discussion about waterboarding. And who still cannot get my sn right.
In your scenario, Choose, where I could assume that good was going to
result from my beating up a gang member, I agreed that I would beat up
the gang member for the greater good. Speaking in terms of
hypotheticals, you and I may agree: the greater good is, well, greater.
Greater? Greater than what? You imply that a murderous gang member is good, but innocent lives are a 'greater good'. Fallacy. Wimpy, too.
(However, if you really wanted to make your hypothetical situation
prove that there's a moral difference between our actions and the
actions of those who are evil, you should've made those actions equal:
let's say this guy is threatening to immolate my family just for fun,
and the only way for me to stop him is to immolate his family first...
Now, Choose, that would be a hypothetical situation where we could
start to talk about moral intent making actions different.)
Still dodging. This scenario you propose has no resemblance to the real world situation we are discussing, i.e. forcing information from a terrorist quickly to prevent the death of innocents.
But in the real world, where all these factors can't be assumed--well,
I'll ask you again, do all evil means get justified by good ends? Even
if those good ends don't actually happen? What if you torture a guy for
information that he doesn't have? What if your information about a
ticking time bomb was inaccurate? What if there was another way to get
the information?
This stupendously childish example of your mental process shows us that you have not put any serious thought into this matter. The people conducting interrogations are highly trained and qualified to determine all of those things. You are assuming that they are complete novices operating with no basic skill set or capability of gathering background intel before commencing interrogations. Astounding. And quite insulting to our servicemen.
Furthermore, it has been shown that this technique you are in a puddle of tears over has been used on three high-level detainees and it produced valuable intel that did, in fact, save American lives.They weren't doing it to every 18 year old Ahmed, Achmed and Ali.
Sorry, Choose, all your hypothetical situation proves is that means and
ends are very easy to talk about in terms of hypotheticals where you
can assume a perfect state of background information.
I wasn't talking about means and ends, I was talking about morality of motive.
So, I've asked you twice now, and all I want is a yes or no answer. I
mean, you asked me if I would beat one person up to save many people,
and--eventually!--I answered yes.
Now, I hope will you do me the same courtesy.
Do you believe that the ends always justify the means?
You are going to have to be more specific, I was.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
okay, one last comment--until JWF comes back on...
April 25, 2009 - 14:39 ET by nicholas nicklebySorry, Chose,
my writing "choose" is an authentic mistake, not meant to be mean-spirited in any way. (It's the way I first read your name when you first told me I was an awful person and you would hound me forever on these boards--ah, good times. I'll try to get it right in the future. Feel free to call me Nick, if you want, but I've grown fond of "Squeers.")
You're right that many of the people engaged in interrogation are professionals--but you're wrong when you say that it's been shown that info gained from torture has been used to prevent American deaths. The only example I've ever heard about is the Library Tower attack--except that attack was foiled (cell members captured, the cell disrupted) in 2002, before we even had KSM in custody.
As for other attacks that have been foiled, Bush appointee and FBI head Mueller was asked last year if torture ever provided info that has saved lives, and his response was "I don't believe that has been the case." The CIA inspector general in 2004 said the same thing: there's no proof that information gathered this way was used to save lives.
For a contrary opinion, DNI Blair said that torture did provide some information--although he doesn't say that this info saved American lives and he more importantly notes that its cost is too high: “The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some
instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information
could have been obtained through other means. ... The bottom line is these
techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have
done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and
they are not essential to our national security."
Now, to get back to your morality of motive issue: my point in answering your hypothetical was that only in such a hypothetical could one do the math that leads to an easy answer. (Remember all those things I had to mark us as assuming--and while some of that could be known by US interrogators, some of it couldn't be; as DNI Admiral Blair points out, we could probably get that information without torture.)
Hypotheticals are easier than real life, because you can account for all the factors, and you end history when the hypothetical ends. But we could push that and ask, what happens after in this hypothetical? Do you have to kill off the rest of the gang members to avoid any repeat? Do you kill all gang members just in case they turn to kidnapping? Do you take out a gang mamber's grandma's house because that's the best chance you get to take him out, even though there's a kid's birthday party going on? Do you make wearing gang colors punishable--and what punishment do you inflict?
See, Chose, a hypothetical is a manageable situation, but real life isn't so manageable.
Now, I'm not going to give you a hypothetical situation because--well, what would be the point? All we'd learn is that hypotheticals are easy to come up with (see edt123's scenario below--see, easy!).
So, I'll ask you a more specific, more real-world question: do you believe that Americans should torture to get information in the real world? Does the end of saving American lives justify the means of torturing people? What if the people to be tortured were Americans, like Tim McVeigh?
~Squeers
April 25, 2009 - 16:15 ET by choselife3x"Awful person"?
Hey JERK who pretends to read good books
January 17, 2009 - 22:35 ET by choselife3x
1. That tripe bears the same resemblance to poetry that sh!t bears to a fine filet mignon.
2. Obama's 'big tent' philosophy is 'fool as many people as possible
for as long as possible to gain as much power as possible'. He's about
as 'inclusive' as a frigid Victorian spinster. (Miss Knag)
3. Values poetry? If he 'valued' poetry he'd have that talentless hack
shot before she commited any more crimes against taste, decency, rhyme,
meter, and the frigging English language.
4. You insult the living hell out of my favorite English author by
using one of his fine works as your screen name. I shall henceforth
refer to you as Squeers. A much more appropriate name from that book.
5. For the high crime of desecrating the name of one of Dickens' great
characters, I will track every remark you make and dog your punk @ss
out.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
You have a lousy memory. Unless you think "jerk" means "awful person".
So, I'll ask you a more specific, more real-world question: do you
believe that Americans should torture to get information in the real
world? Does the end of saving American lives justify the means of
torturing people? What if the people to be tortured were Americans,
like Tim McVeigh?
I believe that our intelligence people should not have their hands tied by the fear of being publicly vilified by the very people they are trying to protect. I believe that our servicemen and women are honorable people, not sadistic monsters that we must protect Islamofascists from. I believe that jihadists are determined to obliterate our culture and everything we hold dear. Does saving American lives justify beating up/waterboarding mass murderers? Hell yes.
American citizens are protected by our Constitution. I predict that Islamofascists will take advantage of this, if they aren't already.
We aren't stretching them on the rack, for goodness sake. Go look up medieval torture methods or what Islamists do to their own countrymen and compare that to 3 waterboarded people. Candy@ss. (H/T Dave)
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
aw, she remembers!
April 25, 2009 - 16:29 ET by nicholas nicklebyhey chose,
you remember our first time--better than I do at any rate! You didn't call me an awful person. (Although, to be fair, I didn't put "awful person" in quotation marks--I remembered that as the gist of your comment, but now I'm corrected: I'm downgraded from awful to just a jerk.)
Now, back to our argument. Here's the major problem with your means/ends: you say that we use torture (as a means) to protect innocent American lives (as an end). Now, I gave you a list of people who say that torture makes us less safe--and you haven't denied/refuted any of that. So, you're left with simply a means--torture--and no positive end.
And you dodged the Tim McVeigh question by saying that American citizens are protected by the Constitution; yes, they are, but that's not what I asked. I asked if you would consent to the enhanced interrogation of Timothy McVeigh to save American lives--yes or no?
Oh, damn, I was supposed to stay away until JWF comes back. It's like Brokeback Mountain: I wish I knew how to quit you, CL3X!
~It wasn't that good
April 25, 2009 - 16:52 ET by choselife3xI happen to have a photographic memory, don't take it personally.
Now, I gave you a list of people who say that torture makes us less safe--and you haven't denied/refuted any of that.
You want my opinion about someone's opinion? And where is this list of people you gave me? Please link me to it, I've scrolled through all your posts to me and I'm missing it somehow. For every person who says "enhanced interrogation makes us less safe" there is somone saying "enhanced interrogation helps keep us safe". I find debating the relative value of other people's opinions to be somewhat less than productive.
And you dodged the Tim McVeigh question by saying that American
citizens are protected by the Constitution; yes, they are, but that's
not what I asked. I asked if you would consent to the enhanced
interrogation of Timothy McVeigh to save American lives--yes or no?
I really don't see what McVeigh has to do with Islamic terrorists. Which is what I am talking about. You can try to muddy the waters by bringing torture of American citizens into it, but it is not germane to the discussion. We are discussing the morality of using forceful methods of interrogation against recalcitrant Islamofascists. Which does not violate the Constituion. You are attempting to distract from the point with a fallacious question.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
my question muddied the waters, but your hypothetical doesn't?
April 25, 2009 - 17:13 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi Chose,
Do you really have a photographic memory? That's very interesting--given other circumstances, I'd like to hear more about that.
However, let's get back to torture: the list of people I gave you who have said that torture is counterproductive include FBI head Mueller, the CIA IG in 2004, and DNI Blair (who said that we do get info from torture, but that the net effect is negative); I could add to that list Matthew Alexander, head of the interrogation team that located al-Zarqawi. So, that's four people who have either had first-hand experience or some oversight in the matter of torture--and none of them say it helps keep us safe. You yourself said that it has kept us safe, so... what examples are you thinking of? Or, a related question, who says that torture helps keep us safe?
As for my Tim McVeigh question, I don't think it muddies the water at all--not anymore than your hypothetical situation (what do gang members have to do with Islamic terrorists?). In fact, my situation is the same situation that many people on the right use as a hypothetical: you have a terrorist with a ticking time bomb--American lives are on the line--do you think it's moral to torture Tim McVeigh to save American lives? I know it's illegal--but is it immoral? (And I know it doesn't have anything to do with Islamic terrorists--but that still doesn't answer the question: is it immoral to torture Tim McVeigh to find out where he planted the bomb?)
So, just answer the question as a hypothetical: do you think it would be immoral to torture Tim McVeigh to save American lives?
~No
April 25, 2009 - 17:49 ET by choselife3xIt would never be immoral to beat up someone who is plotting to kill innocent people in order to obtain information to prevent the killing. Also, executing a murderer is a moral act. As for my gang analogy, see below for explanation.
Or, a related question, who says that torture helps keep us safe?
Obtaining information concerning pending attacks keeps us safe. I deduce this from simple logic. The bleatings of seatwarming brown-nosers concerns me not. Some people will say anything to keep their jobs or get promotions, or just not be thrown to the wolves. And that goes for both sides of the argument. Let me be clear that I would despise anyone who inflicted harm on another for pleasure or revenge. If they can sweet talk intel out of the guy, I'm fine with it. If they have to psyche him out with waterboarding, fine.
The issue of punishment is different from both information gathering and revenge. As far as punishment of terrorists goes, I would give them a .45 slug to the brain pan and a free flight back to their native village with a scenic exit and a sudden stop at ground level.
Now, I have covered every aspect of my position on this matter. Any further discussion would only be reiteration. If you are unclear on anything, I recommend you simply collate my posts and print them for further perusal. I am going to go bathe the children and spend the evening with my husband. I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate and hope you have plenty of IcyHot so you won't be too sore tomorrow. ;-)
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
have a good evening!
April 25, 2009 - 17:58 ET by nicholas nicklebythere's plenty for us to disagree about still, but we can both agree that spending time with family is a good way to spend the evening--have a good one, Chose.
hey chose
April 25, 2009 - 17:20 ET by candanceDon't take this the wrong way, because Obama knows I hate to side with a lefty.
But I think his point about Tim McVeigh is something valid that conservatives should answer. I remember a lot of Republicans defended the PATRIOT Act with the assurity it would not be used against normal Americans, and here we are two years later shocked that DHS is spying on tea parties. We can't just use the blanket response of the end justifying the means, because then the government could decide that breaking the law is needed to stop criminals. That's exactly what happened at Ruby Ridge - federal agents shot unarmed people because they thought the overall threat justified them in killing off the suspects.
Now Republicans viewed Ruby Ridge as an act of government aggression and condemned it....but Democrats defended it, and though the individual agents were reprimanded there was no investigation higher up. Here we are today with a bigger Democrat control of the federal governmnet, and I am not convinced that aggression against citizens would be prosecuted at all if Pelosi has anything to do with it.
In other words, we can rant all day long about the Constitution but it doesn't matter if the White House defends illegal aggression. Whether or not we agree with the left's definition of torture, this is how they see the issue, and if we give them the moral defense of the ends justifying the means they *will* be tempted to use it against us in the future.
So I think we need to throw any presumptions about whether or not someone is a citizen and decide if we still think they should be tortured.
~Candance
April 25, 2009 - 18:16 ET by choselife3xThat is a good point and I will answer it as best I can.
I have never liked the Patriot Act or the Dept of HS. They both sound eerily 1984ish to me! I believe that we should adhere firmly to the Constitution in the matter of our citizens but I believe that those who are unquestionably radical Islamists (this would be easily provable through surveillance, I should think) would not be covered.
My reasoning is that by plotting against America in that fashion Muslims who have become American citizens would be guilty of treason, does the Bill of Rights pertain to cases of treason? I thought that treason carries with it the nullification of citizenship.
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.
Do treasonous acts of mass murder/terrorism qualify as a "criminal case"?
You have piqued my curiousity and I'm going to investigate this further. I'll put my results in a forum.
Added: Okay y'all, stop being interesting, I've got some things to do for a while!
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
sorry chose
April 25, 2009 - 18:25 ET by botgbut we have chocolate...................
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
LOL chose
April 25, 2009 - 18:41 ET by candanceYou don't have to reply to this here - a forum might be a good idea. I built one that pertains to DHS here and maybe that would be a good place to further discuss constitutional treatment of criminals.
Even though McVeigh was born here I would certainly argue that he was a traitor, considering his express mission was to go to war with the government. Otherwise, what about radical Muslims who are born here and then get recruited by Al Qaeda? Not to get too off topic, but Israel is faced with that exact situation all the time and it's not a stretch to think it can happen here shortly.
Feel free to reply to this on the other board. Just wanted to leave it here for you to think about.
that's a stupid scenario.
April 25, 2009 - 13:38 ET by edt123that's a stupid scenario. It pairs something you want to do:
1) punish evil-doers
with something else you want to do
2) save your family.
There's no moral ethical or logical dilemma here. You torture the evil people and you enjoy doing it. It's not an interesting scenario. Let me posit a much more interesting scenario.
There are 1,000 people who are suspects, and 1 of them holds your family, and the only way to save your family is torture. What you also know is that there is only one torture method that works on this particular criminal, and that is if you rape and kill a 3 year old child. He will break if you rape and kill a 3 year old child in front of him, but he will only break if you do it in up close, so he can see the child and only if it is a small room, where nobody else will see him break.
So the question is this:
Do you collect 1,000 3 year olds, and rape and kill them all in front of the each of the suspects one by one, until you find the gang member who has the knowledge you need to save your family from an horrific
death. This is your
only opportunity to save your family. What do you do? Before you wander off into some drivel about using alternative methods of obtaining the information, in this scenario, you must rape and kill 3 year olds to obtain the information. This is the only possible way to save your family.
And if you rape and kill 1,000 children to save your family, are you a "bad guy" now because of the way you acted in order to save your family?
Scenarios are only fun when they pose moral questions that are hard to answer and lead you to question your own moral boundaries and why you act as you act. Scenarios are completely pointless when used as a strawman in order to find a pre-determined outcome of an argument.
Next question. Does it matter how many children are involved in the scenario above, that is, would you save your family if you had to do the horrible act to only 1 child instead of 1,000?
How far does one go in order to save one's family?
~Wow, you're sick
April 25, 2009 - 14:40 ET by choselife3xAnd that is a ridiculous premise. Considering that the evil people I am talking about strap bombs to their own children it would be stupid and ineffective to harm a child as a method of coercion.
My whole point is that we should not scruple to be rough with evil adults in order to save innocents. Trying to bring in the idea of harming innocents to save other innocents is just an attempt to cloud the issue. Now go get help.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
if you want to avoid the
April 25, 2009 - 15:35 ET by edt123if you want to avoid the hypothetical question (the question is too "sick" to answer, I can respect that) that's fine. but then you should return the favor and not demand answers to hypotheticals you pose.
~My hypothetical
April 25, 2009 - 15:51 ET by choselife3xWas simple, to the point, germane to the discussion (morality of our motives vs. theirs) annnnd not disgusting.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
you...
April 25, 2009 - 16:00 ET by katainkentdid not just equivocate the beat down (not death) of a single man partially reponsible for the hostage taking of a family - to get information to save said family - to the rape and torture of one thousand children? Did you?
I love to help the helpless but I'm not gonna help the clueless ~Dennis Miller
your hypothetical isn't
April 25, 2009 - 16:54 ET by edt123your hypothetical isn't very interesting, it tells us nothing. Even a hardened criminal in jail would say "yes" to your hypothetical.
Hypotheticals are supposed to give information about the person who answers it.
Here's one hypothetical: You see $1 million in a suitcase laying on the ground. do you take it to the police or keep it for yourself.
That is a good hypothetical.
Here is a bad hypothetical: You are inside a police station and 10 policemen are watching you open a briefcase you found there, and they see that it contains $1 million dollars. Do you report this to police or keep it for yourself.
The second hypothetical is useless because it answers no questions about the personality of the person you are asking it solves no riddles about human nature.
It would be much more interesting if you reposed your hypothetical in a way that people might answer differently and shed light on human nature.
well edit
April 25, 2009 - 17:03 ET by botgyour hypotheticals tell us loads about you,
--it seems you'd rather play mind games than search out truth
--you are a rather strange person
--you are most likely not worth wasting time on
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
what's the truth? I would
April 25, 2009 - 17:14 ET by edt123what's the truth? I would hope that I'm at least worth the time for you to tell me what it is.
duh
April 25, 2009 - 17:21 ET by botg1+1=2
what goes up must come down
God loves you
i'm not quite so enamored
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
~Thank you
April 25, 2009 - 17:16 ET by choselife3xYou illustrated my point even though you completely misunderstood it. I wasn't trying to create one where the choice was difficult. I created one to point out that what our people are doing is an act of defense born out of love of home, country and family. The actions of those we are interrogating are borne out of hatred and are purely destructive in purpose. If they were not on the offense, we would not be on the defense. They are voluntarily engaging in hostile acts which they are fully prepared to pursue to the death.
I created the analogy to point out the difference in the nature of our behaviors to refute the "If we hurt them that makes us the same as them" fallacy.
Your responses certainly shed plenty of light on your nature. Please draw the blinds, no one wants to see that.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
I think most americans
April 25, 2009 - 20:16 ET by edt123I think most americans believe that torturing terrorists is ok. The democrats are on the wrong side of this issue, which is why nancy pelosi is in such a pickle right now. She knew about this the whole time, and she also knew the polls showed it was popular, so she's doing this song and dance about not being told about it, which doesn't fool anyone.
I also think that it's difficult to have any constructive dialogue about this issue because it is so emotional.
nn ~ we are talking about terrorists. Not legal combatants.
April 25, 2009 - 13:15 ET by pahuberTwo wrongs do not make a right, but you seem to be conviced that our country fight with our hands behind our back.
here's where you're wrong
April 25, 2009 - 13:23 ET by nicholas nicklebyoh geez. We have a whole number of military and intelligence people telling us that torture makes us less safe and makes our servicemen less safe, and you call that fighting "with our hands behind our back." You, sir, are wrong: avoiding torture makes our job easier.
No NN, I am very correct in my comments.
April 25, 2009 - 13:38 ET by pahuberYou call it torture.
I do not believe that we have defined torture and I most likely would not agree with your definition because:
1. Applies to those who are legal combatants.
2. Seems to be very open ended and oblique. IOW's could almost apply to any situation.
wow--not just correct, but VERY correct!
April 25, 2009 - 13:58 ET by nicholas nicklebysorry pa, the definitions of torture that I've been throwing around are from the US Code, not from some lefty handbook. As for who it applies to, the UN Convention Against Torture applies to everyone. Go look it up if you doubt me.
(As for your other comment about how Reagan and Clinton would not have seen the need for torture, well, you can make that argument if you want, but you're not arguing against me--you would be arguing against the US Code, first. If you think that's what we need to do, please write your congressmen and tell them that we need to legalize some forms of torture. Until we do, torture is still illegal.)
One at a time NN ~ The sweeping statement that torture against
April 25, 2009 - 14:23 ET by pahuberanyone is arguing against the Geneva Convention is deeply flawed.
Let me, again, clarify the matter.
As you mentioned, Reagan signed in '88 Clinton '94 and yet how many years before 9/11 2001. I would easily argue and most likely Reagan if he were alive and saw what happened that it pertained only to only legal combatants. Hell, I would have signed it, as well, at that time.
You believe that these protections apply via silence: meaning not directly mentioning terrorists by name (e.g., a blanket statement against torture by the UNCAT against anyone well before 9/11) applies also to illegal terrorists that adhere to no law other than to rape/kill/mame.
Again, to reiterate you believe these protections apply to rapists/killers/mamers of civilized countries...regardless of what information that we may gain... wow.
You are against torture and so am I. However, if our intelligence has a clue/hint/idea that some captured illegal terrorist that is caught may have some info that could save innocent lives well then . . . we must protect ourselves which is one of the primary reasons that our government exists.
"As for your other comment about how Reagan and Clinton would not have
seen the need for torture, well, you can make that argument if you
want, but you're not arguing against me--you would be arguing against
the US Code, first."
I suppose I could make a good case for Reagan and even maybe Clinton supporting methods to extract life saving info to protect our country, but I guess that would be mere conjecture.
The UNCAT or US policy you cited does not address illegal terrorists directly other than a blanket statement written at a time when no one could forsee terror cells, destroyed building and crashed airliners...
hey pa
April 25, 2009 - 14:49 ET by nicholas nicklebyyeah, I wish there were a way to recombine threads or something--like a numbering system so i could easily say, "pa, re" your #3 post."
anyway, you're still wrong; the UNCAT specifically states that under no case is torture acceptable, and it specifically notes the threat of terrorist attack. it's not a silence which I am interpreting--it specifically and explicitly states that terrorism is no excuse for torture.
As for whether Reagan or Clinton (or rather, the Congress--don't you remember your civics?) would've signed/ratified UNCAT is, as you say, conjecture; but it was signed. If you do not like it, write to your congressmen and get them to change our signatory status.
Where specifically in the UNCAT does it specify terrorists...
April 25, 2009 - 15:30 ET by pahuber"As for whether Reagan or Clinton (or rather, the Congress--don't you remember your civics?)..."
LOL, ok thanks for the cheapshot. I was refering to your post that only mentioned Reagan & Clinton signing the treaty and not trying to state the process of a bill becoming a law.
"...would've signed/ratified UNCAT is, as you say, conjecture; but it was signed."
The conjecture was if they could forsee the future would they have signed if they new of 9/11 2001. Please, I have been fair with you and you need not do the standard liberal snarkiness.
"If you do not like it, write to your congressmen and get them to change our signatory status."
No. It does not apply to illegal terrorists and only standard combatants.
"anyway, you're still wrong; the UNCAT specifically states that under no
case is torture acceptable, and it specifically notes the threat of
terrorist attack."
Yeah, you have said this please point this out specifically where it says this...
BTW...when lefties learn how to care about those Christians being tortured in N.Korea, China, Cuba, etc.you may indeed start accumulating some recognition towards honesty.
ah
April 25, 2009 - 16:13 ET by nicholas nicklebyI never said that Clinton signed the treaty--the first time I mentioned the date, I specifically just said that it was ratified in '94. If you don't know who has the responsibility to ratify treaties, that's not my problem.
As for the UNCAT on terrorism (from http://www2.ohchr.or... ): "this includes any threat of terrorist acts or violent crime as well as armed conflict" (II.5).
That's in the general comments to I.2, which states that "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever" can be invoked to excuse torture. Which includes terrorism, as they make explicit in the comments.
Again NN ~ you are being disingenuous in your assertions.
April 25, 2009 - 16:50 ET by pahuber"I never said that Clinton signed the treaty--the first time I mentioned
the date, I specifically just said that it was ratified in '94."
The point was not who ratified it. I mentioned that.
"If you don't know who has the responsibility to ratify treaties, that's not my problem."
If you are so confident in your reasoning then why resort to these little games?
Oh, I see why you are not very confident.
Your example is from:
As for the UNCAT on terrorism (from http://www2.ohchr.or... ): "this includes any threat of terrorist acts or violent crime as well as armed conflict" (II.5)."
Is this the treaty we ratified back in '94? I mean was this the actual treaty with the words included that are included now??? No, it has been updated by the U.N. and why? Because the treaty we signed did not involve the peculiarities of terrorism at that time.
NN you are very disingenuous and deceptive in the way you promote your facts. This was NOT the original document ratified back in '94.
It would be my guess that the part you mention has been added to the treaty and not included back in '94 which was initially my point in the first place.
"That's in the general comments to I.2, which states that "No
exceptional circumstances whatsoever" can be invoked to excuse torture.
Which includes terrorism, as they make explicit in the comments."
Yep, I saw 'em and my guess was that they were not part of the original treaty, but were added on sometime after 9/11 2001. Not sure on UN law, but if they change the words and redact or add to the document I would hope those nations who ratified it would be able to get another chance to vote on the document.
2 people on CAT
April 25, 2009 - 17:19 ET by nicholas nicklebyactually Pa, we have 2 Americans on the 10-member Committee Against Torture--so, the general comments attached to the treaty, that's mostly Americans writing that and putting it into the treaty (when I say "mostly" I mean "plurality"--at 1/5th the committee, we have the largest group).
Again, if you don't like the Treaty--if you don't like the general comments made on it recently--don't complain to me, complain to your congressmen.
Peace, Pa.
So then, these words were not in the original treaty when
April 25, 2009 - 17:49 ET by pahuberratified back in '94.
Which makes me wonder about this portion by the session.
-Is this part of the treaty or just comments from the session? -Has this been ratified by our congress rather than two delegates from our country?
I am not sure that these attachments to the treaty could be considered with the same weight as the original treaty. Since these words were not voted on by our congress.
Legally speaking, if congress has not ratified it then it has no weight to it as far as litigation on terrorists and/or gaining information from them.
The US code you mentioned earlier does not mention terrorism or terrorist.
Which brings us back that if it was not voted on by our congress then it is not binding...legally.
hey pa
April 25, 2009 - 18:02 ET by nicholas nicklebyPa, the US Code says categorically that torture is prohibited; the UN Convention Against Torture (in its Reagan-signed and Congress-ratified form) says categorically that torture is not acceptable in any situation. The general comments made later don't add anything, but they do clarify that, yes, "any situation" includes "terrorism." We agreed not to torture terrorists when we ratified it in '94. If you want to say that times have changed, that's fine with me--writer your congressmen. If you want to say that we never said we wouldn't torture terrorists, then I'll have to disagree since we agreed NEVER to torture.
Trying to sum it up here. Have nice weekend.
April 25, 2009 - 18:41 ET by pahuber"Pa, the US Code says categorically that torture is prohibited."
It just does not apply to terrorists.
"the UN Convention Against Torture (in its Reagan-signed and
Congress-ratified form) says categorically that torture is not
acceptable in any situation."
Ok, now you changed the words here. Before you said it included terrorists/terrorism.
"The general comments made later don't add anything, but they do clarify that, yes, "any situation" includes "terrorism.""
Ok, I see your point, but do not agree with you.
The part that you supplied me to show it included terrorist/terrorism was either an addendum or edit from Nov. 2007 which was not around when it was initially signed.
So the assumption by those in Nov 2007 was to include terrorism/terrorist actions within the "any situation".
* Terrorism on the level that has happened to our country seems that this would have been something that was quite unimaginable back in '94.
** I find it disturbing to have a treaty that was ratified in one form then an addendum qualifying specific meaning of words thirteen years after the fact.
"If you want to say that we never said we wouldn't torture terrorists,
then I'll have to disagree since we agreed NEVER to torture."
I would say that I understand what you are saying, but would say that the situation does not fit the treaty... lest why would they need to address it if it was that clear to begin with...
Plus, we would probably disagree over the meaning of torture... which hasn't been defined adequately and yes I know what the charter & US code says and would say that it is far far too sweeping as a definition.
p.s. choose
April 25, 2009 - 10:37 ET by nicholas nicklebyI asked you some questions regarding torture in a post above; you may have missed it (this thread has become much longer very recently), but I'm honestly curious--you seem to be implying in this post that it's ok for the US to torture people because Iran is not a nice place. But I'd like you to be more explicit: do you really believe torture is ok in this situation?
oh please nick
April 25, 2009 - 10:43 ET by botgby your definition, those of you who hamstring our military and thus put them in danger cause me mental anguish. You are guilty of torturing me! stop it i say.
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
even I'll admit it:
April 25, 2009 - 10:53 ET by nicholas nicklebythat was funny, botg.
nick
April 25, 2009 - 10:58 ET by botgwell only because you don't care about the military or have anyone in the military in harms way that you care about.
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
actually...
April 25, 2009 - 11:08 ET by nicholas nicklebybotg, i have friends and family in the military, both US and Israeli. Don't assume, man--just ask. Do you have loved ones in the military? Or in non-military theatre of war roles?
~Oh look
April 25, 2009 - 11:12 ET by choselife3xNow Squeers is using 'victim status' to claim moral superiority. Classic liberal tactic when cornered by cold, hard logic. Sad.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
boo hoo
April 25, 2009 - 11:21 ET by nicholas nicklebycl,
botg made an assumption, I corrected him--where did I claim victim status? Come on now, you say you want to argue about torture and not be distracted--oh, but if you can make a generalization about liberals, that's not a distraction. (And again, you claim that I'm losing the argument, but you haven't scored a point yet. Concentrate, grasshopper.)
~Scored?
April 25, 2009 - 11:40 ET by choselife3xYou just can't keep your mind on the topic at hand, can you?
botg, i have friends and family in the military, both US and Israeli.
Don't assume, man--just ask. Do you have loved ones in the military? Or
in non-military theatre of war roles?
where did I claim victim status?
Are you really that obtuse, or are you obfuscating?
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
ha!
April 25, 2009 - 11:57 ET by nicholas nicklebyChoose,
botg made an assumption, I corrected him--I then asked him if he had friends/family in the military because he seemed to think that having a certain experience was important to my position. (And my experince is important to my position: because I care about soldiers, I want them to be safe, and when the US tortures people, that makes it less safe for our countrymen in service.)
I'm not claiming victim status because I know people in the military--"experience" does not equal "victimhood." You wouldn't say I was claiming victimhood if I said I had the experience of eating cereal this morning, would you?
Please, try again, Quixote--you'll get those windmills one day!
~Obfuscating again
April 25, 2009 - 12:07 ET by choselife3xSquirming around saying you're not hit doesn't mean we can't see you bleeding. I have loved ones in the military, do you have loved ones in the military? Do we believe Squeers or our lying eyes?
Answer my post about the gang member, or drag your bleeding tail out of here.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
once again: ha!
April 25, 2009 - 14:01 ET by nicholas nicklebyChoose, I've noticed that you like playing around with omniscient narration in your comments here, but if you want to make a case, make it directly. How was I claiming victim status? All you've done is assert that I have.
~Make it directly?
April 25, 2009 - 16:30 ET by choselife3xI already did. See above.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
well then Nick
April 25, 2009 - 11:12 ET by botgyou should care about them
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
Yes, and you are using fuzzy logic here NN.
April 25, 2009 - 13:17 ET by pahuberI have a nephew on his second tour in Iraq.
These are terrorists nn and not legal combatants NOT qualified for the emo doc you cited earlier.
a flaw in your logic?
April 25, 2009 - 11:14 ET by botgas you asked BD, here it is and you laugh!
your logic says mental anguish is torture, i point out that you cause it and you laugh
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
ok botg
April 25, 2009 - 11:27 ET by nicholas nicklebyI'll be serious for a moment: the mental anguish that is being caused by torture is not merely a slight pain, but a long-time feeling that causes severe mental changes. There's a story in the Conroy book about a man who was rehabilitated after torture, and was relatively high-functioning, but he couldn't get to sleep without a glass of cold water, because after he was starved, the first thing he got was a glass of cold water.
See, botg, we're not talking about you being discomfitted by the facts ("oh, noes, the world is making me feel mental anguish!"), we're talking about serious, psychiatrically-evaluable effects.
oh so it's a matter of
April 25, 2009 - 11:41 ET by botgoh so it's a matter of degrees? can we cut off two fingers as long as they can still write with a pen or what? Here's the point, you are trying to extend the normal viewpoint on torture (albeit in complicity with your dem leadership of politicizing actions they originally approve) now you try to say well it's only in the cases i want to define as such. You can't have it both ways, make a choice make a stand, either you commit torture or your definition is wrong, your choice. BTW there are many mil wives who can not sleep at night while the gitmo guys are gaining weight (thus your starvation example is non-applicable to this) and well duh the guy in the conroy book was tortured not waterboarded
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
well nick
April 25, 2009 - 13:01 ET by botgare you going to explain why you chose effects of actually torture and not the effects of waterboarding?
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
waterboarding is torture
April 25, 2009 - 13:10 ET by nicholas nicklebybotg,
waterboarding is torture--it's against US regulations following, among other things, our (really Ronald Reagan's) signing of the UN Convention Against Torture.
I've pointed out to you that torture doesn't have to have physical effects according to the definintion of "torture" in US law.
I've pointed out to you that there have been deaths due to "enhanced interrogation techniques."
I'm not sure what else you want me to point out. I might even agree with you if you said that waterboarding does not have long-term physical effects. But "long-term physical effects" is not the definition of torture; torture includes long-term mental effects.
Did our interrogation of KSM--including waterboarding--have long-term mental effects? KSM's post-torture evaluations (and reports from his guards) indicate that he became more and more certifiable.
Do you understand?
nick
April 25, 2009 - 13:48 ET by botgwaterboarding is not torture. any deaths or injuries are a result of the terrorist struggling or some other reason not the waterboarding itself. (did he bite and throw feces at a guard and get punched?) just because you pull out some torture effects and torture your logic to say see waterboarding is torture does not make it so.
i understand much, what i understand is that you are allied with KSM against the US. hey KSM was fed too maybe that caused the decline in his stability. See tortured logic is just that tortured. You can no more show that the waterboarding had a lasting psychological effect than the food since there are many many other factors. The politicizing by the dems is having long term effects on the country which i guareentee will result in phsical deaths of Americans. When it happens you'll be the one blaming something else.
this also i understand there is a judgement and justice though it tarry will come, there is still time and hope for all.
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
NN ~ do you distinguish between LEGAL COMBATANTS &
April 25, 2009 - 13:18 ET by pahuberILLEGAL TERRORISTS?
sure I do pa!
April 25, 2009 - 13:26 ET by nicholas nicklebyI do, pa, but the UN Convention Against Torture--of which we are a signatory nation (Reagan signed in '88, it was ratified in '94)--does not. In fact it says, quite clearly, that torture is always wrong--that the ends do not justify the means. Where have you been Pa?
NN
April 25, 2009 - 13:29 ET by MrShyMy ends (end of my life, or avoiding it to the hands of other sick human beings) justifies that means. What part of this do you not get?
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
No you are wrong again. It deals with legal combatants. I am
April 25, 2009 - 13:45 ET by pahubersure you wish it would mean that "all torture is wrong"...
It does not... and btw...notice when it was signed the date you mentioned should be a clue.
How many years before the Jihad was that signed...hence the confusion as to whether it really applies to today.
September 11, 2001 was the first time most americans realized that we were at war with jihadists at this very special level. Reagan, Clinton could not have fathomed the situation that we were in today.
So again, it deals ONLY with legal combatants.
According to the US Code,
April 25, 2009 - 10:04 ET by BDAccording to the US Code, "physical or mental pain or suffering" ( http://www.law.corne... ); so, I don't have to show physical pain to prove torturing...
NN's idea of torture or reasons for are so sweeping it boggles
April 25, 2009 - 16:59 ET by pahuberthe mind.
Hi Nicky, well at least you are civil
April 25, 2009 - 10:39 ET by billburzLets be real? Have you ever gone through Navy SERE training? Day 1, You were dropped off of a helicopter in shallow water and quickly 'discovered' by the enemy. You evaded, but were caught and tied arms over shoulders on a pole. If you evaded, and were successful, you were given a ham sandwich and then had your arms tied above your shoulders on a pole. You were marched to a POW prison, berated on the way, and put in solitary. No food, no water.
Day two, After a night of loud Vietnamese music blaring over all the loudspeakers, you were gotten in the morning. You were placed in a wooden box 3x3x4 feet and closed in. You were subjected to constant banging on the box and after many hours let out. You were given half a ham sandwich and some water and returned to the box. This lasted for many hours and I began to wonder where I was. Back to the cell, no facilities.
Day 3, meeting with 'my' commandant, who was asian, as were many of the guards, imported from VietNam. You were berated, screemed at, threatened and more of the same. At this point I didn't know where I was, and wanted to be home with my Mom and Dad. Back to the cell.
Day four, some food and water again. More box, more constant music. No sleep in three days after enduring the stress of trying to evade. I was exhausted and wondering whether my country would demand my release.
Day 5, waterboarding, about three times as I remember, over several hours. Hard to tell the duration. I did not break then, but eventually did with other stresses and over time.
Get the picture Nicky, it was real, and lasted about four more days until we were allowed to escape.
So it was real to me, and your prose is not real. Typical lefty theorist. My friend, torture is when blood flows. This is what you and your ilk will understand when the bad guys win. And with your sympathies, they will be a guaranteed winner. I hope you have kids and grandkids, so that you will pay in the end.
Billburz
I am sincere re: thanking your for your service
April 25, 2009 - 10:51 ET by nicholas nicklebyDespite my lefty ways, billburz, I have friends and family in the military (Army, Navy, Air Force, and Israeli army), so I know something of what's it like to be in the military, and I've seen families come together after tours, which is an amazing thing (mostly--occasionally awkward at first). That said, I don't personally know what it's like to be in the service, so I thank you for your account. (This, by the way, is both my sincere feelings, and my attempt to defuse some of the hostility here; I mean, you say that you want my kids and grandkids to pay for a mistake that I'm making--that seems needlessly cruel to me. I mean, if I'm wrong, then shouldn't I pay? Why should my kids pay for my mistake? In addition, if my kids pay, then won't your kids pay? It just seems like you're cutting your nose off to spite your face here.)
But my argument is not with your account, but with the objective differences between SERE training and actual interrogations. The DoJ and other agencies have reported on the differences. They are, in fact, different. (You know there are people who drop out of SERE training or interrupt their SERE training--which is not an option given to people undergoing real interrogations.)
I am not forcing a harm
April 25, 2009 - 11:00 ET by BDI am not forcing a harm upon my children. Your hyper emotionalism in formulating policy does threaten to harm them.
You say you desire to pay any price, but not your children. What if I were to tell you your enemy understands that and sees it as a weakness?
What if a Beslan Massacre was threatened in the US, and we had a detainee who was assumed to be in on the planning phase and has operational details of this palnned action. Would you simply "direct approach" him?
If that is your policy, then you fail. If you perform any of the other approaches as I have previously listed you are participating in mental anguish and thus torturing. Illogical, yet emotional.
crossed posts
April 25, 2009 - 11:14 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi BD,
I was responding to something billburz said about how he wants my children to suffer for a mistake I'm making (this mistake, for the record: being against torture). I'm not really sure where you're taking this comment, but it seems to end up in the same place you always end up: if torture saves American lives, then torture is ok.
All the assumptions you have to make to pose that scenario (we've captured someone, we know there's a plan, we know the person we've captured knows something, we know that only torture will work, we know that torture will not be used as a propaganda tool to recruit more people to conduct even more terrorist acts...)--that's too many assumptions for my taste.
Assumptions and
April 25, 2009 - 11:24 ET by BDAssumptions and assessments are key to the Intelligence Process otherwise intelligence is not predictive and thus just reporting history which does no one any good.
You refine these assumptions and assessments based on the combat information you receive so it is not just whistling in the dark.
Or did you assume that every detainee is brought in and had the same approach used upon him?
Regarding the use of propaganda as recruiting tool. Similarly the bad guys used our LACK of such action as a recruting tool showing how weak willed we are.
Prior to 9/11, one of the assessments AQ made was that our response would be weak, mostly in line with lobbing a batch of SLCM at abandoned mountain hideaways in Afghanistan. THis was based on their intelligence holdings that said Americans up to 9/11 were mostly weak liberals who did not desire a true confrontation - and in NO WAY would ever engage on the ground in a protracted manner. And thus they were able to recruit thousands for the fight and actually field the equivalent of a brigade in Afghanistan in service to the Taliban whom they considered allied.
THey are now LAUGHING at how weak willed the west is. THey know if they can simply hold out a bit longer they will win since the West is bein gled by those who do not actively seek a true confrontation.
And they see it in the lack of will regarding interogations as well.
I do hope your kids and grandkids pay for your foolishness,
April 25, 2009 - 15:35 ET by billburzand I mainly hope that because likeminded people to you are the ruination of America. You are not worth my pity or my prayers, and please just envision your son or daughter or grandchildren having their heads chopped because they refuse to pay tribute to their Islamic masters. This is what you are arrangeing with your foolish passivity. My last words. I will smile with the portrait that I painted for you clearly in my mind.
LOL, Bill
The situation could be
April 25, 2009 - 18:14 ET by BDThe situation could be resolved if Nickolas Nickleby were to somehow mark his children as being the offspring of the hopelessly liberal.
THen when the next attack comes they could be collected up and offered as replacement hostages to our enemies.
Perhaps we could just offer them the entire Poli-sci department of Berkley, Amherst, Harvard, U of Chicago etc.
"Hey, I know you want to kill that busload of mentally retarded children on the way to Special Ed classes with the bomb vest, but wouldn't you mush rather have these three doctors of Poly-sci, and the entire English Department of U-Colorado Boulder?"
That is a trade I could sign off on.
NN - according to the tortured logic of your lsat sentence
April 25, 2009 - 18:21 ET by BO STINKSSERE training would be ineffectual and pointless. Obviously, in the military's centuries of experience, this training is effective. Our soliders learn to anticipate what might happen to them. Frankly, IMO, your assertions about the differences between the training and the actual experiences are irrelevant.
What is relevant is the fact the military has, through decades of intel, exp. etc., found that the SERE training is beneficial. Perhaps some research into why the training is beneficial would be helpful to you?
The great Socio/Economic Experiments of the 20th cent. (communism, socialism, fascism) only killed a few hundred million. Let's give 'em another try! - me
Billburz: THe problem
April 25, 2009 - 10:52 ET by BDBillburz:
THe problem devolves down to the same old "Liberals think Emotionally, Conservatives think Logically" argument.
Nearly all liberals seek an emotional solution in that they desire to feel good about themselves at all costs at the end of the day.
They cannot feel good about themselves if they shoot a fleeing armed enemy in the back. THey cannot feel good about themselves if they draw first and shoot the other guy, they must wait for him to make a move first.
Essentially, they cannot do harmful things to bad people as it would lower their hyper emotional view of their own postion.
Conservatives think logically. They desire to keep themselves, and others well being intact and if that requires shooting someone from ambush then so be it.
I went through portions of SERE in the 80's. Only Survival and Evasion. We did not have the POW camp experience since the facility was not located where we were. Since then I have witnessed such. "War Criminal 36, come out of the box!"
ha! proof negative
April 25, 2009 - 11:04 ET by nicholas nicklebyBD, I'm a self-identified liberal (and, frankly, an other-identified liberal as well)--if I really wanted to feel good about myself and wanted everyone to like me, why would I come here?
no, you generalize too much about liberals being alogical. You and I have disagreed about facts, but have you ever criticized my logic?
You seek validation in
April 25, 2009 - 11:09 ET by BDYou seek validation in argument. You find emotional value in debate.
I have disagreed with your logic. Your logics are contained as follows:
1.) Mistreating a prisoner in any manner, including conventional interogation techniques and mental play is illegal, will ruin our societal structure, and thus wrong.
2.) Others will not like us if we continue this practice.
Both are emotional rather than logical arguments as I have proven in several previous posts.
actually, you're close
April 25, 2009 - 11:48 ET by nicholas nicklebyhi BD,
I do find some value in debate--it's what I do: I teach logic and debate. But here's something that your account doesn't explain: you say I find emotional value in debate, which would make me a liberal (emotional); but you don't account for the fact that I'm interested in logic, which would make me conservative (logical).
See, your binary "logic vs. emotion" does not adequately cover the situation. In fact, now that I think about it, you do tend towards binary logic (strong America vs. weak America, for instance). As I tell students, you need to be aware of your own particular weaknesses: you, BD, seem to be fond of yes/no sorts of binaries, which are not always applicable (although sometime they are)--still, be careful of your own traps.
Now, as for the points that you've proven are emotional rather than logical, I have this to say.
A) You have often pushed me to say that all interrogation--in fact, all imprisonment--is wrong; I have never said that, or agreed that that was the logical end of my position that torture is wrong. In fact, not all approaches are torture even if they cause some anguish (remember, the US Code does say that torture is "severe" pain). For instances of interrogation that are not torture--and that work--here's an account of British spy prison commander, "Tin Eye" Stephens: http://www.timesonli... --the short version of the article is that Stephens bullied and questioned his prisoners, but never touched them. That, at least, is a good place to start with interrogation tactics. See, I'm not against interrogation--just torture. Why? Because some techniques cause more strategic damage than they're worth; as DNI Blair recently wrote "The bottom line is
these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done
to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not
essential to our national security."
B) Some people will continue to not like the US no matter what--but that doesn't mean we should give them a tool to recruit people who are not committed anti-US warriors. As for torture providing a recruitment tool for AQ, again, see the Blair quote.
Emo Code not germane since it pertains to legal combatants.
April 25, 2009 - 13:32 ET by pahuber"remember, the US Code does say that torture is "severe" pain)."
Two issues:
First and foremost is the US Code's application to whom it pertains. This has been severely overlooked during this discussion. Terrorists do not qualify for this code or for Geneva Convention status since they are illegal combatants. BHO obviously does not agree with this logic, but I am speaking as a matter of recognized law.
Second, torture must be defined beyond the borders of the statute mentioned. The manual does cover every and all situations and is a guideline that deals with legal combatants so... not really germane to this discussion.
oy vey
April 25, 2009 - 14:06 ET by nicholas nicklebyThe US Code does not specify anything about legal or illegal combatants. Pa, seriously, you may want to read this first before talking: http://www.law.corne...
That is my point NN ~ please see addressed point in other
April 25, 2009 - 14:29 ET by pahuberthread. Kinda integrate our discussion rather than hopping all over.
Yes, OY VEY indeed, NN.
If you are someone who
April 25, 2009 - 14:38 ET by BDIf you are someone who instructs debate, I have you marked as a Lincoln/Douglas debater which concentrates on emotional values vice Policy Debate which concentrates on Logics.
As such, you do not speak of logics, rather emotional values and you return to that positionon nearly every issue.
You say that our interogation policies should be considered torture based on the strictest definition and I then prove that ALL interogation using the strictest definition would be considered torture by your difinition.
You say that our enemies will be emboldended by our positons (an emotional rather than logical argument), and I then show you that if such was the case nearly all of our enemies would be attacked worse than us due to their far more heinous actions and our own restrained actions (logic).
As I tell students, you need to be aware of your own particular weaknesses: you, BD, seem to be fond of yes/no sorts of binaries,
A) You have often pushed me to say that all interrogation--in fact, all imprisonment--is wrong; I have never said that, or agreed that that was the logical end of my position that torture is wrong.
(remember, the US Code does say that torture is "severe" pain).
the short version of the article is that Stephens bullied and questioned his prisoners, but never touched them.
See, I'm not against interrogation--just torture.
as DNI Blair recently wrote "The bottom line isthese techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
B) Some people will continue to not like the US no matter what--but that doesn't mean we should give them a tool to recruit people who are not committed anti-US warriors.
you've got me! that's me in a nutshell
April 25, 2009 - 15:01 ET by nicholas nicklebyBD,
I'm going to take the advice of 4-star admiral Blair and Matthew Alexander (the interrogator whose team lead to the locating and killing of al-Zarqawi) on this one, BD, and they both agree that torture is counter-productive. (Although your all-caps statement is very persuasive, from a logical standpoint.)
Good luck with those retirement plans, and if you go back into any combat zones, stay safe.
You have the prerogative of
April 25, 2009 - 19:30 ET by BDYou have the prerogative of believing who you wish. I dare say I have worked for Admiral Blair. He is not an Intelligence person in the strictest sense.
Regarding the mission that found the bad man from Zarka, I will disagree with him as well regarding this.
An Interesting point for you to consider. If we are forced to treat AQ operatives under the same ROE we do common criminals and subejct ourselves to judicial review such as what happened two years ago, will the troops in contact continue to even TRY to capture them? (Hint- trick question.)
Next question. Is it better to have a live detainee or a dead terrorist blown into 150 seperate fist sized chunks? (Hint - Trick Question)
Waiting with bated breath to hear how aware you are of your own
April 25, 2009 - 18:28 ET by BO STINKSweaknesses.
This post of yours is misleading NN ~ Japanese were NOT
April 25, 2009 - 15:43 ET by pahuberhung for waterboarding.
NN: "yes, some of those prosecuted for waterboarding were executed ( http://www.politifac... ."
NN's sources states:
"Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding."
Your quote is from Senator McRage. Who was himself tortured.
The entire quote off the schema goes like this:
" ... 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."
Among those charges, but not hung merely for waterboarding.
honest question about waterboarding
April 24, 2009 - 17:45 ET by edt123If waterboarding is not torture, and in fact an efficient and humane way to find out truth, why don't we allow the police to use waterboarding in order to find out whether or not they have committed a crime? This is an honest question, I'm curious what you think about it. If it's really that efficient and relatively harmless, it makes sense that we should pressure our local police forces to start adopting it.
Waterboarding is used to stop a terrorist act.
April 24, 2009 - 17:55 ET by MightyMouththe cops couldn't take a single case to court if the confession was coerced. Hell the cops cant even use brass knuckles anymore!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Then shouldn't we work to
April 24, 2009 - 17:58 ET by edt123Then shouldn't we work to remove judges and laws that prevent these mild waterboard interrogations? What's so wrong about a coerced confession, and how is waterboarding a terrorist any different from waterboarding a suspected serial killer? they're both killers and need to be stopped. Even when you get a confession this way you don't necessarily have to use it in court. You can even get some 3rd party contractor to do the interrogation in a black site so the police have plausible deniability, and you get some exellent information about whether or not you have the right suspect for the crime you are investigating.
seems like a good point
April 24, 2009 - 18:41 ET by ozarkapeWhat you say seems like a good point,however waterboarding a suspected killer is to obtain a confession to what has already been accomplished. Waterboarding a suspected terrorist is to keep something from being accomplished.
Back up folks
April 24, 2009 - 20:24 ET by general companyYou are talking about American citizens! We have the right not to incriminate ourselves! Geez
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
But if we start
April 24, 2009 - 20:26 ET by general companyWith Pelosi and Frank, I might be convinced
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
it's exactly the same isn't
April 24, 2009 - 22:44 ET by edt123it's exactly the same isn't it? Yes there's a small risk that the criminal you have will make a false confession to what has already been accomplished but you also have the exact same risk, exactly the same risk that a terrorist will confess to planning a terrorist attack that will never come -- and it's exactly the same problem, in the serial killer's case, that falsely confesses, the real killer will still be on the loose, for a terrorist, when he confesses he is the mastermind, and we believe it, this means the real mastermind will still be on the loose. It's not that these guys are in jail for no reason (I'm sure they committed some crime that they deserve to be punished for) the problem is exactly the same in both cases, you will get exactly the same amount of false confessions in each case, and in each case false confessions confuse investigators and make them chase red herrings.
Now, if waterboarding really does give really good information and does it quickly and efficiently and it doesn't give bad information what is our problem? We should be waterboarding our criminals all the time, and quit wasting this valuable resource.
By the way, it is a serious problem when the police jail the wrong guy, like they get a rapist to confess (but he's not the real rapist). They always find some guy that is a bad guy with prior convictions, they don't haul random people off the street, so they think it's ok, but it's not ok because the real rapist is still on the loose!
You still haven't demonstrated why waterboarding isn't such a wonderful technique that we need to seriously consider using it as a standard police interrogation tactic.
Interesting
April 26, 2009 - 14:06 ET by Jen7you bring this up, edt123. The meme from the right, heard by namely Hannity, is 'what if it was your child and would you do anything to find out where your child is?' This is used to support torture. If they are going to use that meme, then your question certainly applies here. Why don't we torture suspects in kidnappings?
As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
Family Guy
Why is it that out of 254 posts here, this is what you pick out?
April 26, 2009 - 14:29 ET by JWFTime after time after time, people have pointed out that waterboarding as defined by the OLC memo's is not torture. That was the entire point of the 600 pages of memo's. Lawyers dug out the law books, consulted, researched, and said no, waterboarding is not torture.
Then along comes drop dead rock stupid Jen7 bebopping along, boppity, boppity, boppity. Say, why don't we torture suspects in kidnappings?
Because it is against Federal, State, County, and Municipals laws you snail-poop-on-a-stone-stupid little little little man or woman whatever the case may be. Yes, you might want to check that, then you would know.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
If we only had a press.
April 24, 2009 - 20:23 ET by pbthinkerIt's no wonder the Democrats can't present the facts correctly, no one in the MSM ever calls them on it. I guess some facts are easier to check than others, especially for the lazy media types we're blessed with.
Election 2008-God's way of showing us that elections count.
Pithy answer
April 24, 2009 - 20:33 ET by nkviking75In order to properly answer the question, I'm going to steal a line from a character on the TV series "JAG".
Did CNN's Paul Begala mangle the historical facts on Japanese waterboarding?
Is a pig's ass pork?
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Question...
April 24, 2009 - 22:43 ET by MightyMouthDoes CNN get anything right?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
tired of liberal
April 24, 2009 - 22:46 ET by stunnedtired of liberal lies
Welcome to today's new liberal lie echoed by Paul Begala"America executed war criminals for waterboarding our POWs". If by the grace of God that was all that happened to them!! Only SEVEN Japanese Officers and Leaders were hanged after WW II and most were involved in the ordering of their troops to rape and murder of women and children in Nanking and Manila (rape victims were as young as four and the death toll was in the tens of thousands). As for our POW's they were beaten, starved, worked to death, shot, stabbed, beheaded and burned alive in slave labor camps (death toll in the thousands). Many POWs were outraged after the war that more were not brought to justice. Harry S Truman was no monster but he did order EVIL to be punished and its amazes me how in defending Obama they will attempt to destroy the reputation of anyone including a former Democratic President.
SUMMARY OF CONVICTED CLASS A WAR CRIMINALS
Seven (7) sentenced to death:
Doihara, General Kenji (1883-1948). Commander, Kwantung Army, 1938-40; Supreme War Council, 1940-43; army commander in Singapore, 1944-45. Ran brutal POW and internee camps in Malaya, Sumatra, Java and Borneo.
Hirota, Baron Koki (1878-1948). Was foreign minister during the Rape of Nanking and other atrocities perpetrated by the army. As premier, he led his cabinet in planning the invasions of Southeast Asia and the Pacific islands, in addition to continuing the undeclared war against China.
Itagaki, General Seishiro (1885-1948). Chief of staff, Kwantung Army, 1936-37; minister of war, 1938-39; chief, army general staff, 1939; commander in Korea, 1941; Supreme War Council, 1943; commander in Singapore, 1945. Troops under his command in China and elsewhere terrorized prisoners and civilians. Was responsible for prison camps in Java, Sumatra, Malaya, Borneo and elsewhere.
Kimura, General Heitaro (1888-1948). Chief of staff, Kwantung Army, 1940-41; vice minister of war, 1941-43; Supreme War Council, 1943; army commander in Burma, 1944-45. Helped plan the China and Pacific wars, including surprise attacks. Involved in the brutalization of the Allied POWs and was the field commander in Burma when civilian and POW slave labor built and died on the Siam-Burma Railway.
Matsui, General Iwane (1878-1948). Commander, China Expeditionary Force, 1937-38. Troops under his overall command were responsible for the Rape of Nanking in 1937 and other atrocities. He was one of 14 Class A war criminals who were secretly enshrined as "matyrs" at the Yasukuni Shrine, which is dedicated to Japan's war dead and is Japan's most revered Shinto temple.
Muto, General Akira (1892-1948). Vice chief of staff, China Expeditionary Force, 1937; director, military Affairs Bureau, 1939-42; army commander in Sumatra, 1942-43; army chief of staff in the Philippines, 1944-45. Troops under his command participated in both the Rape of Nanking and the Rape of Manila.
Tojo, General Hideki (1884-1948). Chief, Manchurian secret police, 1935; councillor, Manchurian Affairs Bureau, 1936; chief of staff, Kwantung Army, 1937-38; vice minister of war, 1938; minister of war 1940-44; premier, 1941-44. Considered the arch-criminal of the Pacific War. Tojo assumed full responsibility for all the actions of his government and the military during the war.
thanks for the list, but i think it was 1,000 japanese executed
April 25, 2009 - 00:28 ET by edt123from wiki
Soon after the war, the Allied powers indicted 25 individuals as Class-A war criminals,
and 5,700 individuals were indicted as Class-B or Class-C war criminals
by Allied criminal trials. Of these, 984 were initially condemned to
death, 920 were actually executed, 475 received life sentences, 2,944
received some prison terms, 1,018 were acquitted, and 279 were not
sentenced or not brought to trial. These numbers included 178 ethnic
Taiwanese and 148 ethnic Koreans.[66] The Class-A charges were all tried by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, also known as "the Tokyo Trials". Other courts were formed in many different places in Asia and the Pacific.
from crimes against humanity in international criminal law by m cherif
originally the suspected war criminals were divided into three categories, class a those who planned initiated or waged war in violation of international treates, class b those who has violated the laws and customs of war and class c those who had carried out the tortures and murders ordered by superiors.
Kingfish17 puts on Paul Begalia Suit
April 25, 2009 - 05:29 ET by Kingfish17"How can we as a nation still honor a President who had millions of Japanese Americans put in conentration camps and tortured during World War Two? We need to strike his image from all our currency, sandblast his name from every government building and school, and hold retroactive war crime trials to convict him in abstentia!"
Very informative
April 25, 2009 - 06:08 ET by ekslibThank you.
Waterboarding vs teabaggin
April 25, 2009 - 08:06 ET by sargex1What is the problem? Waterboarding is not as tortureous as the democrats/liberal sexual practice of teabagging. To bad the right hasn't teabagged the left. I understand from listening to the left its hard to say anything with you mouth full. We on the right would'nt have to be listening to this bull.
'183' is nonsense
April 25, 2009 - 10:53 ET by slickwillie2001Note that the lefties continue to use the '183 times' headline to sensationalize waterboarding. Remember the rules of waterboarding and how they are measured (ref) and pound this into liberal whenever you have the chance:
refers not to sessions of waterboarding, but to “pours” — that is, to
instances of water being poured on the subject.
most six pours of water lasting ten seconds or longer — and never
longer than 40 seconds — during any individual session
This is further evidence that lawyers and doctors were heavily involved in the procedure to ensure that it was safe. Doesn't really sound like torture. And while the lefties trumpet the '183' number, they bury the fact that this procedure was only used on three people.
slickwillie
April 25, 2009 - 11:02 ET by botggood link, very good link indeed
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
Doh!
April 25, 2009 - 13:42 ET by man_from_outer_spaceExcept Begala apparently wasn't talking about Asano as NRO assumed. They could have just asked Begala before wasting everyones' time.
http://www.huffingto...
Those that do not sign on
April 25, 2009 - 13:47 ET by RR GOPThose that do not sign on to the Geneva Conventions cannot expect Geneva Convention treatment to apply to their own. Terrorist organizations are out of the picture in that regard, though it is up to the cosignatories to decide how to handle guerrillas as POWs.
In the Army, we were taught that anything along the lines of military equipment, that is, anything that clearly identifies a POW as a member of an organized military group should be treated as if they were in full uniform. Being 'out of uniform' does not dismiss the Army's policies concerning POWs, but does indeed apply.
It is not up to the troops on the ground who take prisoners to decide their legal status under Army regulations, but rather to adhere to the "5 S's" and get them back to higher headquarters and they take it from there.
Therefore, it does go against Army policy to mistreat or in any way to use 'enhanced interrogation methods' against armed combatants, even 'back in the rear' at the hands of military intelligence. As for civilian intelligence, that may be a different matter.
A country can defend itself against an air raid and the like, but when one starts looking at subterfuge, then that is along the lines of how piracy (once upon a time anyway) and espionage would be handled.
What defense does a country have against saboteurs other than to extract the information as necessary, even if that is not the same standard the same country would have for handling ordinary enemy foot soldiers?
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
Japanese soldiers hung for waterboarding US POW's
April 25, 2009 - 20:12 ET by wjneillSuggest that the drone writing this article, Tim Graham, and his equally intellectually dysfunctional clone at "Natl Review Online", Mark Hemingway crawl on their hands and knees to the law review journals of Columbia University, Harvard University, UC Berkleley Boalt School of Law, and other reputable legal schools and review the following cases in great detail:
US v. Hideji Nakamura
US v. Yukio Asano
US v. Seitara Hata
US v. Takeo Kita
This is probably gonna come as a shock to you dweebs who don't bother to question any manure put in front of you and therefore you allow yourselves to be led to the briar patch which, all things considered, is for the best.
You just eat the manure, grow fat, happy, and stupid, and continue your increasingly short stroll to irrelevance and obscurity because you're too busy to be bothered by facts.
Why do you intentionally choose to be stupid? Don't you at least want your children to be proud of you for what you know and can state with factual certainty?
got troll ?
April 25, 2009 - 20:38 ET by botgdo you have a point there wingnut? you best read the charges against the japanese. They performed actual torture and additionally waterboarded, much like the serial killer who also gets a speeding ticket during the chase.
btw based on your tone and demeanor you don't wish to be around long...
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
amazing botg
April 25, 2009 - 20:48 ET by candanceWe never saw this mess two days ago, but suddenly today there are at least three lefties appearing from the woodwork to share the exact same thing. Think you smell a talking point email?
lol candance
April 25, 2009 - 20:50 ET by botgand not a one of them has the whole story, just a bunch of brainwashed fools
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
but didn't you know bruce?
April 25, 2009 - 20:57 ET by candanceWe executed Tim McVeigh for making a bomb out of fertilizer, therefore fertilizer is deadly.
right can-can
April 25, 2009 - 21:00 ET by botgand fat people cause gore-bull warming
oh snap! Gore's a bit more than chunky ain't he?
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
holy crap whiner
April 25, 2009 - 20:49 ET by botgyou didn't even read the charges yourself did you? just picked em up at kos and ran right over like a good ol brainwashed dweeb, "oh oh oh this'll get em" yeah so ya run over and really don't know what the hellz your talking about now do you?
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
Not sure of the others yet
April 25, 2009 - 21:09 ET by general companyBut Hata, was given 25yrs. I believe the others were as well?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
gc
April 25, 2009 - 21:26 ET by botgthere is a difference between charges and sentances. When you read the charges you find these guys ordered murders, rapes, multilations etc. the waterboarding was incidental.
also based on the first paragraph of your link, i'd not trust that moonbat to give a full account of what she had for breakfast.
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
Sure I figured that
April 25, 2009 - 22:02 ET by general companyI was just pointing out to the lib, at least one was not executed.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
A short description of what Hata did
April 25, 2009 - 21:58 ET by RESTLESS 1From the link.
And what we did here.
Seems a little like apples to oranges.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
~Hmmm
April 25, 2009 - 22:43 ET by choselife3xwhat I know and can state with factual certainty
wjneil's rude @ss will be banned if he doesn't stop flaunting it with such wild abandon. Try civility, you might get somewhere.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
wjneill ~ Those you cited were charged with other crimes besides
April 26, 2009 - 12:10 ET by pahuberwaterboarding.
US v. Hideji Nakamura
US v. Yukio Asano
US v. Seitara Hata
US v. Takeo Kita
wjneill do you bother to even check your own facts or are you just going for some emotional appeal for terrorism?
You forgot to mention that those waterboarded were legal combatants and not terrorists. Again, won't you liberals even try to make a distinction between the two? Why do you hate your own country?
WJNEILL's "AWSOME" QUOTES:
"This is probably gonna come as a shock to you dweebs..."
"You just eat the manure, grow fat, happy, and stupid, and continue your increasingly short stroll to irrelevance..."
"Why do you intentionally choose to be stupid?"
After all of wjneill's wonderful discourse he leaves us with this jewel of wisdom:
"Don't you at least want your children to be proud of you for what you know and can state with factual certainty? "
Why sure we do wjneill lol
whineJNeill
April 26, 2009 - 12:16 ET by botgknows that Pa he's just the lower class of troll that comes by here
his next assertion will be that Jeffrey Dahmer was executed for that speeding ticket. But seriously i don't think he even checked the charges just grabbed the kos-points and ran with them
as to his tone here it is sure that he is looking for a ban so he can then claim intolerence
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
I totally agree with you... this guy is a weenie. These trolls
April 26, 2009 - 12:30 ET by pahuberthat come here and say the same talking points probably believe that they are making a difference rather than making our point.
he may be a plant
April 26, 2009 - 12:36 ET by botgto make Nick N look reasonable by comparison
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
I note that pahuber cannot
April 26, 2009 - 12:42 ET by Free StinkerI note that pahuber cannot tell the difference between holding someone under water until they pass out, and pouring water over someone's mouth for 13 seconds.
Yet liberals always go bla bla bla about "nuance" whenever we have the latest stupidity from the Democrats.
free
April 26, 2009 - 12:43 ET by botgthat's pouring water over a towel that is over someones mouth
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
FS ~ I think you may have posted to the wrong person.
April 26, 2009 - 13:03 ET by pahuber"I note that pahuber cannot tell the difference between holding someone
under water until they pass out, and pouring water over someone's mouth
for 13 seconds."
My point was the many of the liberals here are trying to insinuate that Japanese soldiers were executed merely for waterboarding, etc.
This is not the case. They have been executed for many things and among them "waterboarding" or some other method.
Not merely for just waterboarding.
I do not understand your point unless you are just trying to be provocative.
Well, I've read this entire
April 25, 2009 - 20:55 ET by HockeyKidWell, I've read this entire thread, and unfortunately it is "much sound and fury, signifying nothing".
All of "nicholas nickleby"'s comments, logic and conclusions are based on one of two legal bases: a UN statement regarding the behavior of signatories toward one another, and the U.S. Code.
The terrorists in question are neither signatories to the UN statement, nor citizens of the U.S., so neither authority has anything to do with them or our authorities' behavior toward them.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
US Code not about the victim, but about the offender
April 25, 2009 - 22:29 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi HockeyKid,
The US Code that I've been harping on doesn't say anything about the people being tortured needing to be citizens--it does say something about the people doing the torturing being citizens; to wit:
(b)
Jurisdiction.—
There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1)
the alleged offender is a national of the United States
So, if you're an American citizen, and you torture someone, you're liable under US law--no matter the nationality of the alleged victim.
And, anyway, the main point of my argument to begin with is that Tim is totally wrong in parroting Mark Hemingway's remarks, which have been disproven on a number of sites.
NickNack Lies - aclu and dod autopsies LIES LIES LIES
April 26, 2009 - 06:36 ET by JWFNickNackPaddyWack: According to the US Code, "physical or mental pain or suffering" ( http://www.law.corne... );
LIE. He cut off the definition. Here is torture defined in his own link -
“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering
Catch that? SEVERE. NickNack purposely cut it off.
NickNackPaddyWack: but just to show you how easy it is to prove physical pain, here's one case: "Final Autopsy
Report: DOD 003164, (Detainee) Died as a result of...
Changing The Subject (Digression, Red Herring, Misdirection, False Emphasis): If this is true and it cannot be traced back to the aclu or dod. If it is true and it is indeed a homicide. This shows that someone violated the law and overstepped their bounds. The U.S has prosecuted many of it's own people for gross violations of the law in Iraq. It does not show that torture or homicide is lawfully sanctioned by the U.S Government.
This speaks nothing to the fact that waterboarding is clearly defined, not torture, and is probably the furthest we can legally go in enhanced interrogations. It does show NickNack can't stay on the very subject he brought up.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
NickNack Lies - Tokyo trials. LIES LIES LIES
April 26, 2009 - 07:01 ET by JWFNickNackPaddyWack: but there were many other soldiers and officers charged...any history book of WWII and the Tokyo trials.
LIE: The Nuremburg and Tokyo trials were unders special constitutions drawn up for the express purpose of trying war crimes in WWII. They were not done under the U.S Constitution or International Treaties.
NickNackPaddyWack: while some of the Japanese water torture differed from waterboarding ... some of it matched our recent practice of water-boarding perfectly. His quote from Airman Nelson - water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation
LIE: Does not meet the definition of waterboarding as presented in the OLC Memo's. Breathing is only restricted according to the memo's. Not strangulation. Also 20 to 40 seconds. Not until almost unconscious.
NickNackPaddyWack: What's your point? The CIA had a legal memo saying they could only torture a guy for 40 seconds and that somehow makes it not torture?
Proof of idiocy: Yes. It is not torture. The Lawyers from the OLC checked it repeatedly and found it NOT torture. Restricted Breathing for 20 to 40 seconds - Not torture.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
You are right JWF NN grossly overstated many of his claims
April 26, 2009 - 12:15 ET by pahuberincluding the Japanese example which I too pointed out one of his examples.
NickNack & Time lies - waterbording was different than SERE's
April 26, 2009 - 08:09 ET by JWFNickNackPaddyWack & Time: "the IG investigation found that the waterboarding technique used on the CIA's detainees was significantly different from that used in the SERE program: most notably, the Agency's interrogators used much
larger volumes of water." ( http://www.time.com/... ).
LIE: It does not matter that more water is being used. The procedure is essentially the same. More water being used does not equal that much more water entering the mouth, nose, or lungs.
NickNackPaddyWack: See billburz--the two situations are very different: if you agree to something, it's not torture.
Proof of idiocy: Thanks Nicky for redefining torture for us. Or specifically what torture is not. Idiot. Hey everybody, if you agree to something, that something is not torture! Wow, who knew that until today.
NickNackPaddyWack: one more time: torture doesn't mean physical pain only--it can mean mental pain too.
Lie: SEVERE mental pain.
NickNackPaddyWack: but you're wrong when you say that it's been shown that info gained from torture has been used to prevent American deaths.
Lie: The Bush administration has said repeatedly that is has prevented attacks. It is also alluded to in the now declassified memo's. But President Obama will not declassify the RESULTS of the enhanced interrogations.
NickNackPaddyWack: but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means.
Speculation: Nice example of pure speculation Nicky.
NickNackPaddyWack: The bottom line is these
techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national ecurity."
Speculative horsepoo: Speak softly and carry a big stick. Yes. That hurts our image. No one has to like us. They have to respect us. Respect, something nicknackpaddywack knows nothing about.
NickNackPaddyWack: We have a whole number of military and intelligence people telling us that...
Bzzzt: Appeal to authority. 5 yards.
NickNackPaddyWack: the definitions of torture that I've been throwing around are from the US Code,
LIE: a specious slice from the US Code. Leaving out the word SEVERE.
NickNackPaddyWack: waterboarding is torture--it's against US regulations following, among other things, our (really Ronald Reagan's) signing of the UN Convention Against Torture.
LIE LIE LIE LIE: Torture is defined in the UN Convention against torture -
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person (1)
Again, SEVERE pain or suffering NickNack you pernicious LIAR.
NicNackPaddyWack: I've pointed out to you that there have been deaths due to "enhanced interrogation techniques."
LIE LIE LIE LIE: What Nicky pointed out is someone may have overstepped their bounds and violated the law.
NickNackPaddyWack: KSM's post-torture evaluations (and reports from his guards) indicate that he became more and more certifiable.
Yea, idiot, because all that planning and scheming to kill mass amounts of civilians including women and children was clearly NO SIGN he was certifiable. Right, idiot?
NickNackPaddyWack: I'm going to take the advice of 4-star admiral Blair and Matthew Alexander (the interrogator whose team lead to the locating and killing of al-Zarqawi) on this one, BD, and they both agree that torture is counter-productive.
Again with the appeal to authority. Why can't Nicky stick with the facts instead of stating what authorities say.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
(1) http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
little nicky
April 26, 2009 - 09:59 ET by RESTLESS 1Torture probably is counter productive. Good thing water boarding isn't torture, huh?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
nice response, JWF
April 26, 2009 - 14:24 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi JWF,
You make many good points here, JWF. However, I do have some counter-points to make. (Long post, with summary at end.)
1) Your best point: the military autopsy report that I quoted did indicate severe physical pain (followed by death), but it is not conclusively linked to officially-sanctioned torture. This could be just a case of some bad apples, right? I can’t prove that it wasn’t, and JWF is right that the US does try and sentence soldiers who break the law, like Master Sgt. John Hatley, who was recently convicted of executing four Iraqis. Of course, the reverse is also true: JWF wasn’t there when, for instance, Jamal Naseer was doused with icewater and left outside and subsequently died--so JWF can’t say with certainty that that was just a case of some bad apples, or how far up the chain of command this particular sort of rottenness goes. We’ll know more when we get an investigation into these practices.
2) JWF says that I lied by cutting off the word “severe” from the US Code, but then he also quotes me when I do note the “severe” line (because I was supposed to, what?, put it in bold?). The reason why I don’t emphasize “severe” all the time (though I do emphasize it sometimes) is because some people seem to think that any pain other people suffer is not severe. For instance, how many people here laughed at Zubaydah being (potentially) put into a situation where his insect-phobia would kick-in simply because they didn’t share his phobia (and were typing from the relative safety of their homes)? For all the talk that some conservatives make about how important Christ is in their lives (and I don’t mean you JWF, as I don’t remember you ever saying that), I would think there’d be a little more Christ-like attitude towards the suffering of others.
3) Is waterboarding torture, does it cause severe pain? This is the big question. All I know is that the US government has previously tried people for waterboarding--note, I said “tried” because that’s something we can all agree happened, right? I mean, the Japanese soldiers and officers may have also been executed for other crimes, but waterboarding was one of the crimes they were tried for. Think of it this way: if you were trying someone for murder, you wouldn’t try them for littering on their way to the murder. So, these Japanese war criminals were tried for war crimes--and waterboarding was one of them. If waterboarding was the military equivalent of littering, it wouldn’t have been important to try them for it--get it? In a court case for war crimes, you only charge people with war crimes, and the fact that waterboarding was one of the charges means that waterboarding was considered a war crime.
Now, some people have pointed out that the International Military Tribunal Far East had its own charter. (I don’t know why you marked this as a lie, JWF--I never said anything about the IMTFE’s charter, only the fact that torture is clearly illegal under the US Code no matter who the alleged victim is. I made that point because a lot of people here seem to think that you’re allowed to torture people caught out of uniform, which is incorrect.) Correct me if I’m misrepresenting you, JWF, but are you saying that in the 40s, when the Allies wrote up the charter to try war criminals, we thought waterboarding was torture--but that now, we don’t? I don’t think you’re making this argument, but in case anyone is tempted to, I wanted to point out how silly this argument is: we charged people with waterboarding under a special charter--but we didn’t do just because we could under this special charter--we wrote the charter to specifically include waterboarding because we felt that waterboarding is torture. What has changed since then?
(Tangent: Pahuber says that the times have changed, and we need more weapons in the fight against terrorism--which basically concedes that this is torture, but says that we need to do it anyway.)
JWF’s main argument is that what has changed is that we do waterboarding in a kinder, more legal way; this was Hemingway’s argument too, and he noted that it’s kinder because we use something to cover the mouth--except the torture memo itself states that the point of covering the mouth is to increase the sense of strangulation. Ok, so, much for Hemingway; what is JWF left with to show that this is kinder torture? The fact that we only torture someone for 20-40 seconds according to the OLC memo--and the OLC, which is made up of lawyers, is an authority on torture according to JWF. Note here, that the OMS, the CIA’s Office of Medical Services, was not actually consulted during the initial formulation of our torture policy. Gosh, so we took the word of lawyers and tried to keep doctors out of the loop--that sure sounds like we were trying to be kinder torturers. (I like, JWF, how you argue here that it’s important that it’s only for 20-40 seconds, and yet, later, you argue that it’s not important that waterboarding uses larger quantities of water than SERE training. Do you see the problem? You’re arguing that quantity matters and then arguing that quantity doesn’t matter.) So is waterboarding torture even though we only do it for 20-40 seconds? Again, the definition of torture isn’t based on time, but on the severity of the outcome. (Although it is amusing to think of someone trying to use this argument to get out of a criminal charge: “I know, judge, that I stabbed that guy, but I only did it for 20-40 seconds.”) How severe is waterboarding? I don’t really think KSM should be alive, but driving someone certifiably insane (or even more insane than he was before), yeah, that sounds like torture.
4) Is torture an effective way to get information? Does it hurt our image around the world? Again, JWF, you’re caught in a bind: you say that I’m wrong because I’m relying on the word of authorities like Blair and Matthew Alexander. So, what are you relying on? Your gut instinct? Oh, no, there’s the part where you rely on what authorities say also: “The Bush administration has said repeatedly that is has prevented attacks.” (There’s also the time that JWF cites Billburz’s authority since he went through SERE training, although, as I pointed out, Billburz didn’t go through CIA interrogation, so he can’t entirely compare them.)
So, let’s put to rest this canard that I’m somehow wrong because I’m appealing to the authority of experts, because you do it, too, JWF. So, what do the experts say? Most of them say that torture produces a net loss. We can argue which experts are right, but to say that I’m wrong because I’m appealing to authority doesn’t work as a charge, JWF.
Summary: Torture is defined as severe mental or physical pain; the amount of time you do a practice is not necessary for that practice to be identified as torture; 20-40 seconds of torture is torture. Is waterboarding torture? Judging from its effects, yes; judging from the fact that we’ve tried people for it at war crimes court, yes.
Uh, NN ~ lol I basically showed you that you were incorrect.
April 26, 2009 - 16:57 ET by pahuber"(Tangent: Pahuber says that the times have changed, and we need more
weapons in the fight against terrorism--which basically concedes that
this is torture, but says that we need to do it anyway.)"
False.
You used two documents that do not address terrorists/terrorism.
1.) The US code that pertains only to legal combatants.
2.) The UNCAT treaty of '94 which deals only with legal combatants (as it was ratified).
You bring in an addendum after the fact and say that it clarifies what was meant 13 years earlier which I find deceptive on your part since you wanted to make it seem as if this was stated in the original signed/ratified charter.
It was only when I called on you for the specifics that you showed your hand.
Personally, I find that deceptive along with your Japanese soldier illustrations on "waterboarding".
Oh, and we never did define torture because you think just about everything is torture and keep stating the same thing over and over so why bother?
no offense intended, but that's what I thought you meant
April 26, 2009 - 17:34 ET by nicholas nicklebyhi Pa!
You were right that the explicit mention of "terrorism" comes in a later clarification (drafted probably by a 10-member committee with 2 Americans on it), but pa, the original document (signed by Reagan in '84, ratified by Congress in '94) does not have anything to do with legal or illegal combatants--or combatants at all. The original document says that all torture should be illegal--the later clarification doesn't add anything, since the injuction "you shouldn't torture terrorists" is covered by the injunction "you shouldn't torture anybody." I'll say it again, because we keep coming back to this: the UN Convention Against Torture says that you should never torture, which means NEVER EVER, which includes suspected terrorists. Similarly the US Code says nothing about legal combatants--it simply says that if Americans torture, then those Americans can be charged in American courts.
Second, if I misrepresented your opinion (that times have changed and we should now be allowed to torture, even though we signed an international treaty that said we wouldn't), I didn't mean to; but what did you mean when you said this:
I would easily argue and most likely Reagan if he were alive and saw
what happened that it pertained only to only legal combatants. Hell, I
would have signed it, as well, at that time.
That sure sounds to me like you're saying that the times have changed and we should now be allowed to torture. But if that's not what you meant, please correct me--you know I'll do the same for you.
NN ~ we are not going to agree on what the documents intended
April 26, 2009 - 17:41 ET by pahuberor our definition of torture.
However, even if water boarding is torture and used to get info from an illegal combatant to save American lives or even innocents.
I say that I am totally onboard.
If you had a family that could be saved by waterboarding an illegal combatant would you allow it to save them?
Be honest.
in real life?
April 26, 2009 - 18:00 ET by nicholas nicklebyin real life, pa, I wouldn't be able to know that my family could be saved by waterboarding--in fact, Bradbury in his May 30, 2005 memo noted this problem:
According to the IG Report, the CIA, at least initially, could not
always distinguish detainees who had information but were successfully
resisting interrogation from those who did not actually have
information. On at least
one occasion, this may have resulted in what might be deemed in
retrospect to have been the unnecessary use of enhanced techniques
So, pa, in a real world situation, you might not know for sure if the guy you were waterboarding had info or didn't. So, in a hypothetical situation, where I was sure the guy I had had info that I needed and couldn't get any other way, I would probably do something drastic. But in the real world, we don't approach problems with that sort of background information.
Let me ask you the same question with a slight twist: would you waterboard Tim McVeigh to stop a terrorist attack?
Nickolas Nickleby But
April 26, 2009 - 18:14 ET by BDNickolas Nickleby
But you could not know that they were not.
Key point of argument for today: Sunday 26 April 2009.
1.) Do you think that interogators are now MORE apt to interogate or less apt to do so in th wake of the memos being released?
2.) Do you think US forces are now MORE willing to take risks to capture prisoners or less so in the wake of the memo's being released?
3.) Do you think AQ operatives will now show a hardened resolve in the face of interogation based on the lessening of potential stress due to the release of the new techniques, or less so?
4.) Do you think AQ will have an easier time recruiting operatives now that the memo's have been released, or less easy time?
5.) Has the Obama administration just made th task set before the DOD harder or less so?
No NN we actually do piece together intelligence like this and
April 26, 2009 - 18:18 ET by pahuberhave hunches about who knows what.
"So, pa, in a real world situation, you might not know for sure if the guy you were waterboarding had info or didn't."
Correct, but we have gained valuable information from this and other techniques. As for the unfortunate soul that would be associated with the terrorists and is somehow waterboarded...well inho he should not be associated with them lest this would not happen.
What is very real world is when we know of someone in the upper echelon of a terrorist cell or organization that may have critical information that could open up information as to who else is involved, when or where, etc.
I just tried to make it personal with you to see how you would respond.
Yes, I would waterboard T. McVeigh to stop what he did or some other terrorist plot, left or right.
PAHuber: You must
April 26, 2009 - 18:36 ET by BDPAHuber:
You must understand that Nickolas Nickleby does not understand intelligence operations in general and Interogation in specific. He still follows the notion that intelligence is gathered in a vacuum and interogation is unknowable.
He also says that harsh interogation techniques fail. Silly.
I guarantee him that if I were to ambush him and his wife at his home and take them captive and ONLY use those same techniques I would have the following information in short order:
His computer password. His Pin Number for the credit cards I take from his pocket, and his pet name for his wife.
~Oh for the love of
April 26, 2009 - 18:48 ET by choselife3x!@#$% Squeers is still shoveling sh!t on this thread?!
"The notion that intelligence is gathered in a vacuum" Thank you, BD. Too bad Squeers is incapable of comprehending what he reads.
Good luck, I'm tired of trying to talk sense into this guy.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
Hi Choose, who is sqeers?
April 26, 2009 - 18:52 ET by pahuberpahuber.
~Dickens novel
April 26, 2009 - 19:23 ET by choselife3xMr. Wackford Squeers
A one-eyed, ugly ogre, Mr.
Squeers is the hateful master of Dotheboys Hall. Dickens based him on
an actual schoolmaster who had been sued for his mistreatment of school
children. He cares more about the well-being of his cows and pigs than
that of the children, whose fevers and illnesses he punishes as acts of
insubordination. Squeers dishes out stingy and inadequate meals and
beats the children for minor and imagined misdemeanors, seeming to
enjoy hurting them. When he tries to beat the hapless Smike, Nicholas
beats Squeers instead and runs off with the boy. Squeers is one of
Ralph Nickleby’s partners, so he comes to London to help retrieve the
papers stolen by Peg Sliderskew. There he chances upon Smike and locks
the boy in a closet. When all is exposed, Squeers goes to prison.
My history with Squeers is copy-pasted into a post further up this thread. Explains the origin of my nickname for him.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
WOW, I did not know that.
April 26, 2009 - 19:28 ET by pahuberThanks for the info : )
It seems as much BD. It seems that he is getting wrong
April 26, 2009 - 18:48 ET by pahuberinformation from somewhere and it does not fit the facts.
We gain very very intelligent data and the memos the Obama WH is holding tell the tale.
Now I have to hope the NN is just trying to take the supposed "high road" on this issue rather than Obama the lying President who is doing this to feed some red meat to his ultra hateful constituency; even though he knows the truth that our methods have and do work.
Obama may indeed be impeached one day if something terrible happens and enough people get the truth.
PAHuber: Either NN is
April 26, 2009 - 19:58 ET by BDPAHuber:
Either NN is deluded, or he simply seeks to damage those he faces on the other end of the aisle.
Personnally, I prefer to think him a deluded liberal with no experience who has the same power of make believe that Hollywood shares.
Hey BD you can have the pet
April 26, 2009 - 19:03 ET by mandrakeHey BD you can have the pet name of my wife without resorting to torture. It's 'bunnytoes'. As for for my PIN numbers..not much in the accounts anyway so just show up and you can have them.
Power-saw to the people - Dexter
i have to point this out...
April 26, 2009 - 19:37 ET by nicholas nicklebyhey pa,
ChoseLife3X has a point--this thread is so long it's starting to take a while to load, so maybe we could continue this in a forum or on another thread (as I'm sure this issue will come up again).
But I did just have to point out this: you've just said that you're ok waterboarding an American citizen to prevent terrorism; and you've said that sometimes "the unfortunate soul that would be associated with the terrorists" gets waterboarded even though he's not a terrorist himself.
I'm sorry, Pa, but if a Tim McVeigh-style terrorist were to post on these boards--since the internet is a great place for terrorist networks to interact--well, then aren't we "associated" with terrorists? Did you go to a Tax Day Tea Party, Pahuber? What if someone there turned out to be another Tim McVeigh? What's to stop the CIA from coming to your (or my) house and waterboarding us? According to you, they have the moral right to do so to save lives, and if they're mistaken, well, that's our fault for being associated with terrorists.
No, I like my federal government with less sweeping powers to torture its citizens, thank you very much.
~Already done
April 26, 2009 - 20:21 ET by choselife3xLoads very quickly, too.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
Hi NN ~ sure it will come up again, but let me clarify what I
April 26, 2009 - 22:20 ET by pahubermeant with what I said.
You stated that I said:
"and you've said that sometimes "the unfortunate soul that would be
associated with the terrorists" gets waterboarded even though he's not
a terrorist himself."
The latter part after quotations is not what I said or meant.
First my quote:
"As for the unfortunate soul that would be associated with the
terrorists and is somehow water boarded...well inho he should not be
associated with them lest this would not happen."
Our discussion was that not everyone has information that can be readily attained by "torture" as it not always a perfect system. For example if they are a terrorist and we do not think they have any valuable life saving information then no we would not waterboard or whatever.
The association pertained to being a terrorist, but they do not have information that is available or useful. We do not waterboard everybody we suspect of being a terrorist, but this "poor soul" would be waterboarded regardless of lack of information.
"No, I like my federal government with less sweeping powers to torture its citizens, thank you very much."\
I agree. We are covered under the US Code since we are citizens of the US. You asked me if I waterboard TM to stop a terrorist attack.
"Let me ask you the same question with a slight twist: would you waterboard Tim McVeigh to stop a terrorist attack?"
I, not being part of the Govt, would do whatever and even worse personally. I see where you were going with this, but I meant personally and not in the status of the Govt.
Oh do shut up you flaming idiot.
April 26, 2009 - 17:37 ET by JWFYes, JWF can say how far up the chain of command this particular sort of rottenness goes. JWF was in the military for 20 years. Orders are in writing. Every crucial order is written. Buffoon.
some people seem to think that any pain other people suffer is not severe We are not talking about what some people think. We are talking about the law. baboon.
...how important Christ is...more Christ-like attitude... We are not talking about Jesus Christ. We are talking about the law. buffoon.
Is waterboarding torture, does it cause severe pain? This is the big question Only for an idiot like you.
the US government has previously tried people for waterboarding--note, I said “tried” because that’s something we can all agree happened, right? Can you read you friggin idiot? We have never tried anyone for waterboarding EVER. Waterboarding was a classified procedure until April 2009. God you are stupid. Did you read what I friggin' typed? THE NUREMBURG AND TOKYO TRIALS WERE UNDER THEIR OWN CONSTITUTIONS. ...Idiot...Idiot...Idiot...
only the fact that torture is clearly illegal under the US Code no matter who the alleged victim is. And waterboarding is not torture you FLAMING IDIOT.
when the Allies wrote up the charter to try war criminals, we thought waterboarding was torture-- Again, waterboarding is not the same as water torture. FLAMING BUFFOON.
we wrote the charter to specifically include waterboarding because we felt that waterboarding is torture. No we didn't you idiot. We wrote the charter for war crimes. And stop with all the we we we we we we. You have a worm in your pocket?
what is JWF left with to show that this is kinder torture. All I have to prove is that it was legal you rock stupid marroon.
so we took the word of lawyers and tried to keep doctors out of the loop-- READ THE FRELLING MEMO YOU FRELLING IDIOT. Doctors were in the loop. Medical personnel had to be present.
it’s not important that waterboarding uses larger quantities of water than SERE training - Can someone explain why I am talking to this idiot. READ YOUR OWN POST YOU IDIOT. SERE training is just that - training. It is for training purposes only.
but driving someone certifiably insane (or even more insane than he was before), Prove KSM is more insane. PROVE IT.
“The Bush administration has said repeatedly that is has prevented attacks.” Now was I furthering an argument pinhead?
There’s also the time that JWF cites Billburz’s authority since he went through SERE training, although, as I pointed out, Billburz didn’t go through CIA interrogation, so he can’t entirely compare them.) What in the hell are you babbling on about? I said no such thing.
that I’m somehow wrong because I’m appealing to the authority of experts You are wrong because you are an idiot that cannot read and comprehend. And you use appeals to authority to further an argument.
20-40 seconds of torture is torture. Look. The idiot used a definition in a definition!
Is waterboarding torture? Judging from its effects, yes; judging from the fact that we’ve tried people for it at war crimes court, yes. You just finished stating that torture is severe mental or physical pain. Now you try to change the definition, the legal definition by the way, to something that can only be judged by its effects. IDIOT. And you FAILED to prove we have tried people for waterboarding at war crimes court, which does not and has never existed. war crimes court <snort> Idiot.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
who are you going to convince with arguments like this?
April 26, 2009 - 17:52 ET by nicholas nicklebyJWF,
I thought you were doing pretty good in the previous posts, keeping the ratio of argument-to-name-calling firmly on the side of argument, but this is mostly name-calling, which doesn't give me a lot to work with.
But just to clarify, I said that the OMS was kept out of the loop when these memos were being formulated, JWF, not when the tortures were happening.
(Also, your correction on the IMTFE charter isn't really a correction: we both agree that the IMTFE had its own charter, and that it was set up to charge people with war crimes. Now, one of those crimes was something that involved water and a board. Whether the Japanese waterboarding was different from ours--maybe it was in the metric system?--is part of your argument; but that the IMTFE had its own charter is something we both agree on.)
The only part that we disagree about is that you say 20-40 seconds of waterboarding is not severe enough to count as torture, while I say that--judging the severity by its effects in at least KSM's case--it counts as torture even if its 20-40 seconds long.
Not you.
April 27, 2009 - 07:29 ET by JWFWho are you trying to convince with arguments like this?
Not you idiot. You have not learned a single thing in this whole thread. So I am now here to viciously mock you. Welcome to troll hell, idiot troll.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
What is prosecutable here?
April 26, 2009 - 10:36 ET by c5thenIs it the lawyer who gives their opinion that "A" is acceptable but "B" is not? Is it the Agency head that implements "A" based on the legal opinion? Is it the Agency employee who caries out the procedure based on direction from superiors? Is it the members of the oversight committee who are briefed that these techniques are possibly going to be used and raise no objections, thus granting tacit approval?
And more specifically, what US law has been broken here that would give any prosecutor the jurisdiction to bring any indictments on any of the above? After all we are a country based on the rule of law, not the rule of the party that happens to be in power at the moment, right? Or, do we want to devolve into a country who prosecutes (or is that persecutes) all previous administrations when a new one takes the reigns?
Are all defense lawyers going to be tried for any future crimes committed by their clients that they are able to have exonerated in court? Are we going to try the judge who "allowed the defense strategy that won"? Are we going to try the jury who were persuaded by the defense?
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
www.loyaltoliberty.com