Waterboarding Rocks!

[Upchurch]

So Upchurch ... are you another who is afraid to answer yes or no to my simple hypothetical?

Your "simple" hypothetical relies on many, many far-fetched assumptions as to be entirely unrelated to reality in any sense of the word. It is not "simple" by any stretch of the imagination.

But no, your comic book doomsday scenario still does not warrant the use of torture.

 

[A'isha]

Do you know what that is? It's one of a number of paintings produced by Vann Nath. During the reign of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, he was sent to Tuol Sleng prison, one of the most infamous and brutal prisons run by the Khmer Rouge. All the inmates of that prison, including Vann Nath, were subject to horrific tortures. Of the 17,000 people sent to Tuol Sleng, only twelve survived. Vann Nath only survived because his captors, after nearly torturing him to death, noticed his artistic abilities and kept him around to make paintings and sculptures of Pol Pot.

Tuol Sleng is now a museum memorializing those who suffered and died there. Vann Nath, after the fall of the Khmer Rouge, began creating paintings about what he saw and suffered during his time there. The above painting by him is on display in the museum and illustrates one of the tortures he underwent: waterboarding. He painted several more depicting the waterboarding torture he and others were forced to undergo, and the actual "board" used in the torture itself is also on display in the museum.

The waterboarding technique depicted in the painting, the waterboarding technique used on Vann Nath himself in this Cambodian prison that had a 99.99924% mortality rate, the waterboarding technique that Vann Nath painted over and over again as part of his effort to document the horrific tortures that were inflicted on him, is the exact same technique used by the United States: slanted board, head lower than the feet, cloth over the face, water poured on the cloth.

This is what the Bush Administration tried to justify doing. This is what was done to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed one hundred and eighty-three times in a single month. This, plain and simple, is torture.

And if you disagree, Vann Nath can be contacted via an email address found at this website about one of his art gallery displays (and where you can view some of his other paintings showing the tortures he suffered, including several more about waterboarding). I'm sure he'd be pleased to entertain your arguments that waterboarding isn't torture.

 

[Nogbad]

BeaChooser I noticed you skipped Morrigan's scenario.

It is a fact that torture of an individual is notoriously inefficient and would be very unlikely to produce any results in the short time of your scenario. Torturers well knew that the most effective tongue loosener was not to torture the individual but rather a loved one of that individual. To speed things up would you torture (non lethal like) the child of the suspect?

Just so we know how much you value values.

 

[Drysdale]

Just a hypothetical here.

Since it's looking like members of congress were well aware of this, including many democrats.

If Obama,Pelosi,Reid etc knew also and did'nt object should they be prosecuted also and Obama impeached?

 

[Nogbad]

Just a hypothetical here.

Since it's looking like members of congress were well aware of this, including many democrats.

If Obama,Pelosi,Reid etc knew also and did'nt object should they be prosecuted also and Obama impeached?

Now BeAChooser might be swayed by the argument

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Still having difficulty answering my simply hypothetical yes/no question?

Only in your fantasy world has your yes/no question been avoided.

In case you missed it, the real world answer is the law as spelled out in the C.A.T. Part I Section 2.2:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

Nothing vague about that answer. Torture is never justified. Period.

 

[Upchurch]

If Obama,Pelosi,Reid etc knew also and did'nt object should they be prosecuted also and Obama impeached?

I might be wrong about this, but I don't think Obama was even in the US Senate when this was done, but if he was and if he knew and if he was in any position to do anything about it and didn't, then yes, he should be prosecuted.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Just a hypothetical here.

Since it's looking like members of congress were well aware of this, including many democrats.

If Obama,Pelosi,Reid etc knew also and did'nt object should they be prosecuted also and Obama impeached?

Why all the hypotheticals?

Is there evidence in the real world that any of these people knew and didn't object to torture? If so, let's see it.

 

[BeAChooser]

And in the bizarre hypothetical you cited, several of us have shown that you can't possibly know that torture will save lives.

And you can't possibly know that it won't. Would I trade inflicting a little pain on someone if there was a chance I might save hundreds of thousands of lives? If I was all there was standing between the life or death of those people? Yes. In a minute.

And you've said you wouldn't. You wouldn't even inflict a little non-lethal pain in the hopes of saving a millions lives. Or a billion lives. You really must put a lot of value on inflicting a little pain versus completely extinguishing a billion human lives. You must actually think that human life is worthless.

The rule of law means nothing to you?

Does law trump what I hold to be "right" and "wrong"? Sometimes. But not always. It depends of the circumstances and the gravity of the situation (that is what we are talking about here, right?). I don't think a silly law supercedes my own conscience when it comes to possibly preventing the death of hundreds of thousands of people.

Remember ... laws are different in different countries and societies. They are the constructs of man. Therefore they are fallible. We are now in conflict with an islamofascisgt world view that wants to force on other societies a set of laws (read them!) that are nothing like those in the West. Laws that would put the heads of many of you first in line on the beheading block ... literally. That's the irony of this.

Agreements about "legality" must not ALWAYS be allowed to trump common sense and one's owns conscience. Sometimes you should do what is right regardless of what the law says ... and then be willing to take your legal lumps later (I'd be happy to let you try me in the hypothetical scenario I've raised).

You are essentially arguing that inflicting non-lethal pain on one person is the equivalent in terms of "wrongness" ... in terms of "morality" ... of killing hundreds of thousands if not billions of people. Which is ludicrous. This only tells me that you don't really understand the concept of "right and wrong" or "morality". And such unclarity has for a long time been a hallmark of liberals.

 

[Nogbad]

Agreements about "legality" must not ALWAYS be allowed to trump common sense and one's owns conscience.

Interesting, roll another joint please.

Crap! it is past my bedtime. We will have to save these 76 trillion people another night.

 

[BeAChooser]

The thing is if we accept torture as a legitimate means to extract information to save lives (1 or 1,000,000 - not sure the number is relevant really) we can have no complaint if say a captured coalition soldier is tortured to obtain information on troop movements in Afghanistan to save Taliban lives. It is the same principle reversed.

Your analysis presumes there is moral equivalence between the two situations ... between what we are trying to accomplish and what the Taliban is trying to accomplish ... and between our methods and their methods. See what I mean, folks, about people on the left not really understanding "morality" or the concept of "evil". You might want to read these articles (particularly the first) for a further understanding of this defect in the liberal mentality.

http://dennisprager.townhall.com/co...2008/04/15/how_liberals_lost_a_liberal?page=1

http://www.creators.com/opinion/dennis-prager/a-question-for-my-friend-alan-dershowitz.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/jews_shot_in_seattle_left_angr.html

 

[Texas]

[SIZE=+0]
On 18 March 1946, 21 members of the Kempeitai were charged for the torture and murder of civilians in a war criminal trial termed the "Double Tenth" trial.[/SIZE]

http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_111_2005-01-06.html

The Japamese method was far different from waterboarding.

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



In this form of water torture, water is forced down the throat and into the stomach. This happens repeatedly until osmosis causes the cells to explode[citation needed]. It was used as a legal torture and execution method by the courts in France in the 17th and 18th century, was employed against Americans and Chinese during World War II by the Japanese, and was also used against Filipinos by American Forces during the Philippine-American War. The Human Rights Watch organization reports that in the 2000s, security forces in Uganda sometimes forced a detainee to lie face up under an open water spigot.[1]

Water intoxication can result from drinking too much water, and this has caused some fatalities over the years in fraternities during initiation week. For example, a person was hazed to death by Chi Tau of Chico State (California) in 2005 via the forcing of pushups and the drinking of water from a bottle. [2]

 

[Cicero]

[qimg]http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/1015/waterboard3small.jpg[/qimg]

This is what the Bush Administration tried to justify doing. This is what was done to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed one hundred and eighty-three times in a single month. This, plain and simple, is torture.

Yet Mohammed survived this procedure 183 times. What other procedure would have manged to get him to reveal to being the mastermind behind the September 11th attacks, the Richard Reid shoe bombing attempt to blow up an airliner, the Bali nightclub bombing in Indonesia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and various foiled attacks.

Do you feels sorry for Mohammed?

 

[Brainster]

Just a hypothetical here.

Since it's looking like members of congress were well aware of this, including many democrats.

If Obama,Pelosi,Reid etc knew also and did'nt object should they be prosecuted also and Obama impeached?

What did the Speaker of the House know, and when did she know it? I do think impeachment is a bit much but perhaps a censure resolution would be in order.

 

[BeAChooser]

Don't keep spewing non-sense about something that has never happened in order to justify a war crime that has happened.

Notice, lefty, that I haven't remarked on the validity of the case in question in this thread. I haven't suggested that Yoo and Rummy shouldn't be charged if they violated laws. On the contrary ... I even stated that I'd like to see this case come to trial so that we actually do get some resolution on the issue rather than letting the left just use it just for political gain.

No, my comments and questions have all been aimed at understanding whether folks like you really do value human life ... or whether it's just an abstraction. I think your inability to answer a simple yes/no hypothetical speaks volumes regarding that. I think you see moral equivalence between inflicting non-lethal pain on someone and killing hundreds of thousands. I wouldn't think you'd like what you see when I put up that mirror. But then you won't even look in the mirror. Afraid?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And you can't possibly know that it won't. Would I trade inflicting a little pain on someone if there was a chance I might save hundreds of thousands of lives? If I was all there was standing between the life or death of those people? Yes. In a minute.

Let's be clear again: we're talking about torture, which is the intentional infliction of severe mental or physical pain. The discussion is not about "a little pain" by definition.

Does law trump what I hold to be "right" and "wrong"? Sometimes. But not always.

You're not talking about civil disobedience, I take it. I have no problem with that, but part of doing civil disobedience is accepting the legal punishment. In fact, the point is to challenge the law because you believe it's wrong.

In the C.A.T., Article 28 says party states may declare that they don't recognize the competence of the Committee. Article 29 provides a mechanism for amending the Convention. Article 31 provides a way to denounce the Convention (basically how to quit it). To my knowledge none of the people in the Bush administration or anyone else that we're talking about did any of these things.

I think it's clear that they thought they'd get away with this stuff by keeping quiet about it or cooking up a bizarre legal justification. (Though they should have seen that that latter approach wasn't going to float as long as the C.A.T. and the U.S. Code on torture were in effect.)

They were knowingly breaking the law. They should be prosecuted.

 

[A'isha]

The Japamese method was far different from waterboarding.

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

Or maybe it wasn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#World_War_II

During World War II both Japanese troops, especially the Kempeitai, and the officers of the Gestapo,[64] the German secret police, used waterboarding as a method of torture.[65] During the Japanese occupation of Singapore the Double Tenth Incident occurred. This included waterboarding, by the method of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach.[66][67][68]

Chase J. Nielsen, one of the U.S. airmen who flew in the Doolittle raid following the attack on Pearl Harbor, was subjected to waterboarding by his Japanese captors.[69] At their trial for war crimes following the war, he testified "Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I'd get my breath, then they'd start over again… I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death."[29]

The technique described by Nielsen as having been used on him is waterboarding as practiced by the US, not the "water torture" from your own Wiki link.

 

[Drysdale]

Why all the hypotheticals?

Is there evidence in the real world that any of these people knew and didn't object to torture? If so, let's see it.

This hypothetical is actually fairly likely. Obama I dont know, but apparently there were briefings in 2002 regarding waterboarding including dems according to this.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0409/Pelosi_I_didnt_know_about_waterboarding.html

I'm just curious if there's going to be consistency as far as prosecuting all who were aware of it, rep or dem.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What other procedure would have manged to get him to reveal to being the mastermind behind the September 11th attacks, the Richard Reid shoe bombing attempt to blow up an airliner, the Bali nightclub bombing in Indonesia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and various foiled attacks.

Irrelevant. It's the same argument as me trying to say there was no other way for me to get money for my much needed surgery except to resort to armed robbery. Even in that situation, armed robbery is a crime.

Do you feels sorry for Mohammed?

Also irrelevant.

 

[Cicero]

Or maybe it wasn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#World_War_II



The technique described by Nielsen as having been used on him is waterboarding as practiced by the US, not the "water torture" from your own Wiki link.

Hell, the Japanese executed 3 of the 8 captured Doolittle raiders. There is your war crime.