The USA Has Used Waterboarding

[NoZed Avenger]

but, hey, I'm open-minded.

Gah.

I am bringing charges against you in the international courts for waterboarding.


More specifically, reverse-waterboarding.



Well, okay, reverse-coffee-boarding.




Well, okay, you caused me to shoot hot coffee through my nose.





Which is, in a very real sense, raping my wife and daughter in front of me.

 

[Beerina]

How does one pour water up someone's nose?

Here's one way.

 

[Beerina]

You do realize that the US waterboards it's own military (or at least did; I don't know the current practices)? I know somebody who went through it during training. It's a light hearted anecdote to him.

I don't know anyone who tells the raping of their daughters or wives as a light hearted anecdote, but then I don't get out much.

Some of the special services (heck, maybe all marines and navy for all I know) are also drowned as part of training, then rescued, so they can see what it's like.

 

[Garrette]

Some of the special services (heck, maybe all marines and navy for all I know) are also drowned as part of training, then rescued, so they can see what it's like.

Ummm..... No.

 

[Crossbow]

Surprise! Surprise!

Various White House lackeys are now claiming that waterboarding is not torture because other White House lackeys have said that waterboarding is not torture.

I guess it is too bad for those individuals who have been previously convicted for torture by waterboarding in years past that they did not have such a spirited defense, otherwise they may have been able to beat the rap!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080206...use_torture;_ylt=Aid5_gQZSHJ6O5rIstJBiv2yFz4D

White House defends interrogation method

WASHINGTON - The White House on Wednesday defended the use of the interrogation technique known as waterboarding, saying it is legal — not torture as critics argue — and has saved American lives. President Bush could authorize waterboarding for future terrorism suspects if certain criteria are met, a spokesman said.

...

Fratto said waterboarding's use in the past was also approved by the attorney general, meaning it was legal and not torture.

...

"Every enhanced technique that has been used by the Central Intelligence Agency for this program was brought to the Department of Justice and they made a determination that its use under specific circumstances and with safeguards was lawful," Fratto said.

...

 

[headscratcher4]

cb: You know as well as I that it IS torture when done by evil...i.e. when the Khemer Rouge or the Nazis do it, it is torture. Indeed, it is the very deffinition of torture.

However, when we do it, it is not only NOT torture (and just to make sure we'll declare it legal which automatically makes it not torture because torutre is illegal, see?). When we do it, it is an enhanced interogation technique.

See the difference Tortuer vs. Enhanced Interrocation Technique.

At the very least, it is one vs. three words.

Now, as Congress not only doesn't do oversight, is no longer allowed to do oversight, we may never know if any information derived from EIT i.e. waterboarding, was any good or even as good as the Bush Administration claimed. We'll just have to believe the Administration and trust their track record for truthfulness and accuracy.

The fact that most experts in the topic believe it to be inneffective obviously is irrelevant. We don't need no f'n experts. We listened to the experts when we invaded Iraq. They promised us WMDs but there weren't any. So much for expert advice.

Larson is right. If our standard is going to be "does it work" and did we get good information, than why not rape their sisters in front of them? Or rape them, for that matter? Its about the information...indeed, as long as we're going to do it covertly, and declare it -- ex post facto at least -- legal, why not extend it to citizens?

As our founders understood, when it comes to basic rights, the ends justify the means...

Rape their sister, I say, and a good thing too. Infact, rape their sisters while we're pouring water up their noses...better yet.

Rant over.

 

[BPSCG]

The fact that most experts in the topic believe it to be inneffective obviously is irrelevant.

Yeah, yeah, we keep hearing that it's ineffective yada yada yada. Problem is we also hear that it got results. KSM gave up his people after a few seconds of it. It would appear that your "experts in the topic" have an unusual understanding of the meaning of the word, "ineffective." Care to explain to the rest of us what you and they mean by "ineffective"?

 

[King of the Americas]

As kids we used to do this to each other all the time...

Someone's prized rookie card comes up missing, so we'd drunk each other for prolonged periods of time, until the culpret confessed. There were several of us who knew CPR, so no one was ever in any danger.

A lack of oxygen only kills brain cells, and what does that hurt, you've got billions of them.

---

Firstly, "all men are NOT created equally". All AMERICANS are equal, kinda.

"Terrorists" are NOT innocent until proven guilty. They are sub-human, enemy combatants, who have no rights in American custody or anywhere else for that matter.

*Glad we cleared that up.

Back to your lives citizens.

 

[CFLarsen]

You do realize that the US waterboards it's own military (or at least did; I don't know the current practices)? I know somebody who went through it during training. It's a light hearted anecdote to him.

I beg your pardon? Care to provide evidence of anyone going through water boarding during their "training"? Training for what? I have a bunch of journalists on my contact list who would love to hear that story.

We are talking world-breaking news here. So let's hear your sources.

I don't know anyone who tells the raping of their daughters or wives as a light hearted anecdote, but then I don't get out much.

Who said it was supposed to be a "light hearted anecdote"?

They're Wahhabist fundamentalist radicals at best, al-Qaida at worst. They should have no human rights, as they are not human beings at this point. They should be tortured on principle, regardless of whether it brings results.

Again, if you already know what they are and what they have done, why torture them? Why even put them through trials? Execute them, right away!

Larson is right.

I usually am. And, I can even spell my own name...

If our standard is going to be "does it work" and did we get good information, than why not rape their sisters in front of them? Or rape them, for that matter? Its about the information...indeed, as long as we're going to do it covertly, and declare it -- ex post facto at least -- legal, why not extend it to citizens?

As our founders understood, when it comes to basic rights, the ends justify the means...

Rape their sister, I say, and a good thing too. Infact, rape their sisters while we're pouring water up their noses...better yet.

Rant over.

And if we do that, what separates us from them?

Yeah, yeah, we keep hearing that it's ineffective yada yada yada. Problem is we also hear that it got results. KSM gave up his people after a few seconds of it. It would appear that your "experts in the topic" have an unusual understanding of the meaning of the word, "ineffective." Care to explain to the rest of us what you and they mean by "ineffective"?

Oh? Evidence that torture is effective?

Because that's really news!

 

[headscratcher4]

Yeah, yeah, we keep hearing that it's ineffective yada yada yada. Problem is we also hear that it got results. KSM gave up his people after a few seconds of it. It would appear that your "experts in the topic" have an unusual understanding of the meaning of the word, "ineffective." Care to explain to the rest of us what you and they mean by "ineffective"?

All of the torture in the world didn't salvage Algeria or Vietnam for the French. And yes, even the experts agree that it can be effective...

But how would you/we know? You've got no objective info. You've got an Administration with a HUGE stake in the case, saving face, etc. claiming it was "effective" but based on what...oh, of course, it is secret. And they won't can't haven't told Congress, etc.

But, more importantly, it isn't the point and indeed whether the torture worked is, IMO, irrelevant. It is antithical to who we are as a people, a nation of laws, a society dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creators...blah, blah, blah.

This action makes these words meaningless.

So, we lose on a whole bunch of accounts. We lose because a nation of laws is reduced to a nation of presidential whim and ex post facto justification. We lose because we undercut our best international arguments about why we do what we do. We undercut faith in our laws at home and abroad. We lose because we dishonor our history and we make our efforts at Nuremburg, etc., seem more like the victors dictating history, than a shared cultureal commitment to basic human rights and humanity.

But, most of all, imo, we lose because it is a slippery slope. Sure torture alQeda guys, they may tell us the truth (maybe just tell us what we want to hear, they're evil anyway), but why not torture the citizens of allies as well, if we've got questions? Why stop there, why not torture citizens? Oh, it is illegal you say, well no it isn't...the president declared it legal and it isn't torture it is enhanced interrogation when we do it.

In the end it is burning the village to save the village.

And so, I also get to my ultimate question...if it works...why not be open about it? Why not rape their sisters in front of them? Cut off their fingers? Electrocute their balls...after all, it is information we want...and we're the good guys, so it should be ok.

But tell me, don't you have just the slightest bit of worry that we want to use methods of interrogation that Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. have all found "works"...there were a lot of confessions in those regimes...certainly,torture insured that most of them were real.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Ask ConspiRaider. He knows all about waterboarding. Or at least talks like he does.

I know. One is on a board, and the feet are elevated above the head. Water can then go "up one's nose" due to gravity never losing it's characteristic attraction to water molecules.

Not rocket science.

I will also add that it is not something those who get to experience it are in any hurry to repeat.

We now return you all to your regularly scheduled bun fight.

This message was brought to you by the Warner Springs Collective.

DR

 

[King of the Americas]

What headscratcher4 said...

or

What McCain said...

 

[BPSCG]

All of the torture in the world didn't salvage Algeria or Vietnam for the French. And yes, even the experts agree that it can be effective...

Wait a minute, let me check my notes here...

Ah, here it is:

The fact that most experts in the topic believe it to be inneffective obviously is irrelevant.

So which is it? Is it ineffective, or not?

And they won't can't haven't told Congress, etc.

Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

But, more importantly, it isn't the point and indeed whether the torture worked is, IMO, irrelevant.

Funny, it wasn't so irrelevant when you were claiming it didn't work. You really need to pick one side of the argument and stick to it.

It is antithical to who we are as a people, a nation of laws, a society dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creators...blah, blah, blah.

Yeah. So is letting our buildings be blown up, our planes hijacked and crashed, and our citizens murdered.

But, most of all, imo, we lose because it is a slippery slope. Sure torture alQeda guys, they may tell us the truth (maybe just tell us what we want to hear, they're evil anyway),

Then we go back at them again until they give up their information. No, you don't torture someone to get him to confess to a crime already committed, else I would have confessed to the JFK assassination during a recent colonoscopy. But if you're trying to save lives, and nothing else will work, yeah, you bet.

but why not torture the citizens of allies as well, if we've got questions? Why stop there, why not torture citizens? Oh, it is illegal you say, well no it isn't...the president declared it legal and it isn't torture it is enhanced interrogation when we do it.

Okay, now you're driving over the cliff. For starts, KSM is a citizen of an ally - Pakistan. Next, you're heading down the fabled slippery slope; if we torture an international terrorist about to commit mass murder, soon we'll be torturing your grandma for driving 32 miles per hour in a school zone.

But tell me, don't you have just the slightest bit of worry that we want to use methods of interrogation that Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. have all found "works"...there were a lot of confessions in those regimes...certainly,torture insured that most of them were real.

No, they used torture to extract false confessions, not to save innocent lives.

You've already gone on record as saying torture is indeed effective. So is it your position that you would prohibit the use of a tool that can save innocent lives, because those lives aren't worth the pain inflicted on the would-be murderer?

 

[CFLarsen]

So is it your position that you would prohibit the use of a tool that can save innocent lives, because those lives aren't worth the pain inflicted on the would-be murderer?

Why are you so certain that the United States of America - that bastion of freedom and liberty - will torture only to "save innocent lives"? Since when are people suspected of murder guilty of murder? Suspicion gives you to the right to torture?

The harsh reality is, once you start torturing, there is no difference between you and a tyrant. All tyrants start with the solemn promise only to torture the already guilty ones.

 

[Polaris]

Or possibly the victims of unscupulous bounty hunters paid by the US to capture Taliban members. Not terrorists, not fundamentalists, merely aid workers.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/GBlegalLimbo.html



I disagree, even if they were allowed a trial and it were established beyond reasonable doubt that they were guilty of heinous crimes of terrorism, they still have human rights. When we deny them this we ourselves become less human.

The cruelty you speak of violates even animal rights.

You're absolutely right, because these monsters are lower than cockroaches. As far as I'm concerned their belief in Wahhabism and the violent actions based on it means they've waived their status as humans, or even vermin - because vermin don't choose to be vermin. Wahhabists do.

 

[The Atheist]

That's not the issue.

If you know that the person you are torturing has been blowing up things, then why do you need to torture him? Prosecute him instead.

Why is waterboarding any different than raping you, your mother, your sister or your infant daughter, to get you to talk?

In other words: Why do you think torture works to get information?

Ha! The master of hypocrisy strikes again.

Could it have only been two days since you were defending the current military action in Afghanistan?

 

[The Atheist]

You're absolutely right, because these monsters are lower than cockroaches. As far as I'm concerned their belief in Wahhabism and the violent actions based on it means they've waived their status as humans, or even vermin - because vermin don't choose to be vermin. Wahhabists do.

Damn right - let's nuke the lot of them.

 

[fuelair]

They're Wahhabist fundamentalist radicals at best, al-Qaida at worst. They should have no human rights, as they are not human beings at this point. They should be tortured on principle, regardless of whether it brings results.

I am with you IF/ONLY IF they are fully proved to be same. I do agree with those who say people will lie under torture - and I do not disagree. With such, they give you data, you stop the torture, the good cop comes in and says"Man, I sure hope you told those guys the truth. They were discussing what they will do if they find you were lying and I almost threw up my lunch!!"
(Looks really concerned as if thinking of it for the first time, "Y ou didn't lie to them did you - man I hope not..." Unless the wabi is a total idiot or exceptionally good at psychology he'll spill whatever he messed up or guarantee he told the truth. If it turns out he didn't, well he's still there and he was warned. I have no respect for, consideration for, interest in the existence of, condition of (I'm sure you have the idea) terrorists.

 

[CFLarsen]

Ha! The master of hypocrisy strikes again.

Could it have only been two days since you were defending the current military action in Afghanistan?

Being in favor of ousting the Taliban automatically means you are in favor of torture?

What kind of idiotic argument is that?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Being in favor of ousting the Taliban automatically means you are in favor of torture?

What kind of idiotic argument is that?

An argument he didn't make? That kind of argument?

DR