The USA Has Used Waterboarding

[Soapy Sam]

I think the same, but, hey, I'm open-minded. I just want to know what the difference is.

If there is one.

Claus the functional difference is this- pour water up my snout and I punch you in the mouth. Rape my daughter (if I had one) and you could stop worrying about sky marshalls, because your life would be measured in minutes.

I suspect you would probably give a similar reply yourself, if pressed.

 

[The Atheist]

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

What kind of idiotic argument is that?

No Claus, now you're just being silly, even Darth pointed out that you have it wrong. I'm pretty sure you're being your usual deliberately obtuse self, but I'll make it very simple for you:

You support Denmark attacking Afghanistan.

Denmark is an ally of USA in the continuing occupation of Afghanistan and the ongoing fighting.

Many of the illegally-detained Afghans still at Guantanamo were captured in Afghanistan.

Some of those detainees have been tortured.

Some of the information upon which the brave Viking soldiers base their actions has probably been obtained by torture.

You are [claiming to be] anti-torture.

 

[WildCat]

Many of the illegally-detained Afghans still at Guantanamo were captured in Afghanistan.

Are you seriously claiming it is illegal to detain enemies captured in a war?

 

[Cylinder]

Are you seriously claiming it is illegal to detain enemies captured in a war?

I'll claim that it's illegal not to capture and detain certain enemy combatants in the course of an armed conflict.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Are you seriously claiming it is illegal to detain enemies captured in a war?

I'll claim it's illegal to continue to detain them without demonstrating they're really enemies.

 

[Cylinder]

I'll claim it's illegal to continue to detain them without demonstrating they're really enemies.

Each detainee has had this demonstration by means of a CSRT.

 

[The Atheist]

Are you seriously claiming it is illegal to detain enemies captured in a war?

Must be the day for strawmen - please show where I ever claimed such a thing.

Just in case you have some kind of reading difficulty, I'll repeat what I did say:

Many of the illegally-detained Afghans still at Guantanamo were captured in Afghanistan.

They are not being held in terms of any international convention that I'm aware of, so if that's changed, please let me know.

 

[The Atheist]

Each detainee has had this demonstration by means of a CSRT.

Oh my god! Are you a skeptic or what? A secret tribunal, staffed by unknown persons, using classified evidence, run by a not-even-slightly-independent body has approved their status.

(Appropriate name, mate - a round hole with nowt in it.)

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus the functional difference is this- pour water up my snout and I punch you in the mouth. Rape my daughter (if I had one) and you could stop worrying about sky marshalls, because your life would be measured in minutes.

I suspect you would probably give a similar reply yourself, if pressed.

But the point is that you are not able to do any of these things, because you are on the receiving end. You are the prisoner. You can't do anything about either action, both meant to break you.

No Claus, now you're just being silly, even Darth pointed out that you have it wrong. I'm pretty sure you're being your usual deliberately obtuse self, but I'll make it very simple for you:

You support Denmark attacking Afghanistan.

Denmark is an ally of USA in the continuing occupation of Afghanistan and the ongoing fighting.

Many of the illegally-detained Afghans still at Guantanamo were captured in Afghanistan.

Some of those detainees have been tortured.

Some of the information upon which the brave Viking soldiers base their actions has probably been obtained by torture.

You are [claiming to be] anti-torture.

I was right, then.

Following that "reasoning", you are against the Allies fighting Hitler. Gee, are you a Nazi?

 

[Cylinder]

Oh my god! Are you a skeptic or what?

I view skepticism not as something one becomes but as a process one follows. For example:

A secret tribunal...

Secret how? The CSRT's procedures are subject to review by US Federal Court,

Subject to subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any final decision of a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that an alien is properly detained as an enemy combatant.

and Congress.

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report setting forth--

(A) the procedures of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals and the Administrative Review Boards established by direction of the Secretary of Defense that are in operation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for determining the status of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay or to provide an annual review to determine the need to continue to detain an alien who is a detainee ; and

(B) the procedures in operation in Afghanistan and Iraq for a determination of the status of aliens detained in the custody or under the physical control of the Department of Defense in those countries.

The procedures are public information.

A record is made of all CSRT sessions.

All Tribunal sessions except those relating to deliberations or voting shall be recored on audiotape.

The record is also made available to the detainee's Legal Advisor, who is allowed to include comments into that record.

staffed by unknown persons,...

Unknown to whom? The DoD directive linked above regulated the makeup on a CSRT board. In general, they are composed of three neutral officers (one 0-6, two 0-4 or better) who cannot have had involvement with the detainees' apprehension, detention, interrogation or any previous determination for the individual detainee. The individual board members' identity must be recorded at the beginning of each CSRT session.

using classified evidence,...

The CSRT uses classified evidence that can be reviewed by the detainee's advisor (F(8)).

run by a not-even-slightly-independent body

I would argue that the body that runs the show is Congress (and the courts) but let's look at the day-to-day operations. As pointed out above, by reg the board must be neutral, professional and have no conflict of interest regarding the detainee. I mean, it's not your local Code Pink chapter, to be sure, but it is made up of a group of professionals, subject to review and oversight and consistent with international law (see Geneva III, Article 5.)

ETA: The DoD has posted summaries and transcripts for many of the hearings online.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

The CSRT uses classified evidence that can be reviewed by the detainee's advisor (F(8)).

That just seems to not be the case. Apparently a government claim that a person is an enemy combatant is enough evidence to have them classified as such. For example in the following case the only evidence the person in question was a enemy combatant was a unsigned memo stating that he was! This memo was never shown to the lawyer for the defense and only leaked as a snafu to the public. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3868-2005Mar26?language=printer

LLH

 

[Ocelot]

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.

I diassagree with violent Wahhabists for the same reason that you do. They make a choice to dehumanise their enemy falsely justifying outrageous and inhumane violence as a means to an end. I also disgree with your advocacy of violence for much the same reasons. Therefore I'm failing to understand how you agree with yourself.

What is it about those who take political Islam to violent extremes that you do not see in your proposed actions in opposition to them?

Both the torturers and the terrorists justify their actions as a means to an end. Both dehumanise their victims.

I happen to believe that neither the radical Islamist who advocates terrorism nor you who advocates torture have waived your human rights. I don't think it's possible for either of you to do so. Those rights are intrinsic. The value we place on your life is not yours to deny. Nonetheless the suggestions are reprehensible, the actions even more so. In the interests of harm reduction, in support of the human rights of those innocent people you would harm it is desirable to stop both.

And yes I did say innocent, you have not yet commented ion aid workers being captured by bounty hunters and held without, charge trial or evidence in Camp Delta in denial of their legal rights.

Just as terrorism does little to stop the percieved harm the Islamist sees being done to the Muslim world by the west, torture and the denial of human rights in Camp Delta does little to stop the terrorist threat. What they certainly do achieve is that opposibng sides use them as justifactions for their actions. They fuel each other's hatred.

 

[fuelair]

I
.

I don't know if you have read any of my other posts. You might want to if you decide to respond. Short version: I fully support fast occuring slow executions of terrorists and the unlimited holding of any combatants not in the uniform of a recognized, government sponsored army. However, re: Guantanamo and several other CIA/US military lesser known holding areas, the evidence is overwhelming that regardless of rules and procedures, a rather large number of people who are/were demonstrably not terrorists or illegal combatants have indeed been held and rendered in some cases. The process may have been given lip service, but it was not followed correctly or effectively. You are free to believe otherwise but I want our soldiers killing enemies, not dealing with (and probably turning into enemies) people who may never like us (again, in some cases) but are not/were not doing anything that should have put them in our custody for any length of time.

 

[The Atheist]

Following that "reasoning", you are against the Allies fighting Hitler. Gee, are you a Nazi?

Good on you, Claus - exactly what I suspected. You cannot answer the question so turn immediately to gibberish. Well played.

I don't know if you have read any of my other posts. You might want to if you decide to respond. Short version: I fully support fast occuring slow executions of terrorists and the unlimited holding of any combatants not in the uniform of a recognized, government sponsored army. However, re: Guantanamo and several other CIA/US military lesser known holding areas, the evidence is overwhelming that regardless of rules and procedures, a rather large number of people who are/were demonstrably not terrorists or illegal combatants have indeed been held and rendered in some cases. The process may have been given lip service, but it was not followed correctly or effectively. You are free to believe otherwise but I want our soldiers killing enemies, not dealing with (and probably turning into enemies) people who may never like us (again, in some cases) but are not/were not doing anything that should have put them in our custody for any length of time.

I was going to respond to Cylinder, but I figure that when two people at the exact opposite end of the spectrum agree that the process was BS, we're definitely correct.

 

[gtc]

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 think you are showing your ignorance of the US military (and the media - 'world breaking news'?).

Again, if you already know what they are and what they have done, why torture them?

What they have done is not the issue, what they know about a future attack is the issue. If you are going to argue against something, you should get your facts straight first.

But the point is that you are not able to do any of these things, because you are on the receiving end. You are the prisoner. You can't do anything about either action, both meant to break you.

That is either a bizarre criteria for deciding the merit of waterboarding or completely beside the point.

Prisoners also don't want to be incarcerated after a fair trial, and they can't do anything about it either. That doesn't make incarceration equivalent to child rape.

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?

'Does it work' is not the only standard. It is a necessary criteria, obviously, but not sufficient.

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

I see.

Claus the functional difference is this- pour water up my snout and I punch you in the mouth. Rape my daughter (if I had one) and you could stop worrying about sky marshalls, because your life would be measured in minutes.

Exactly.

It would be possible to mount an argument against waterboarding, assuming it is effective, that doesn't pretend that waterboarding is the same as child rape. It puzzles me that some many are unable to do so.

 

[Matteo Martini]

I like your use of the scare quotes, as if you believe Islamist terrorism isn't real.

You are right.
The dividing line between Islamic terrorism and "war-on-terror" is getting more and more blurred..
If you can explain to me what going to war in Iraq had to do with Islamic terrorism..

 

[CFLarsen]

I think you are showing your ignorance of the US military (and the media - 'world breaking news'?).

Look at what roger claimed.

What they have done is not the issue, what they know about a future attack is the issue. If you are going to argue against something, you should get your facts straight first.

Why do you think torture will get you the right answers?

That is either a bizarre criteria for deciding the merit of waterboarding or completely beside the point.

Prisoners also don't want to be incarcerated after a fair trial, and they can't do anything about it either. That doesn't make incarceration equivalent to child rape.

But you aren't torturing the suspects after a fair trial, are you? You are hauling in suspects and torturing them without trials.

'Does it work' is not the only standard. It is a necessary criteria, obviously, but not sufficient.

It isn't the only standard? What else do you use torture for, if not to extract information?

 

[BPSCG]

You are right.
The dividing line between Islamic terrorism and "war-on-terror" is getting more and more blurred..
If you can explain to me what going to war in Iraq had to do with Islamic terrorism..

No. I already had this discussion with LLH, on this thread. If you think there is little or no difference between terrorists and those who are fighting them - i.e., if you think there is no difference between a rapist and the woman who digs her fingernails into his eyes - then I have nothing to discuss with you.

Piss off, as the Brits say.

 

[PogoPedant]

No. I already had this discussion with LLH, on this thread. If you think there is little or no difference between terrorists and those who are fighting them - i.e., if you think there is no difference between a rapist and the woman who digs her fingernails into his eyes - then I have nothing to discuss with you.

Piss off, as the Brits say.

The disagreement lies in the latter part of the analogy. It could go "(...) no difference between a rapist and the woman who digs her fingernails into people's eyes on general principles".

 

[BPSCG]

The disagreement lies in the latter part of the analogy. It could go "(...) no difference between a rapist and the woman who digs her fingernails into people's eyes on general principles".

Another "the U.S. is no better" moral equivalence nutjob heard from.

BPSG, please refrain from personal attacks. Attack the argument, and not the person making the argument.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer