• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Waterboarding Rocks!

KSM is scheduled for prosecution so your point makes no sense.

So we already had the entire conspiracy in prison and this is the attack we stopped?

Seems a bit far fetched, like torturing someone to confess to prove that you needed to torture him in the first place. It worked great for the inquisition they found all those jews and heretics, but as a legal principle it seems rather lacking.
 
My bad, I was fighting sarcasm with sarcasm. But that does beg the question: how far do we push the fear thing? The "Torture by Insect" thread is actually having this exact same debate. A guy with an insect phobia was put in a box with harmless bugs, but he thought he would get stung. That's simply fear. Like the fear of drowning, or the fear of being beaten, shot, etc. IMO fear is not torture, silly comparisons aside.

It is just fun locking claustrophobics in coffins for days at a time. Sure they tend to come out insane but there is nothing wrong with driving people insane.
 
My bad, I was fighting sarcasm with sarcasm. But that does beg the question: how far do we push the fear thing? The "Torture by Insect" thread is actually having this exact same debate. A guy with an insect phobia was put in a box with harmless bugs, but he thought he would get stung. That's simply fear. Like the fear of drowning, or the fear of being beaten, shot, etc. IMO fear is not torture, silly comparisons aside.

How far do you want to push the fear thing? Would you have no problem, say, with pulling the suspect out in front of a firing squad and firing blanks at him? Or putting his wife and children out in front of a firing squad and firing blanks at them? After all, all you are causing is fear.

How about severe sleep deprivation? All it causes is brain damage. Or electric shock? It causes no physical scars, only pain. Is that the standard that you want?
 
Don't get me wrong: waterboarding sucks. But one thing that's often overlooked is the fact that the suspects are never in any danger.

Bull flops piled to the rafters! It's partial drowning. That is by no definition acceptable to a rational human being a non-life-threatening treatment.

Yoo deserves to be waterboarded. No one else in the world does. Everybody else with a conscience and the supposed education to make that decision knows it is First Degree Assault.

He should never be allowed to practice or teach law again, unless it is to a sex offender fifty pounds and six inches bigger than he is, sharing the same sleeping quarters.

At least Rummy and Gonzo have the excuse of being abysmally ignorant.
 
It's a good thing that torture techniques were at least used for a noble cause.
Report: Abusive tactics were used to find Iraq-al Qaida link

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration put relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.

...

The use of abusive interrogation — widely considered torture — as part of Bush's quest for a rationale to invade Iraq came to light as the Senate issued a major report tracing the origin of the abuses and President Barack Obama opened the door to prosecuting former U.S. officials for approving them.

...

A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue said that Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld demanded that intelligence agencies and interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration.

"There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used," the former senior intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.

"The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there."

It was during this period that CIA interrogators waterboarded two alleged top al Qaida detainees repeatedly — Abu Zubeida at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Mohammed 183 times in March 2003 — according to a newly released Justice Department document.

"There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people to push harder," he continued.

"Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn't any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies."

Senior administration officials, however, "blew that off and kept insisting that we'd overlooked something, that the interrogators weren't pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information," he said.

A former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, told Army investigators in 2006 that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were under "pressure" to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.

"While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq," Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. "The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results."

Excerpts from Burney's interview appeared in a full, declassified report on a two-year investigation into detainee abuse released on Tuesday by the Senate Armed Services Committee.

...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html
 
Yes, it would be wrong.

Unless strong and irrefutable evidence is found that President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney knowingly and willingly broke the law in their dealings with Yoo’s department, they should not be prosecuted. Even if that’s the finding, the Obama Administration should move with extreme care in bringing charges, because of bad precedents it would set.

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/4323
They ordered to torture people, how is that not breaking the law?

Whether a couple of lawyers tried to justify it or not, they still committed war crimes.

If the U.S. wasn't a superpower, Bush and Cheney would have long been shipped off to The Hague.
 
Waterboarding is really messed up, but the suspects are in no imminent danger, so governments apparently let it slide.
Pulling out someone's fingernails doesn't put anyone in any imminent danger either.
 
With many caveats.
We signed and ratified the thing, and it's got this language in it:

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

What do you mean "with many caveats"? Were we crossing our fingers behind our backs when we made this into U.S. law (by signing and ratifying it)?
 
IMO fear is not torture, silly comparisons aside.
The definitions of torture in both the U.N. Convention Against Torture and the U.S. Code include mental pain and suffering.

Your opinion is at odds with the law.

ETA: Your opinion is more like that of Gonzo and Yoo who said that for something to be torture it must be pain that is equivalent to organ failure, loss of bodily function or even death. Having said that, I'd still go after the cases where the prisoner was tortured to death first. There can be no doubt that those were in fact torture.
 
Last edited:
What is tortured but the fear? If you didn't fear pain, mutilation, death and so on you couldn't be tortured!
 
So anytime a suspect being questioned gets scared (whatever the tactic), it can be considered torture.
No. I addressed this spurious argument in one of the other threads. It boils down to saying this:
Waterboarding isn't torture because it's somehow similar to X (where X is something that is obviously not torture).

Waterboarding is torture because it fits the definition of torture (see below).
Where is the line drawn?
In both the U.N. Convention Against Torture and the U.S. Code, for it to be torture, a government agent must intentionally inflict severe mental or physical pain.

And who gets to draw it?
We did. The same way "we" draw other legal lines. The U.N. Convention Against Torture was signed and ratified by the U.S., so it is therefore a part of U.S. law itself. Further, part of the C.A.T. required nations that signed to pass their own laws, and the U.S. has such laws.
 
What is tortured but the fear? If you didn't fear pain, mutilation, death and so on you couldn't be tortured!

Good point, but I don't think that's the legal distinction. I know in regular torts, that battery is defined as a harmful touch, while assault is inducing the fear of a harmful touch. So fear has a place in law.

With the definition of torture, though, the elements seem to be a government agent* intentionally inflicting severe pain (mental or physical) on someone for the purpose of getting information, or a confession, or as punishment.

ETA: Fear would be one of perhaps several kinds of severe mental pain that could be inflicted.

*There is another usage of "torture" in criminal law. Many states in the U.S. use torture as an aggravating factor in other crimes. Here's a pretty good paper that looks at the various state laws on that topic. It's not really the same as the torture being talked about here.
 
Last edited:
Bull flops piled to the rafters! It's partial drowning. That is by no definition acceptable to a rational human being a non-life-threatening treatment.

Yoo deserves to be waterboarded. No one else in the world does. Everybody else with a conscience and the supposed education to make that decision knows it is First Degree Assault.

:rolleyes:

At least Rummy and Gonzo have the excuse of being abysmally ignorant.

Keep them company much?
 
Well, at least the liberal posters on this board will stop claiming that you don't get any useful information out of "enhanced interrogation techniques".

For about two weeks anyway they'll go back to the "morally wrong" argument. Which is the only argument that's worth having, but now at least we know there's something to be placed on the other side of the scales.
 
Well, at least the liberal posters on this board will stop claiming that you don't get any useful information out of "enhanced interrogation techniques".

For about two weeks anyway they'll go back to the "morally wrong" argument. Which is the only argument that's worth having, but now at least we know there's something to be placed on the other side of the scales.

I have seen no proof that the intel was the result of waterboarding, or that the intel is totally correct. We need to first see some convictions of terror suspects based on admissible evidence. We need to see some video tapes of the interogation, and we need to see proof that the CIA dirtbag is not just using waterboarding to hide that fact that he got the intel as a result of illegal wiretaps (which he could have made legal by running them by the FISA court.)
 
I translate that as "We're the US of A and there is not a bloody thing anyone can do if we decide to go rogue on your butts."

I would actually like to live in a civilized country. This used to be one, and could be again, but the role that critters like Rummy, Gonzo and Yoo play in shaping it needs to be sharply curtailed, like made small enough to flush down the toilet.

(I'll be there willing to tip the lever, BTW.)

When was this exactly?

The USA was civilized when JFK assassinated Diem? Attempted on numerous occasions to assassinate Castro?

If the USA was "civilized" in war it wouldn't have defeated the Germans and the Japanese in WWII.
 

Back
Top Bottom