Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Playboy Journalist Waterborded (Video)
FilipinoFury
Member Posts: 1,056
To the point.
On Time? On Target? Never Quit?
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
FilipinoFury
Member Posts: 1,056
To the point.
On Time? On Target? Never Quit?
Comments
Yeah, that's torture in my book.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Yea, that is messed up. There is no way we should be using that for anything.
The Official God FAQ
Torture.
BUT
There's gotta be a certain level a craziness required to turn yourself into a human guided missile and I don't think the average American, journalists especially, have it.
My youtube MMO gaming channel
I agree, but what does that have to do with our own morality?
The Official God FAQ
I agree, but what does that have to do with our own morality?
You can extinguish a lit candle by pinching the wick with your fingertips. What does it take to put out a house fire?
My youtube MMO gaming channel
Pretty sure you could make someone tell anything by doing that so it's pretty ineffective, not to mention inhuman. Terrorists may be inhuman and crazy, but if we, who are not terrorists, practice this kind of shit we're just as bad as they are.
When our streets are cordoned off with razor wire and road blocks to stop suicide bombers, we'll be just as bad as they are.
My youtube MMO gaming channel
Great link.
I think Sean Hannity just pissed his pants. He chickened out already.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Nope, not torture.
When I was nine, I nearly drowned from a rip current. Looking back, the scariest part was that it was real - that I could have really drowned. This, on the other hand, may be uncomfortable, but certainly is not torture as they will not drown.
You can die from waterboarding.
The people this is being used on view the people doing it to them as the enemy. Do you trust the enemy to stop the water before you die?
And even if you did almost drown (which I don't believe), I'm guessing you were holding your breath and not having water forced into your nose while immobilized.
Oh and tell Chase Jay Nielsen that waterboarding isn't torture. He flew into Japan in the doolittle raid. He was captured and held hostage for 40 months. During that time he was water boarded. After he was rescued he testified in a war crimes trial against his captors. Water boarding was defined as torture in that trial.
Many other Japanese water boarders were executed for torturing American soldiers.
Calling it necessary torture is one thing, saying it isn't torture is idiotic.
The Official God FAQ
Nobody said waterboarding was comfortable nor is it meant to be. In the case of the CIA using it, It was intended to gather information quickly for the purpose of saving lives, which it did. We know that. The argument that you can get people to tell you anything by waterboarding does not hold water (no pun intended), because this technigue was not used to procure a confession, it was used to stop future terrorist attacks. That kind of information can be verified. A confession cannot. Also, those against it point to the use of waterboarding by Pol Pot against his own Cambodian citizens. Presumably for the aforementioned reason, to get someone to confess. The CIA used it totally to safeguard innocent lives. So the purpose for which it was used is also important.
On the issue of whether or not it qualifies as torture, I still say no. But I will admit that the term "enhanced" interrogation is deceptive. Harsh interrogation is probably more accurate. But the video linked is proof enough for me that it is not torture. Because the journalist was willing to be subjected to it. How many people do you think would voluntarily be subjected to being flogged, or having bones broken, or being electrocuted, or having bamboo shoots stuck under their fingernails?
You can die from waterboarding.
The people this is being used on view the people doing it to them as the enemy. Do you trust the enemy to stop the water before you die?
And even if you did almost drown (which I don't believe), I'm guessing you were holding your breath and not having water forced into your nose while immobilized.
Oh and tell Chase Jay Nielsen that waterboarding isn't torture. He flew into Japan in the doolittle raid. He was captured and held hostage for 40 months. During that time he was water boarded. After he was rescued he testified in a war crimes trial against his captors. Water boarding was defined as torture in that trial.
Many other Japanese water boarders were executed for torturing American soldiers.
Calling it necessary torture is one thing, saying it isn't torture is idiotic.
Excellent points.
Also, if anyone noted in the video, the experience is so disorienting and traumatic, that even the guy going through it acknowledged that he could have had a heart attack going through it. I think I noticed that part because I paid attention to the talking, and not just the images.
Amazing how a little thing like paying attention does for your arguments.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Then he was like you and underestimated it.
It is a VERY powerful torture technique. Many a psycological study have been done interviewing victims of this torture.
In this case its not a matter of opinion, your just flat out wrong.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
My opinion on waterboarding: Obviously a psychological method of torture which induces great fear and most importantly panic. Panicing or Panic attacks can cause heart attacks making it a physical threat to the human body. So yes I see it as torture.
Do I think it's okay for the CIA to use? Of course. Though I think a more humane way of extracting valuable information would be to lock said priosner in a dark room with heavy metal music blaring loud enough to ensure they can't sleep and leave them there until they talk. Or to put it short, drive them nuts.
You can die from waterboarding.
The people this is being used on view the people doing it to them as the enemy. Do you trust the enemy to stop the water before you die?
And even if you did almost drown (which I don't believe), I'm guessing you were holding your breath and not having water forced into your nose while immobilized.
Oh and tell Chase Jay Nielsen that waterboarding isn't torture. He flew into Japan in the doolittle raid. He was captured and held hostage for 40 months. During that time he was water boarded. After he was rescued he testified in a war crimes trial against his captors. Water boarding was defined as torture in that trial.
Many other Japanese water boarders were executed for torturing American soldiers.
Calling it necessary torture is one thing, saying it isn't torture is idiotic.
Excellent points.
Also, if anyone noted in the video, the experience is so disorienting and traumatic, that even the guy going through it acknowledged that he could have had a heart attack going through it. I think I noticed that part because I paid attention to the talking, and not just the images.
Amazing how a little thing like paying attention does for your arguments.
Wrong. Evidence obtained from torture cannot be used in a trial, secondly, people will admit to anything when tortured, hell if i was tortured like that i'd admit to any god damn thing, i'd even say i was Osama Bin Laden to get them to stop. Until it happens to you, you'll never know how bad it is no matter how much bull crap republican 'evidence' you link...
"If they can make Penicillin out of mouldy bread, they can sure make something out of you," - Muhammed Ali
I don't care whether you believe me or not, but just to address a point, no I wasn't holding my breath. If you know anything what a riptide is then you would know you're completely helpless - especially when you're nine. You can't get enough breath to hold.
And yes, I am not disputing the point that someone could die from waterboarding. However, what you and everyone who oppose it fail to realize - if proper training to harness a technique is in place, it will be an effective interrogation tool without permanent harm.
Now, no one who opposes such techniques are putting forth any alternatives. Obama uses the Army Field Manual as a guide. That is laughable. Under the field guide you cannot even insult, let alone put forth any fear, during an interrogation. What is acceptable if there is an imminent attack on US soil? Tickling?
So lets find out what people who know ABOUT waterboarding say.
Let's ask Christopher Hitchins, Conservative journalist and now citizen of the United States, who volunteered to be waterboarded what he thought:
The law says this:
Definition of torture
Article 1 of the Convention defines torture as:
Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1
The current U.S. Attorney General says:
Asked just minutes into his confirmation hearings whether waterboarding qualified as torture, Holder was unequivocal in his response.
"If you look at the history of the use of that technique used by the Khmer Rouge, used in the inquisition, used by the Japanese and prosecuted by us as war crimes, we prosecuted our own soldiers in Vietnam, I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, waterboarding is torture," said the former deputy Attorney General.
----------------------------------
The United States' top military brass say about waterboarding:
"Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation".
Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Jack Rives, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General, Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier Gen. Kevin Sandkuhler, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, unanimously and unambiguously agreed that such conduct is inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law, to include Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
These guys agree:
Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02
Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000
Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93
Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.)
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88
Why don't you try it? You might change your mind.
I never will understand that the people who claim waterboarding isn't torture are the same people who never tried it. Coincidentally, they also are among the same people yelling for a war or an invasion someplace, but have never even served in the military. Classic definition of internet tough guys.
Please provide your proof and facts to the contrary; not your [i]opinion[/].
"TO MICHAEL!"
I think you meant that for Dekron, or someone else, lol.
I happen to agree waterboarding is torture beyond the shadow of a doubt.
"TO MICHAEL!"
What is amazing to me is just how little water he poured on his face and it caused that much chaos on the brain and body...wow.
I bet I'd last less then ten seconds in that situcation as I already have enough of an issue with water going in my nose if i'm swimming lol.
however....
When i think of torture, i think of being beaten over and over, being stung with scorpions, being dunked in a bucket....beaten again... broken bones....electrocution....
this was VERY quiet, mild, and low keyed for "torture." Don't get me wrong...I'd be trying to confess before they even started to do it if I were on that table lol.
I guess it comes down to this....
1. I reject the "we're just as bad as they are..." when trying to argue against this. NO. this isn't killing 3000 people that are completely innocent.
2. this is a form of justice being served in my opinion...These men are ENEMY that want to kill or have killed ppl for no reason other than they are different than they are. (omg, ultimate racism huh?)
3. If a murderer gets this treatment and then tells us info that saved lives of ONE person....a murderer got what he deserved, and lives were saved......sadly, i bet we'll never put those guys in front of a fire squad, or injection by needle until dead.... so stop complaining about this, last I heard they're already chilling out in some hotel after being taken from club gitmo.
First, I doubt you'd last 10 seconds. And what does that say if you can only last ten seconds against something you don't think is torture? That it's pretty bad.
Second, you are assuming every person we'd waterboard would be guilty, without having ever established their guilt.
Third, Reagan signed this:
Article 1.
1. 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 for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Article 2.
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. 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.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
According to that, there is no such thing as "They killed 3,000 people so they deserve to be waterboarded." This says torture of any kind is not "justice." It says there is NO reason whatsoever that the United States can torture. Not to "save lives", not for "information", not for "justice", "payback", or just because we don't like someone and think they are guilty and plotting something horrific. It's what makes the United States better than places like Bosnia. We have laws that we FOLLOW.
Again, it continues to amaze me how you people who keep posting this nonsense argument continue to say the law doesn't matter-- facts don't matter-- and your OPINION trumps all of that-- then go off to another thread, start posting links, pics and testimonials and ridicule people who don't agree with your proof that Milli Vanilli was that Milli Vanilli was the best band evah.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Excellent points.
Also, if anyone noted in the video, the experience is so disorienting and traumatic, that even the guy going through it acknowledged that he could have had a heart attack going through it. I think I noticed that part because I paid attention to the talking, and not just the images.
Amazing how a little thing like paying attention does for your arguments.
Wrong. Evidence obtained from torture cannot be used in a trial, secondly, people will admit to anything when tortured, hell if i was tortured like that i'd admit to any god damn thing, i'd even say i was Osama Bin Laden to get them to stop. Until it happens to you, you'll never know how bad it is no matter how much bull crap republican 'evidence' you link...
Um, you two are on the same side of the argument, so I'm not sure why you are disagreeing with him.
On the possibility of the subject dying from waterboarding, there was a doctor present for every waterboarding session to monitor his vital signs. Something I doubt you would find at an enemy interrogation.
Although I'm sure there are some who are against the use of waterboarding on principal, this whole thing is being driven by people who have an intense hatred for Bush and Cheney, as I mentioned before. And he would have found himself attacked no matter what his administration had done. Let me illustrate.
As I also have said, the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad led to the prevention of a 9/11 style attack on Los Angeles. Now let's suppose that we had had Mohammad in our custody and we did not waterboard him. And let's say, God forbid, that Al Qaida had successfully executed that attack on LA, killing thousands more Americans. And then suppose it had been discovered after the attack that we learned Mohammad knew of the impending attack while he was in our custody and nothing we had tried on him was able to extract that information. Does anyone honestly believe that the Bush haters would have said, "you know, we're willing to give President Bush points for doing the right thing by not using harsh interrogation methods on captured terrorists, even though it led to the deaths of thousands of Americans?"
In fact, the attacks on him would have been 100 times more intense. It would have been something more like, "you mean to tell me that we had a man in custody who knew of this attack before it happened and the Bush administration didn't get that information out of him?" There would have been instant calls for Bush's impeachment. And anyone who believes otherwise is lying to themselves. So when it comes down to a choice between taking heat for waterboarding terrorists and taking heat for potentially costing the lives of thousands of Americans, I would say his administration made the right choice.
Not to change the subject, but thank you for that joke. That one made me laugh for a long time.
I think we should save time. Let's cut to the ending of any waterboarding thread, shall we?
On the subject of waterboarding, it's always going to end up this way....
Me and several other posters are going to prove it is beyond the shadow of the doubt torture, that the United States signed a treaty saying we won't engage in it, and there is no debate the vast majority of people in the United States, our military, government officials and the world law also agrees that it's illegal.
You and several posters like you are going to give your personal opinions, tepid attempts at jokes, and no proof whatsoever that waterboarding isn't torture. You will go through every stall tactic, distraction, and insult to deflect the conversation about the legality of it. You'll link to other opinion pieces who have no more evidential fact than you do, but tons of opinion. You will never provide a legal opinion supporting waterboarding other than Bush's handpick man. In fact, the only people who don't think waterboarding is torture are the very types of people you'd try to waterboard. You wish to keep your heads in the sand long enough for it to blow over until, you hope dearly, there is some other attack on the U.S. so you can say we should have broken the law and "we were right."
You people would rather win an argument than keep your integrity, or the country's, halfway intact. It's past sad. It's pretty disgusting really.
You bore me with your deflections. And yes, it WAS to change the subject.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I think we should save time. Let's cut to the ending of any waterboarding thread, shall we?
On the subject of waterboarding, it's always going to end up this way....
Me and several other posters are going to prove it is beyond the shadow of the doubt torture, that the United States signed a treaty saying we won't engage in it, and there is no debate the vast majority of people in the United States, our military, government officials and the world law also agrees that it's illegal.
You and several posters like you are going to give your personal opinions, tepid attempts at jokes, and no proof whatsoever that waterboarding isn't torture. You will go through every stall tactic, distraction, and insult to deflect the conversation about the legality of it. You'll link to other opinion pieces who have no more evidential fact than you do, but tons of opinion. You will never provide a legal opinion supporting waterboarding other than Bush's handpick man. In fact, the only people who don't think waterboarding is torture are the very types of people you'd try to waterboard. You wish to keep your heads in the sand long enough for it to blow over until, you hope dearly, there is some other attack on the U.S. so you can say we should have broken the law and "we were right."
You people would rather win an argument than keep your integrity, or the country's, halfway intact. It's past sad. It's pretty disgusting really.
You bore me with your deflections. And yes, it WAS to change the subject.
What he said.
- LC
What is your proof that it is torture? The hollow words of a few men who haven't got the balls to do what is necessary for the safety of this country? You state law; however, it was lawful under the Bush administration. You're circular logic does not prove you are right.
You say it is illegal because of how it is interpreted under the current administration, yet it was interpreted under the previous administration that it was not. So, what happens with the next administration? What happens if they decide, once again, that it is interpreted as a legal method of interrogation? Will you then state it is not torture because by law, it is not?
You can continue to post the opinions of retired generals as if they truly matter in the eyes of the American people. Shall we post past US generals position on the support and necessity of slavery? Will that justify slavery? I'm not at all comparing waterboarding to slavery, only the idiocity of a particular military commander's stance on a specific subject as a support for one's argument.