Bush, on 'waterboarding'

Nodin · 11-11-2010 12:41PM

Of course the thing is that the US has prosecuted those who use waterboarding from as far back as the Spanish American war, up past world war II, and has executed those who used it, on occassion.

kryogen · 11-11-2010 01:39PM

brendansmith wrote: »

I think you may have buddy. I think you may have.

Altering somebodys post when you quote them is not only funny, its clever too

Funny and Clever

Nodin · 11-11-2010 01:48PM

Longish article, but worth the read....

As a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were not the only defendants convicted in such cases. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.

More recently, waterboarding cases have appeared in U.S. district courts. One was a civil action brought by several Filipinos seeking damages against the estate of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. The plaintiffs claimed they had been subjected to torture, including water torture. The court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that "the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation."

In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
Prosecuting other states forces, its own forces, and its law enforcement officials operating internally.....yet all of a sudden its "legal".....

Pace2008 · 11-11-2010 01:53PM

Einhard wrote: »

I think that, just as there are different forms of torture, there are also different levels of torture, and I'd consider waterboarding to be on the lower scale on what can be inflicted.

Apparently, it is complete agony.

Helix · 11-11-2010 05:39PM

Johro wrote: »

Waterboarding is physical torture, and a very different matter from saying 'your friend already said it was you' etc.

is it physical though? isnt it more the mental thing that your body thinks youre going to die, when in actual fact youre not

its making you think one thing when the truth is the opposite, so imo its as much mental torture as physical

enfant terrible · 11-11-2010 05:46PM

Johro wrote: »

Waterboarding is physical torture, and a very different matter from saying 'your friend already said it was you' etc.

So to be clear your ok with mental torture just not physical torture?

Son Of A Vidic · 11-11-2010 05:52PM

Lets get some of our **** Bankers lined up for some good old waterboarding.

Nodin · 11-11-2010 05:52PM

Helix wrote: »

is it physical though? isnt it more the mental thing that your body thinks youre going to die, when in actual fact youre not

Your body "thinks" its going to die because you're being effectively drowned and are physically reacting to that scenario. The only reason its wrong is because they'll stop before you do, not because its not "real".

jumpguy · 11-11-2010 06:09PM

scientific1982 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58

Wow, I'm shocked they did it on him tbh, he doesn't seem to be in the best physical state and could easily have had a heart attack...

Snowie · 11-11-2010 06:36PM

My opinion is, if a human has been proven to be a member of a terrorist organisation, or broke the law, they forfit all of there human rights.

enfant terrible · 11-11-2010 06:36PM

What methods of enhanced interrogation would people opposed to waterboarding be ok with if any

1. Yelling
2. Loud music, and light control
3. Environmental manipulation
4. Sleep deprivation/adjustment
5. Stress positions
6. 20-hour interrogations
7. Controlled fear (muzzled dogs)
8. Psychological
9. Pharmacologic

Nodin · 11-11-2010 06:39PM

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

My opinion is, if a human has been proven to be a member of a terrorist organisation, or broke the law, they forfit all of there human rights.

So some young kid who robs a choclate bar deserves Guantanamo? I'm glad you devoted so much thought to that.

Pace2008 · 11-11-2010 06:40PM

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

My opinion is, if a human has been proven to be a member of a terrorist organisation, *or broke the law*, they forfit all of there human rights.

You what now?

The Saint · 11-11-2010 06:43PM

As was stated above, it does seem strange that in the past the US prosecuted America troops during the Vietnam war for waterboarding prisoners and they also executed Japanese troops after WWII for waterboarding American POWs. Why is it now ok?

From a legal perspective there is no doubt. Torture is a non-derogable violation of international law. This means that under NO circumstances can torture be used. These are conventions that the US signed up to.

Also, from a strategic perspective it seems counterproductive. Say a US soldier is captured and tortured in Iraq. US protestations would ring quite hollow when it condemns these actions and accusations of hypocracy would abound. Also, if a country such as the US uses torture, it gives a percieved legitimacy for the action to be carried out by other states that perhaps be less inclined to do so otherwise. If another country then engages in torture and the "West" condemns this actions, it can easily be dismissed as the beakon of the Western world, that shining city on the hill engages in the same activity.

All this would therefore lead to the undoing the progress made in anti-torture legislation and practise since the end of WWII.

Snowie · 11-11-2010 06:44PM

Nodin wrote: »

So some young kid who robs a choclate bar deserves Guantanamo? I'm glad you devoted so much thought to that.

yes and unicef people should be dissembowled for there guilt mongering.

The Saint · 11-11-2010 06:48PM

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

My opinion is, if a human has been proven to be a member of a terrorist organisation, or broke the law, they forfit all of there human rights.

Violating people's human rights is breaking the law so by your logic, those removing or violating those rights should therefore forfit their human rights. Interesting logic. Miniature brazen bulls for some, torture for all.

Snowie · 11-11-2010 06:52PM

The Saint wrote: »

Violating people's human rights is breaking the law so by your logic, those removing or violating those rights should therefore forfit their human rights. Interesting logic. Miniature brazen bulls for some, torture for all.

so let me get this straight
if some one raped Your mother, would you be happy for that person to get 5 years in jail?

No as far as im concerned if you choose to kill, rape or gbh some one and affect there life why should that person have rights.

So if to, men or women who decide to bomb an building and kill 5 people and are proved guilty do they diserve to be treated well, theyve taken life, theyved caused maybe 200 people misserey why should they be given rights ?

The Saint · 11-11-2010 07:10PM

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

so let me get this straight
if some one raped Your mother, would you be happy for that person to get 5 years in jail?

No as far as im concerned if you choose to kill, rape or gbh some one and affect there life why should that person have rights.

Firstly, you cannot make laws on a hypothetical scenarios of actions taken against a family member. If relatives of the victims of crimes sat on the juries of the perpetrators you would have some very interesting sentencing. That is why justice must be blind. If it is not then it is based on irrationality and revenge. Frankly, I don't want to live in a country with a justice system like that.

Secondly, no I would not be happy to see someone get five years for rape. But this is not an excuse for the stripping of all of someones human rights, it does justify a review of sentencing for such crimes.

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

So if to, men or women who decide to bomb an building and kill 5 people and are proved guilty do they diserve to be treated well, theyve taken life, theyved caused maybe 200 people misserey why should they be given rights ?

People should be punished within the law, not outside of it. Everyone should have rights. I know it is easy to say "should Hitler have had rights, blah, blah, blah". However, you selectively apply basic human rights. It is either justice and human rights for all or no one. If a state starts violating criminial's rights then the state itself becomes criminal, no? I don't want to live in a state that engages in similar actions of criminals while professing to defending against them in the same breath, do you?

Nodin · 11-11-2010 07:11PM

The Saint wrote: »

As was stated above, it does seem strange that in the past the US prosecuted America troops during the Vietnam war for waterboarding prisoners and they also executed Japanese troops after WWII for waterboarding American POWs. Why is it now ok?.

Essentially, this is what happens when a team of lawyers with a dangerous agenda get into power.

The Saint wrote: »

From a legal perspective there is no doubt. Torture is a non-derogable violation of international law. This means that under NO circumstances can torture be used. These are conventions that the US signed up to.

True. But if you define certain techniques as "Torture" and certain things as not being torture, you can stand there and say - as Condoleeza Rice did - "We don't torture" while torturing.

And of course, if one bunch of experts or lawyers tell you something you don't like
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403171.html?hpid=topnews

you ignore them until you find the kind of people who say what you want them to say.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26401-2004Jun8.html
http://lawofwar.org/Torture_Memos_analysis.htm

To really understand the kind of thinking that went on, the best read is this, which is long and covers far more than torture, but is very informative.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/

This is the specific section on torture
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/pushing_the_envelope_on_presi/

Nodin · 11-11-2010 07:13PM

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

so let me (.....)they be given rights ?

And what if they're wrongly accussed?

Snowie · 11-11-2010 07:28PM

The Saint wrote: »

Firstly, you cannot make laws on a hypothetical scenarios of actions taken against a family member. If relatives of the victims of crimes sat on the juries of the perpetrators you would have some very interesting sentencing. That is why justice must be blind. If it is not then it is based on irrationality and revenge. Frankly, I don't want to live in a country with a justice system like that.

Secondly, no I would not be happy to see someone get five years for rape. But this is not an excuse for the stripping of all of someones human rights, it does justify a review of sentencing for such crimes.

People should be punished within the law, not outside of it. Everyone should have rights. I know it is easy to say "should Hitler have had rights, blah, blah, blah". However, you selectively apply basic human rights. It is either justice and human rights for all or no one. If a state starts violating criminial's rights then the state itself becomes criminal, no? I don't want to live in a state that engages in similar actions of criminals while professing to defending against them in the same breath, do you?

im not saying there fammily should sit on the bench Im saying that the people who commit evil and nasty crimes have made the dession to be soical out cast from booth humanity and the law ..

The consaquences of there actions should be a lot worse then just a jail cell.

Its my opinion same way as your entightled to yours.

dont really wanna get into counter quoting, ive said what i think granted it may seem mini hitler but i think punish ment should fit the crime sitting in a jail cell doesnt cut it in my opinion..

The Saint · 11-11-2010 08:14PM

Nodin wrote: »

Essentially, this is what happens when a team of lawyers with a dangerous agenda get into power.

True. But if you define certain techniques as "Torture" and certain things as not being torture, you can stand there and say - as Condoleeza Rice did - "We don't torture" while torturing.

And of course, if one bunch of experts or lawyers tell you something you don't like
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403171.html?hpid=topnews

you ignore them until you find the kind of people who say what you want them to say.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26401-2004Jun8.html
http://lawofwar.org/Torture_Memos_analysis.htm

To really understand the kind of thinking that went on, the best read is this, which is long and covers far more than torture, but is very informative.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/

This is the specific section on torture
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/pushing_the_envelope_on_presi/

True, but how a political figure interprets torture does not make it the law. The US supreme court stated in 2006 that the Geneva Conventions applied to Al Qaida prisoners. Also, the US would never dare conduct waterboarding on US territory where domestic law applies and people can be prosecuted. Furthermore, using existing case law from court marshals imposed on US troops engaging in waterboarding would lead you to believe that waterboarding in considered illegal withing the US judicial system.

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

im not saying there fammily should sit on the bench Im saying that the people who commit evil and nasty crimes have made the dession to be soical out cast from booth humanity and the law ..

The consaquences of there actions should be a lot worse then just a jail cell.

Its my opinion same way as your entightled to yours.

dont really wanna get into counter quoting, ive said what i think granted it may seem mini hitler but i think punish ment should fit the crime sitting in a jail cell doesnt cut it in my opinion..

We will agree to disagree but I think that conducting waterboarding against enimies sets a very dangerous precedent for having the same actions taken against your own troops as well the the unravelling of the customary status of such techniques in international law.

Mike 1972 · 11-11-2010 08:21PM

Caliden wrote: »

I'd like to hear people's alternatives on how to deal with people who aren't afraid to die?
If they want to blow themselves up, then I say waterboarding is fine by me.

Assuming you have the right person (and its a big assumption) If theyre not afraid to die how does making them think theyre going to drown produce any benefit

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

My opinion is, if a human has been proven to be a member of a terrorist organisation, or broke the law, they forfit all of there human rights.

So nobody over the age of criminal responsibility has any human rights ? :eek:

Nodin · 11-11-2010 08:25PM

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

im not saying there fammily should sit on the bench Im saying that the people who commit evil and nasty crimes have made the dession to be soical out cast from booth humanity and the law ..

No, what you said was

My opinion is, if a human has been proven to be a member of a terrorist organisation, or broke the law, they forfit all of there human rights.

...which effectively condemns Osama Bin Laden, Nelson Mandela, the Birmingham six and some young lad who robs a bike to much the same fate.

Mike 1972 · 11-11-2010 08:28PM

Nodin wrote: »

...which effectively condemns Osama Bin Laden, Nelson Mandela, the Birmingham six .

He said members of a terrorist organisation not sympathisers.

Nodin · 11-11-2010 08:31PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

He said members of a terrorist organisation not sympathisers.

They were (wrongly) convicted of carrying out a terrorist attack, thus they'd would fall under his well thought out plan.

I'm sorry, but since when were those people supposed to be "sympathisers"?

Mike 1972 · 11-11-2010 08:42PM

Nodin wrote: »

I'm sorry, but since when were those people supposed to be "sympathisers"?

Five of them were travelling to the funeral of a Suicide bomber were they not ?

Nodin · 11-11-2010 08:46PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Five of them were travelling to the funeral of a Suicide bomber were they not ?

They knew him, they didn't nessecarily know anything about what he was at. As they only knew him in Britain, its unlikely they would have been informed by him of his business.

Is there some reason you feel the need to throw muck at these people?

Mike 1972 · 11-11-2010 08:48PM

Nodin wrote: »

they didn't nessecarily know anything about what he was at.

I suppose Its possible they didnt follow the news but then how would they have known about the funeral or that the guy was even dead ?

But lets not derail the thread any further.

Nodin · 11-11-2010 08:51PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I suppose Its possible they didnt follow the news but then how would they have known about the funeral ?

One can mourn a person without agreeing with all they do or did.

You didn't answer my question - Is there some reason you feel the need to throw muck at these people?

Bush, on 'waterboarding'

Comments