Mukasey Won’t Say Waterboarding Is Torture But in 1947 the U.S. Called It a War Crime

[JohnDoe]

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/10/29/mukasey-wont-say-waterboarding-is-torture/
Mukasey Won’t Say Waterboarding Is Torture But in 1947 the U.S. Called It a War Crime, Sentenced Enemy Officer to 15 Years Hard Labor
Jon Ponder | Oct. 29, 2007
Immoral Relativism: George Bush’s nomination of Michael Mukasey for U.S. attorney general — once thought to be smooth sailing — is experiencing a bit of turbulence. The problem is, Mukasey can’t bring himself to say whether or not waterboarding is torture:

“I don’t know what’s involved in the techniques. If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional.”
– Mukasey
During his confirmation hearings earlier this month, Mukasey said he believes torture violates the Constitution, but he refused to be pinned down on whether he believes specific interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, are constitutional.

“I don’t know what’s involved in the techniques. If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional,” he said.

But after World War II, the United States government was quite clear about the fact that waterboarding was torture, at least when it was done to U.S. citizens:

[In] 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.

“Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. “We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II,” he sai

Mukasey’s non-answer has raised doubts among Democrats, and even some Republicans, on the Senate Judiciary Committee:


[The] Democrats on the committee signed a joint letter to Mukasey, making sure that he knew what’s involved, and demanded an answer to the question as to whether waterboarding is torture.

Then two days later, the doubts grew louder. Two key Democrats, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT ) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) both said publicly that their votes depended on Mukasey’s answer to the waterboarding question.

Then it was Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) who saw an opening after Rudy Giuliani refused to call waterboarding torture (”It depends on who does it.”). Most certainly it’s torture, McCain said. When pressed, he stopped short of saying that he would oppose Mukasey’s nomination if he didn’t say the same, but he added to the chorus of those who professed to be interested in what Mukasey’s answer to follow-up questions will be.

Yesterday, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) said that if Mukasey “does not believe that waterboarding is illegal, then that would really put doubts in my own mind.”

[Sen.] Arlen Specter (R-PA) has also thrown in his lot of doubts and concerns.

Of course, if the past is a guide, Mukasey will easily win nomination, and nearly all these senators who have expressed concern will vote for him.

Waterboarding has become an isssue because the Bush White House signed off on it as an interrogation technique — and thus moved the United States into the company of pariah states that permit torture — after the 9/11 attacks.

H/t: DBM

Waterboarding is torture and we prosecuted someone for this as a war crime in the past.

Why does this administration refuse to acknowledge this...?

What is the "confusion" on this issue, we have legal precedence?

jd

[JohnDoe]

Here is some more History on Waterboarding being a crime:


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. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."

The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

We know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture. That's a lesson worth learning. The study of law is, after all, largely the study of history. The law of war is no different. This history should be of value to those who seek to understand what the law is -- as well as what it ought to be.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170_2.html?hpid=opinionsbox1


What is it that is NOT CLEAR on this subject?

jd

[theHawk]

Why don't you ask your liberal politicians who are voting for him.

The Dems are good at putting on a little song and dance to convince their left-wing nutcases that they are against torture, but they really aren't. Even they know damned well we need to have that option.

Action speaks louder than words.

[JohnDoe]

Why don't you ask your liberal politicians who are voting for him.

The Dems are good at putting on a little song and dance to convince their left-wing nutcases that they are against torture, but they really aren't. Even they know damned well we need to have that option.

Action speaks louder than words.

This judge pulled a Hillary, Hawk. He did not commit one way or the other, triangulated the issue.

My concern with this is that we will have another Attorney General that will only be another pawn of the administration and NOT an attorney General for, "we the people" of the United States.

As far as Feinstein and Shumer voting him out of committee in order for him to get a full vote on the floor of the Senate, I believe they made a mistake. They should have insisted that he commit to answering the questions about waterboarding's criminality.

===================================

Also, the Hawk, it is precedence, history and law because of it, waterboarding is illegal, a warcrime....because it is TORTURE.

The article that I posted PROVES this.... does it not? Any comments on waterboarding being torture? Or do you KNOW it is torture and against the law BUT STILL support it for various reasons?

jd

[darin]

Sixty years ago a lot of democrats believed Blacks were second-class citizens, too. :)

[Immanuel]

My concern is why are so many Americans, especially Christian Americans, attempting to justify torture? That includes everyone of our "leaders" in Washington. Even the few Democrats who question it are only strutting their stuff without heart.

I know this is an unpopular belief, but doggone it, we are supposed to be a civilized nation and I don't give a darn whether muslims are civilized human beings or not. Just because they may not be doesn't mean we ought to drop down to their level.

Unlike Darin, I don't believe for a heartbeat that if we were to back off that we would all die. Also, backing out of Iraq does not mean ending the war on terrorism. We could fight Al Qaeda and all terrorist much more efficiently if we did not have our forces bottled up in a coral in the middle of some friggin dessert! We are supposed to be intelligent and have intelligence forces spread throughout the world. Why don't we use them?

Immie

[JohnDoe]

Sixty years ago a lot of democrats believed Blacks were second-class citizens, too. :)and what does that have to do with the tea in China? ;) Does 2 wrongs make it ''right''?

1983 was the last prosecution and conviction on waterboarding, not 60 years ago Darin?

jd

[darin]

and what does that have to do with the tea in China? ;) Does 2 wrongs make it ''right''?

1983 was the last prosecution and conviction on waterboarding, not 60 years ago Darin?

jd


It has EVERYTHING to do with this topic. People and laws change.

1947. Nineteen Forty-Seven. Read your thread title.

What were the circumstances behind the conviction? were protocols not followed? You're taking a blanket 'conviction' without supplying fair context of the circumstances.



Unlike Darin, I don't believe for a heartbeat that if we were to back off that we would all die. Also, backing out of Iraq does not mean ending the war on terrorism. We could fight Al Qaeda and all terrorist much more efficiently if we did not have our forces bottled up in a coral in the middle of some friggin dessert! We are supposed to be intelligent and have intelligence forces spread throughout the world. Why don't we use them?

Immie


Do you think if we Left Iraq, the terrorists would just stop fighting? Do you think leaving Iraq would SOLVE anything but reducing the number of US Army casualties? That'd be a good reason, but not good enough. Don't be naive.

[Immanuel]

Do you think if we Left Iraq, the terrorists would just stop fighting?

No, I think we are in a war and just like with Israel they will continue to target us. I think it will get worse not better whether we are in Iraq or not.



Do you think leaving Iraq would SOLVE anything but reducing the number of US Army casualties? That'd be a good reason, but not good enough. Don't be naive.

I think that putting our forces in a coral in the middle of the Iraqi dessert and painting targets on their backs has got to be the most idiotic thing our military has done in 230+ years. We are fighting cowards who won't come out wearing uniforms waving their pretty little flags, yelling, "look at me, I am your enemy."

So what the hell are we doing letting them take potshots at our men and women? They are picking off our soldiers one by one and all we can say for sure that we are doing is killing Iraqi civilians. We can't even point at the the vast majority of the dead and say, "that one was a known terrorist".

This war would be much more efficiently fought if we used the marines and elite forces to surgically remove the SOB's rather than the moving targets we are currently using. Our forces that are currently in Iraq are not designed for this kind of war.

Immie

[JohnDoe]

It has EVERYTHING to do with this topic. People and laws change.

1947. Nineteen Forty-Seven. Read your thread title.

What were the circumstances behind the conviction? were protocols not followed? You're taking a blanket 'conviction' without supplying fair context of the circumstances.



1983


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. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."

The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.


those were the circumstances of 1983's convictions

darin, the LAW has not changed. There has been no legislation, changing the existing laws on torture. If there had been, then i would agree with you, but there has not been....whereas, laws on blacks being a lesser person than a white person, have been legislated and changed.

jd

[Immanuel]

1983



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. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."

The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.


those were the circumstances of 1983's convictions

darin, the LAW has not changed. There has been no legislation, changing the existing laws on torture. If there had been, then i would agree with you, but there has not been....whereas, laws on blacks being a lesser person than a white person, have been legislated and changed.

jd

JD,

The difference here is that the victims in this case were U.S. Citizens not Prisoners of War. Not that I think it makes much difference, but the two cases are different enough to invalidate your argument using this particular example in my humble opinion.

Immie

[JohnDoe]

JD,

The difference here is that the victims in this case were U.S. Citizens not Prisoners of War. Not that I think it makes much difference, but the two cases are different enough to invalidate your argument using this particular example in my humble opinion.

Immiegood morning immanuel,

i disagree with you.

LAWS against torture, are no different for the Military than for a civilian, and they never have been.

it is a human rights violation worldwide, in fact. It has nothing to do with military status or nonstatus.

jd

[Mr. P]

good morning immanuel,

i disagree with you.

LAWS against torture, are no different for the Military than for a civilian, and they never have been.

it is a human rights violation worldwide, in fact. It has nothing to do with military status or nonstatus.

jd

Nope he's right...it's different. Moving your thinking forward you would charge every solder that killed with murder because that's illegal.

I don't have a problem with waterboarding. It is a very EFFECTIVE interrogation method. I don't see it as torture in the traditional sense. No body parts are removed, no bones broken, no blood, no crippling. It works well.

[Immanuel]

Nope he's right...it's different. Moving your thinking forward you would charge every solder that killed with murder because that's illegal.

I don't have a problem with waterboarding. It is a very EFFECTIVE interrogation method. I don't see it as torture in the traditional sense. No body parts are removed, no bones broken, no blood, no crippling. It works well.


I'm sort of in the middle. I believe waterboarding is torture but I don't think that JD's example applies.

I find it hypocritical that we charged the Japanese with war crimes after WWII for using just such a method but now we are using those very same methods. Of course, I would rather the use of waterboarding to other more destructive methods, but I don't believe we should be using either particularly if there is no proof that the victim is an actual terrorist.

Immie

[truthmatters]

Sixty years ago a lot of democrats believed Blacks were second-class citizens, too. :)


This shows how little you care about ideas and how much more party label means to you.

Those people who called themselves Dems back in the south were hated by people like me and still would be today.They now vote for republicans, does that make you proud?

[JohnDoe]

Nope he's right...it's different. Moving your thinking forward you would charge every solder that killed with murder because that's illegal.

I don't have a problem with waterboarding. It is a very EFFECTIVE interrogation method. I don't see it as torture in the traditional sense. No body parts are removed, no bones broken, no blood, no crippling. It works well.
I disagree with that logic Mr. P.

The Soldiers kill in self defense, and all civilians that kill in self defense are not charged with Murder either.

And what about the Japanese that were charged with war crimes for using a milder form of waterboarding?

The Military is not exempt from following the laws of our country, or constitutionally bound treaties that we have signed are they...? Maybe I am not understanding you or the reasoning for your opinion on this, and perhaps I am wrong, but I would need some kind of proof of such, before changing my mind on this?

:dunno:

jd

[Immanuel]

This shows how little you care about ideas and how much more party label means to you.

Those people who called themselves Dems back in the south were hated by people like me and still would be today.They now vote for republicans, does that make you proud?

Please prove that statement.

Immie

[Mr. P]

I'm sort of in the middle. I believe waterboarding is torture but I don't think that JD's example applies.

I find it hypocritical that we charged the Japanese with war crimes after WWII for using just such a method but now we are using those very same methods. Of course, I would rather the use of waterboarding to other more destructive methods, but I don't believe we should be using either particularly if there is no proof that the victim is an actual terrorist.

Immie

Well, you can't compare WWII to this war. Apples and oranges. Both fruit but O so different..think about it. It's a stretch at best to compare the two at all . But here's what got the 'war crime' designation.........


[In] 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian.

Back then a civilian was a civilian (unless they were a spy)....see what I mean? It's all GC stuff.

Victims? Not likely, these folk were captured not kidnapped. As far as proof...you can't have the same type proof in war as in peace...unless you want to call this a law enforcement issue...which it's not.

[JohnDoe]

Please prove that statement.

Immie

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1751.html

[Mr. P]

I disagree with that logic Mr. P.

The Soldiers kill in self defense, and all civilians that kill in self defense are not charged with Murder either.

And what about the Japanese that were charged with war crimes for using a milder form of waterboarding?

The Military is not exempt from following the laws of our country, or constitutionally bound treaties that we have signed are they...? Maybe I am not understanding you or the reasoning for your opinion on this, and perhaps I am wrong, but I would need some kind of proof of such, before changing my mind on this?

:dunno:

jd

Private JD..take that hill! There are 100 bad guys, you'll have to kill them.

Is that self defense? Nope, It's war.

[Immanuel]

Well, you can't compare WWII to this war. Apples and oranges. Both fruit but O so different..think about it. It's a stretch at best to compare the two at all . But here's what got the 'war crime' designation.........



Back then a civilian was a civilian (unless they were a spy)....see what I mean? It's all GC stuff.

GC stuff?

How many civilians are we torturing today? Can you guarantee that any and every muslim being held and tortured is a terrorist?



Victims? Not likely, these folk were captured not kidnapped. As far as proof...you can't have the same type proof in war as in peace...unless you want to call this a law enforcement issue...which it's not.

I assume we are both talking about muslims we are holding captive today so my reply is in reference to this assumption.

You say that these folks were captured not kidnapped. I say those folks were out and about in their own neighborhoods and many may have simply crossed paths with our soldiers at the wrong time. Without a trial who is to know? I would assume that if they were combatants and had actually been seen firing upon our troops that they would more than likely be dead rather than filling cells in various prisons throughout the world.

I guess I just have a problem with us rounding up Iraqis and hauling them off to prison, declaring them to be terrorists, and leaving them to rot for the next 50 years. I know for a fact, that if we were attacked here by an invading force, I would not want to be captured and locked up because someone said I was a combatant.

Thanks JD... I saw your proof and can't comment on it now.

Immie

[Hobbit]

I'm a little split on water boarding, honestly. I don't think it's truly torture, as the person is never in any real danger of dieing or coming to any long-lasting harm, but I'm not exactly comfortable with the idea, either.

That being said, if we have some scumbag in custody who has information that can stop another 9/11 or worse, I say we do what has to be done, even if it involves real torture, thought I must confess that I would have to be desperate and angry to torture somebody.

As far as Mukasey's concerned, I think it's an honest answer. What he's saying is that he doesn't know enough to make a sound judgment, and I think making an uninformed decision is a bad thing. The Dems are just trying to paint him in a horrible light by claiming he's simply avoiding the issue.

[JohnDoe]

Well, you can't compare WWII to this war. Apples and oranges. Both fruit but O so different..think about it. It's a stretch at best to compare the two at all . But here's what got the 'war crime' designation.........



Back then a civilian was a civilian (unless they were a spy)....see what I mean? It's all GC stuff.

Victims? Not likely, these folk were captured not kidnapped. As far as proof...you can't have the same type proof in war as in peace...unless you want to call this a law enforcement issue...which it's not.

I agree we can not call this a law enforcement issue, and I had no intentions of implying such, if I did.

But mr.p, are you saying that Waterboarding IS NOT torture now, when it has been considered such even by the Military of the past?

If it is NOT a form of torture, then what exactly is it to you? Surely not the orwellian, ''enhanced interogation"?

Is Torture permitted by our Military, by law? The answer is absolutely NOT per Geneva Convention treaty I believe as one. So, the only way waterboarding can be justified legally, is to specifically say that it is not torture or to legislate that it is not torture imo.

And I honestly find it hard to believe that anyone would think that this kind of treatment, is not a form of torture?

jd

[manu1959]

1983



those were the circumstances of 1983's convictions

darin, the LAW has not changed. There has been no legislation, changing the existing laws on torture. If there had been, then i would agree with you, but there has not been....whereas, laws on blacks being a lesser person than a white person, have been legislated and changed.

jd


1983 charged with violating civil rights....terrorists do not have civil rights....

[Immanuel]

I'm a little split on water boarding, honestly. I don't think it's truly torture, as the person is never in any real danger of dieing or coming to any long-lasting harm, but I'm not exactly comfortable with the idea, either.

That being said, if we have some scumbag in custody who has information that can stop another 9/11 or worse, I say we do what has to be done, even if it involves real torture, thought I must confess that I would have to be desperate and angry to torture somebody.



In some ways I agree with you, but then who is to say that the person being tortured actually has any such information?

Do we simply keep torturing every captive until we finally get what we want?

Immie

[Hobbit]

In some ways I agree with you, but then who is to say that the person being tortured actually has any such information?

Do we simply keep torturing every captive until we finally get what we want?

Immie

It's a fine line, to be sure, and I'd say that if you're not sure beyond a reasonable doubt that this guy has information, don't do it. I don't think Hallmark makes an "I'm sorry I mutilated you" card, or at least not in English.

[JohnDoe]

Torture, according to international law, is "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."

[1] In addition to state-sponsored torture, individuals or groups may inflict torture on others for similar reasons; however, the motive for torture can also be for the sadistic gratification of the torturer, as was the case in the Moors Murders.

Throughout history, torture has often been used as a method of effecting political re-education. In the 21st century, torture is widely considered to be a violation of human rights, and discouraged by article 5 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In times of war signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention agree not to torture protected persons (POWs and enemy civilians) in armed conflicts.

International legal prohibitions on torture derive from a philosophical consensus that torture and ill-treatment are repugnant, abhorrent, and immoral.[2] A further moral definition of torture proposes that the sin of torture consists in the disproportionate infliction of pain.[3] These international conventions and philosophical propositions not withstanding, organizations such as Amnesty International that monitor abuses of human rights report a widespread use of torture condoned by states in many regions of the world.[4]


continue indepth reading with links to binding Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

[Mr. P]

I agree we can not call this a law enforcement issue, and I had no intentions of implying such, if I did.

But mr.p, are you saying that Waterboarding IS NOT torture now, when it has been considered such even by the Military of the past?

If it is NOT a form of torture, then what exactly is it to you? Surely not the orwellian, ''enhanced interogation"?

Is Torture permitted by our Military, by law? The answer is absolutely NOT per Geneva Convention treaty I believe as one. So, the only way waterboarding can be justified legally, is to specifically say that it is not torture or to legislate that it is not torture imo.

And I honestly find it hard to believe that anyone would think that this kind of treatment, is not a form of torture?

jd

Like I said "It is a very EFFECTIVE interrogation method".

My opinion is based on experience. I've experienced a form of waterboarding ...in the military, during POW training. I walked away broken but with all my parts. That was 1974.

[Immanuel]

Like I said "It is a very EFFECTIVE interrogation method".

My opinion is based on experience. I've experienced a form of waterboarding ...in the military, during POW training. I walked away broken but with all my parts. That was 1974.

Not to take away from your experiences, but this would have been different. In the back of your mind, you knew the jerk ;) that was pouring that water down your throat wasn't trying to kill you whereas a captive doesn't have that to fall back on.

Immie

[manu1959]

continue indepth reading with links to binding Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

In times of war signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention agree not to torture protected persons (POWs and enemy civilians) in armed conflicts.

can you say grey area ......

[theHawk]

This judge pulled a Hillary, Hawk. He did not commit one way or the other, triangulated the issue.

My concern with this is that we will have another Attorney General that will only be another pawn of the administration and NOT an attorney General for, "we the people" of the United States.

As far as Feinstein and Shumer voting him out of committee in order for him to get a full vote on the floor of the Senate, I believe they made a mistake. They should have insisted that he commit to answering the questions about waterboarding's criminality.

===================================

Also, the Hawk, it is precedence, history and law because of it, waterboarding is illegal, a warcrime....because it is TORTURE.

The article that I posted PROVES this.... does it not? Any comments on waterboarding being torture? Or do you KNOW it is torture and against the law BUT STILL support it for various reasons?

jd

As I have already stated before, of course water-boarding is torture. And yes I STILL support it. You seem to think that just because something is written into law that I have to support it. I don't support abortion on demand, but it is legal isn't it? I don't support the lax sentencing laws that allow pedophiles to be released back onto the streets, even though thats the law. Laws are supposed to be a reflection of the will of the people of what is, and isn't acceptable. Sure there may be laws that forbid the use of water-boarding by our various government agencies, but does it have jurisdiction overseas? Times change and usually laws take a while to catch up. We should legalize water-boarding for use against terrorists overseas in my opinion.

[Mr. P]

Not to take away from your experiences, but this would have been different. In the back of your mind, you knew the jerk ;) that was pouring that water down your throat wasn't trying to kill you whereas a captive doesn't have that to fall back on.

Immie

No I didn't, know them...believe me it was very REAL..intentionally made so to prevent the thinking you describe. So real in fact I remember thinking 'are these guys really on our side'.

[JohnDoe]

If you read the definition of torture, waterboarding would be considered to fit within the description, Mr.P?

I am not trying to be difficult here, but trying to understand what our laws or laws from treaties or binding agreements mean, when it comes to torture and whether waterboarding is torture according to the LAW....????
================================================== ======





Also, everyone should read this Document from the State Dept:

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/gonzales/memos_dir/memo_20020202_Taft_%20GenCon.pdf

[JohnDoe]

As I have already stated before, of course water-boarding is torture. And yes I STILL support it. You seem to think that just because something is written into law that I have to support it. I don't support abortion on demand, but it is legal isn't it? I don't support the lax sentencing laws that allow pedophiles to be released back onto the streets, even though thats the law. Laws are supposed to be a reflection of the will of the people of what is, and isn't acceptable. Sure there may be laws that forbid the use of water-boarding by our various government agencies, but does it have jurisdiction overseas? Times change and usually laws take a while to catch up. We should legalize water-boarding for use against terrorists overseas in my opinion.


No, I think there is a distinct difference in your examples....not believing in laxed laws and not believing in the legality of abortion is NOT breaking the Law theHawk. One IS BREAKING THE LAW if they torture, thus deserving of imprisonment and punishment according to the Law.

Can't you see the difference?

jd

ps. If you don't like the law, then change the law.

[manu1959]

No, I think there is a distinct difference in your examples....not believing in laxed laws and not believing in the legality of abortion is NOT breaking the Law theHawk. One IS BREAKING THE LAW if they torture, thus deserving of imprisonment and punishment according to the Law.

Can't you see the difference?

jd

which US law was broken waterboarding terrorists?

[Immanuel]

No I didn't, know them...believe me it was very REAL..intentionally made so to prevent the thinking you describe. So real in fact I remember thinking 'are these guys really on our side'.

Well, I understand, I did time in the Coast Guard probably not the intense training you went through, but I would suspect that you knew you were in training and that in the back of your mind you realized they were not going to kill you. Contrast that with what John McCain went through and I think there would be a difference... unless of course you believed we had actually been attacked and you were in fact a POW.

Immie

[Immanuel]

Times change and usually laws take a while to catch up. We should legalize water-boarding for use against terrorists overseas in my opinion.

Don't you fear that the next step after that would be authorizing it against "terrorists" on our soil, followed by citizen terrorists? Pretty soon, anyone that ticks off a member of the U.S. Government will be termed a terrorists (hope you have never cheated on your taxes) and we will have FBI agents or IRS agents water-boarding that old lady down the street.

Immie

[manu1959]

Don't you fear that the next step after that would be authorizing it against "terrorists" on our soil, followed by citizen terrorists? Pretty soon, anyone that ticks off a member of the U.S. Government will be termed a terrorists (hope you have never cheated on your taxes) and we will have FBI agents or IRS agents water-boarding that old lady down the street.

Immie

slippery slope arguments are bullshit....IMHO

[theHawk]

Don't you fear that the next step after that would be authorizing it against "terrorists" on our soil, followed by citizen terrorists? Pretty soon, anyone that ticks off a member of the U.S. Government will be termed a terrorists (hope you have never cheated on your taxes) and we will have FBI agents or IRS agents water-boarding that old lady down the street.

Immie

Honestly, no, I'm not that paranoid.

[theHawk]

Can't you see the difference?

jd

ps. If you don't like the law, then change the law.

First of all, do we have any proof that it was used? If so when and where?
Do the laws extent to foreigners on foreign soil?

There's all this talk about prosecuting AG Gonzo, but has anyone ever pointed out one incident in which not only water-boarding was used, but also that he specifically authorized it?

It sounds to me like the mob is gathering and they want to convict a man they don't like for a crime. Even if the crime never happened in the first place.

[Immanuel]

slippery slope arguments are bullshit....IMHO



Honestly, no, I'm not that paranoid.


Well, if you want to give Hillary the opportunity...?

Maybe my problem is that I just don't trust government or actually the people in government. Also, Hawk, I have not desire to presecute Gonzalez for anything.

Immie

[JohnDoe]

which US law was broken waterboarding terrorists?IF waterboarding IS torture, and IF we did actually waterboard any of our captives from the battlefield, then we broke both International law that we are a party to, and we broke specifically the Geneva Convention treaty. (Read and go in to the wikipedia link posted above for legal references to the actual laws.)

And I do not, in any way, agree with Alberto Gonzales's opinion on this... and many legal scholars and great statesmen, do NOT either.

I am not looking for a fight here Manu... and I am not ignoring the rationalized opinions of others that differ with my opinion on this either, I am just soaking it all in and hope to find a definative answer to all of this, that I can hold pretty tightly, because it is CLEAR.

jd

[manu1959]

\

First of all, do we have any proof that it was used? If so when and where?
Do the laws extent to foreigners on foreign soil?

There's all this talk about prosecuting AG Gonzo, but has anyone ever pointed out one incident in which not only water-boarding was used, but also that he specifically authorized it?

It sounds to me like the mob is gathering and they will convict a man they don't like for a crime. Even if the crime never happened in the first place.


uh.......no, can't tell you and no

uh....no

but if he would release the documents he has then it would prove that he authorized it....

[Mr. P]

Well, I understand, I did time in the Coast Guard probably not the intense training you went through, but I would suspect that you knew you were in training and that in the back of your mind you realized they were not going to kill you. Contrast that with what John McCain went through and I think there would be a difference... unless of course you believed we had actually been attacked and you were in fact a POW.

Immie

What McCain and other POWs went through is exactly why we went through this training. Yes of course we knew we wouldn't be killed, that doesn't change my opinion of the effectiveness of waterboarding, however.

A flight school classmate of mine was held in the Hanoi Hilton with McCain...believe me, nothing we have done at abu grav or getmo is close to what they endured. Compared to that, waterboarding is a walk in the park. Kinda like girls panties on yer head. Geeezz that's gotta hurt!

[Immanuel]

What McCain and other POWs went through is exactly why we went through this training. Yes of course we knew we wouldn't be killed, that doesn't change my opinion of the effectiveness of waterboarding, however.

A flight school classmate of mine was held in the Hanoi Hilton with McCain...believe me, nothing we have done at abu grav or getmo is close to what they endured. Compared to that, waterboarding is a walk in the park. Kinda like girls panties on yer head. Geeezz that's gotta hurt!

I understand all this. That doesn't justify torture though.

However, Water-boarding is a mild form of torture although I personally would not authorize it and believe it is wrong, I would prefer if we had to do any of it, water-boarding to say... forced removal of fingernails etc.

Personally, GWB lost my respect over these kinds of things. America is not a land of savages despite what GWB thinks.

Immie

[manu1959]

I understand all this. That doesn't justify torture though.

However, Water-boarding is a mild form of torture although I personally would not authorize it and believe it is wrong, I would prefer if we had to do any of it, water-boarding to say... forced removal of fingernails etc.

Personally, GWB lost my respect over these kinds of things. America is not a land of savages despite what GWB thinks.

Immie

interesting....any other president lose your respect for this type of thing...

[theHawk]

Well, if you want to give Hillary the opportunity...?

Maybe my problem is that I just don't trust government or actually the people in government. Also, Hawk, I have not desire to presecute Gonzalez for anything.

Immie

Would I give "Hillary" the opportunity to do what? Presidents don't do interragations. I would definately let the same agencies that are fighting terrorists use water-boarding, whether the CNC is a Bush or a Clinton.

[Immanuel]

Would I give "Hillary" the opportunity to do what? Presidents don't do interragations. I would definately let the same agencies that are fighting terrorists use water-boarding, whether the CNC is a Bush or a Clinton.

The point was would you give Hillary the opportunity to authorize such treatment against her enemies. You know... it would not be to hard to conceive of a fanatical pro-choice President declaring anyone associated with the Pro-life movement to be enemies of the state and terrorists from there by executive order any terrorist foreign or domestic to be tortured. You're a Pro-lifer who just might know the next clinic bomber therefore the FBI is authorized to torture you.


interesting....any other president lose your respect for this type of thing...

Clinton didn't have my respect and I can't think of him doing as much damage to our Constitution as Bush. Bush Sr. was really not much of a President. I don't recall him doing much of anything except for The Gulf War. As for Reagan, I really didn't care too much one way or another then, but my beliefs have solidified since then.

So, in answer to your question... no.

Immie

[Mr. P]

I understand all this. That doesn't justify torture though.

However, Water-boarding is a mild form of torture although I personally would not authorize it and believe it is wrong, I would prefer if we had to do any of it, water-boarding to say... forced removal of fingernails etc.

Personally, GWB lost my respect over these kinds of things. America is not a land of savages despite what GWB thinks.

Immie
GWB wasn't Pres when I experienced this...The point is if we used it in training in 1974, you know we used it in the field all along.

In you're opinion what does justify torture or mild torture?

[manu1959]

Clinton didn't have my respect and I can't think of him doing as much damage to our Constitution as Bush. Bush Sr. was really not much of a President. I don't recall him doing much of anything except for The Gulf War. As for Reagan, I really didn't care too much one way or another then, but my beliefs have solidified since then.

So, in answer to your question... no.

Immie

so if no...then you believe that no one was "tortured" under reagan, bush 41 or clinton during any of their military adventures....how splendidly naive....

[Immanuel]

GWB wasn't Pres when I experienced this...The point is if we used it in training in 1974, you know we used it in the field all along.

In you're opinion what does justify torture or mild torture?

Nothing justifies torture.

Even mild torture is hard if not impossible to justify. I can't even justify what we know is being done right now let alone trying to come up with a scenario that would justify it. We are supposed to be a civilized nation not savages.

More accurately you statement should read "The point is if we used it in training in 1974, you know our enemies used it in the field all along." I do not know that our military used it on civilians or anyone for that matter.



so if no...then you believe that no one was "tortured" under reagan, bush 41 or clinton during any of their military adventures....how splendidly naive....

No, you are wrong here, I didn't say I believed such a thing, I said, I don't know of anyone tortured under these Presidents. To say that it did not happen would be as you say... naive.

The fact is I don't know of any such instance and if I did I would not have respected the administration that authorized it.

But, my statements about Bush were more in line with what he has done to shread the Constitution i.e. wire-tapping, torture, disregard of civil rights and human rights etc.

Also, I fought for GWB. I called every liberal in site dirty names for supporting Kerry, just ask those that are here today. I didn't fight for Clinton. I despised him. I voted for Bush Sr. but didn't really care. I voted against Reagan in his first term and for him in his second. Thus, GWB lost my respect. The others didn't have it.

Immie

[manu1959]

Nothing justifies torture.

Even mild torture is hard if not impossible to justify. I can't even justify what we know is being done right now let alone trying to come up with a scenario that would justify it. We are supposed to be a civilized nation not savages.

More accurately you statement should read "The point is if we used it in training in 1974, you know our enemies used it in the field all along." I do not know that our military used it on civilians or anyone for that matter.

No, you are wrong here, I didn't say I believed such a thing, I said, I don't know of anyone tortured under these Presidents. To say that it did not happen would be as you say... naive.

The fact is I don't know of any such instance and if I did I would not have respected the administration that authorized it.

But, my statements about Bush were more in line with what he has done to shread the Constitution i.e. wire-tapping, torture, disregard of civil rights and human rights etc.

Also, I fought for GWB. I called every liberal in site dirty names for supporting Kerry, just ask those that are here today. I didn't fight for Clinton. I despised him. I voted for Bush Sr. but didn't really care. I voted against Reagan in his first term and for him in his second. Thus, GWB lost my respect. The others didn't have it.

Immie

fair enough....well said...thanks

[Yurt]

1983



those were the circumstances of 1983's convictions

darin, the LAW has not changed. There has been no legislation, changing the existing laws on torture. If there had been, then i would agree with you, but there has not been....whereas, laws on blacks being a lesser person than a white person, have been legislated and changed.

jd

Civil rights law is NOT the same as military law :poke: There is a complete different code when trying military cases. Getting information in a war or something that could avert a national disaster is not the same as getting a confession from somebody who stole some candy. Also, where the police believe lives are in imminent danger, the rules of coercion are actually relaxed a little.

Regardless, are you saying that holding somebody underwater, leaving no physical bruises like beatings, is not ok if you could save lives? You care about the terrorist swallowing a little water but not the innocent person killed, maimed, disfigured for life because YOU don't want that poor wee guy dunked under water?

Edit:

the rights of citizens are different from enemies of war or enemies that wear no uniform thus do not belong in the category as prisoners of war.

[Yurt]

Nothing justifies torture.

Even mild torture is hard if not impossible to justify. I can't even justify what we know is being done right now let alone trying to come up with a scenario that would justify it. We are supposed to be a civilized nation not savages.

e

What is torture? I know inmates who have killed people complain that prison is torture. Maybe we should free them. They also have complained that having their playboys confiscated is torture.

What is torture?

[Hobbit]

What is torture? I know inmates who have killed people complain that prison is torture. Maybe we should free them. They also have complained that having their playboys confiscated is torture.

What is torture?



Main Entry:
1tor·ture Listen to the pronunciation of 1torture
Pronunciation:
\ˈtȯr-chər\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
Date:
1540
1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining

I think the bolded definition is the one we're looking at. I'd say waterboarding isn't torture by that definition, as it isn't actually painful. It's still a bit unpleasant, and I wouldn't want to see it done to, say, criminal suspects, but somebody who has been, beyond reasonable doubt, attacking Americans and may hold life-saving information? I give a reluctant ok to that.

[April15]

Waterboarding is torture and we prosecuted someone for this as a war crime in the past.

Why does this administration refuse to acknowledge this...?

What is the "confusion" on this issue, we have legal precedence?

jdThere is no confusion! Bush is doing it so it is not torture? I sure don't condone what he does!

[JohnDoe]

I think the bolded definition is the one we're looking at. I'd say waterboarding isn't torture by that definition, as it isn't actually painful. It's still a bit unpleasant, and I wouldn't want to see it done to, say, criminal suspects, but somebody who has been, beyond reasonable doubt, attacking Americans and may hold life-saving information? I give a reluctant ok to that.
Hobbit,

I think THIS description below, in the first paragraph, is the definition that we are going by, the second paragraph is more about individuals torturing other individuals for sadistic reasons and not for "information":


Torture, according to international law, is "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."

[1] In addition to state-sponsored torture, individuals or groups may inflict torture on others for similar reasons; however, the motive for torture can also be for the sadistic gratification of the torturer, as was the case in the Moors Murders.


jd

[Yurt]

Hobbit,

I think THIS description below, in the first paragraph, is the definition that we are going by, the second paragraph is more about individuals torturing other individuals for sadistic reasons and not for "information":



jd

Do you have a link JD?

Further, any act by which severe pain or suffering, discredits your claim that waterboarding is torture. Or do we now have to find out your "international" definition of "severe"

[Yurt]

There is no confusion! Bush is doing it so it is not torture? I sure don't condone what he does!

I'm intelligent and so am I

[JohnDoe]

Do you have a link JD?

Further, any act by which severe pain or suffering, discredits your claim that waterboarding is torture. Or do we now have to find out your "international" definition of "severe"


Yurt, it is near the beginning or middle of this thread on the first page. I just recopied a part of it from that post.... the link is there and it has other links with actual laws that are referenced.

jd

[JohnDoe]

Do you have a link JD?

Further, any act by which severe pain or suffering, discredits your claim that waterboarding is torture. Or do we now have to find out your "international" definition of "severe"Yurt, severe pain whether physical or MENTAL....is in the definition. And waterboarding does have severe physical pain. In fact, it is one of the worst ways to die, via drowning...at least that is what has been said by the ones that have almost died by drowning....not those tortured but in drowning incidents.

jd

[glockmail]

I have no problem with waterboarding Al Queda types. They go out of their way to break civilized rules of warfare. So anything done to them to extract information is not equivalent to torture of legitimate soldiers or citizens.

Heck if it were me I'd break out the power tools. Waterboarding doesn't even come close to the definition of torture for these animals.

[Immanuel]

What is torture? I know inmates who have killed people complain that prison is torture. Maybe we should free them. They also have complained that having their playboys confiscated is torture.

What is torture?

Torture is anything that hurts me! Whether it is physical pain, mental pain or emotional pain. ;)


Originally posted by Glockmail

Heck if it were me I'd break out the power tools. Waterboarding doesn't even come close to the definition of torture for these animals.

I'm sorry, but this just sounds like the vigilante thing again and I have a problem with that. It only leads to innocent people being tortured or lynched.

Immie

[Gaffer]

Prisoners taken in iraq are kept in iraq. They are imprisoned by the iraq government. The only time this doesn't happen is if a prisoner turns out to be a high ranking al qaeda operative who is not iraqi. The same goes for Afghanistan. Prisoners are not just arrested on the street and shipped off to gitmo. Most are taken in combat action. Literally caught in the act. Known high ranking operatives are subject to various forms of questioning.

A simple method of waterboarding is used for those hard core radicals that don't want to talk. Interesting that these martyrs are quick to give up information after a few minutes of waterboarding. Information about terror cells operating in various countries, names of other leaders, attack plans, phone numbers. All important information to stop the attacks before they can take place. The guy suffers a little discomfort and the information saves thousands of innocent lives.

Most torture methods used today involve sleep deprivation, hunger, cold, hot and generally making the person uncomfortable. Also drugs to break their will. Things like waterboarding would only be used to get information quickly because time is important.

As for WW2. Waterboarding by the Japanese at that time was not done for information as much as it was done for sadistic pleasure. Chances are the prisoner was either shot or beheaded after the torture.

The Americans of today would never make it through WW2. Doing what is necessary and right is not what this country is about anymore. It's about blaming and guilt trips. And how can I profit from this.

[glockmail]

...
I'm sorry, but this just sounds like the vigilante thing again and I have a problem with that. It only leads to innocent people being tortured or lynched.

Immie

Where in my post did I mention or even allude to torture of innocent people?

[Yurt]

Yurt, severe pain whether physical or MENTAL....is in the definition. And waterboarding does have severe physical pain. In fact, it is one of the worst ways to die, via drowning...at least that is what has been said by the ones that have almost died by drowning....not those tortured but in drowning incidents.

jd

what is "severe" to you. if they don't talk, won't give vital information that could save lives, what do you considerable "acceptable."

[Yurt]

Yurt, it is near the beginning or middle of this thread on the first page. I just recopied a part of it from that post.... the link is there and it has other links with actual laws that are referenced.

jd

wikipedia is your authority? LOOOOL. i think i will go change that definition right now...

[JohnDoe]

wikipedia is your authority? LOOOOL. i think i will go change that definition right now...


oh dear yurt, please don't play that imature GAME with me. I specifically told you to go in to the links they provided. If you want to make this just a partisan game, go ahead, but this is much more serious than that kind of action and deserves decent, honest debate!!!

:cheers2:

jd

[JohnDoe]

what is "severe" to you. if they don't talk, won't give vital information that could save lives, what do you considerable "acceptable."i and many other people including professional interogators, do not believe torture gives good results in obtaining good, solid information.....and believe there are statistics that prove such....and that other means of interogation work better, and are more accurate in obtaining good, solid, and actionable, intelligence.

jd

[glockmail]

i and many other people including professional interogators, do not believe torture gives good results in obtaining good, solid information.....and believe there are statistics that prove such....and that other means of interogation work better, and are more accurate in obtaining good, solid, and actionable, intelligence.

jd
The only stats that matter are the ones against Al Queada types that gave us info when we used this technique. Even if it works 1 in 1000 its still worth it to save American lives and end the WOT more quickly.

[JohnDoe]

The only stats that matter are the ones against Al Queada types that gave us info when we used this technique. Even if it works 1 in 1000 its still worth it to save American lives and end the WOT more quickly.glock, i can understand how people feel this way....but i don't....and probably never will.

SO, for those like you, that believe we should be able to torture 1000 people for the 1 that does have good information to give you, i think you should have the united states withdraw from our binding treaties and international laws that we signed on to.

IN other words, DON'T break the Law and become lawless vigilanties, change the law, instead of being hypocrites, a signatory on the one hand while breaking those laws with the other.


jd

[Gaffer]

Myself I would make sure each one of those prisoners has a pig to sleep with every night. And a good helping of scrambled eggs cooked in lard with a side of bacon in the morning.

Bring the pig in and tell him, you talk to me or you sleep with him. The most important thing about torture is to know your enemy and what he fears most.

[JohnDoe]

Myself I would make sure each one of those prisoners has a pig to sleep with every night. And a good helping of scrambled eggs cooked in lard with a side of bacon in the morning.

Bring the pig in and tell him, you talk to me or you sleep with him. The most important thing about torture is to know your enemy and what he fears most.Hahahahaha! see, now that is thinking outside of the box!

but knowing your enemy is the key to your point, and i agree and am sure the interogators are fully trained with that in mind.

[Yurt]

oh dear yurt, please don't play that imature GAME with me. I specifically told you to go in to the links they provided. If you want to make this just a partisan game, go ahead, but this is much more serious than that kind of action and deserves decent, honest debate!!!

:cheers2:

jd

YOU provide the links dear, you made the post/claim :dance: If it was me, I would post some more authoritative authority instead of telling people to go fish links out of wiki....

[Yurt]

i and many other people including professional interogators, do not believe torture gives good results in obtaining good, solid information.....and believe there are statistics that prove such....and that other means of interogation work better, and are more accurate in obtaining good, solid, and actionable, intelligence.

jd

:laugh2:

:link:

don't make dance for links again deary. who are these "pros" anyways?

[JohnDoe]

YOU provide the links dear, you made the post/claim :dance: If it was me, I would post some more authoritative authority instead of telling people to go fish links out of wiki....if you really want to know yurt, and not just defend this crap, without any research or knowledge on the subject, you will do the research yourself...

whatever i post, will not be acceptable to people like you, would they? i'm not going to waste my time because you choose not to accept my link or the links it provided....time is too precious....and i would be wasting it, to do such, don't you think?

as i have said, i am not gonna ''play that game'', and not singling out this thing with you, i just don't play it, not with my 50k dial up connection!!!! :(

but if you want to know, or want to prove me wrong right now, google can be your best friend, especially if on broadband vs. the dial up connection!

jd

[Mr. P]

Yurt, severe pain whether physical or MENTAL....is in the definition. And waterboarding does have severe physical pain. In fact, it is one of the worst ways to die, via drowning...at least that is what has been said by the ones that have almost died by drowning....not those tortured but in drowning incidents.

jd

No it doesn't.

[manu1959]

Yurt, severe pain whether physical or MENTAL....is in the definition. And waterboarding does have severe physical pain. In fact, it is one of the worst ways to die, via drowning...at least that is what has been said by the ones that have almost died by drowning....not those tortured but in drowning incidents.

jd

funny....my wife was an emt in hawaii and everyone she picked up that survived said it was painless and peacefull....

[Gaffer]

Hahahahaha! see, now that is thinking outside of the box!

but knowing your enemy is the key to your point, and i agree and am sure the interogators are fully trained with that in mind.

I'm sure they are much more adept at what they do than I am. I'm also sure they don't just torture people randomly and snatch them off the street, as the media would like us to believe. The Bush haters believe he's actually there personally over seeing things and pulling out finger nails.

More than likely, with the news playing up the waterboarding, its probably not used except as a threat due to publicity. Talk to me or experience the horrors of waterboarding.

[manu1959]

IF waterboarding IS torture, and IF we did actually waterboard any of our captives from the battlefield, then we broke both International law that we are a party to, and we broke specifically the Geneva Convention treaty. (Read and go in to the wikipedia link posted above for legal references to the actual laws.)

And I do not, in any way, agree with Alberto Gonzales's opinion on this... and many legal scholars and great statesmen, do NOT either.

I am not looking for a fight here Manu... and I am not ignoring the rationalized opinions of others that differ with my opinion on this either, I am just soaking it all in and hope to find a definative answer to all of this, that I can hold pretty tightly, because it is CLEAR.

jd

not fighting...terrorist are not covered by the geneva convention....they do not fight in uniform or under a flag.....technically the are spies and can be shot on sight.....

[JohnDoe]

here: 4 u yurt, but don't make me go through this again!!! ;)

http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/11/TortureQandA.htm


Q: What is torture?

The Convention against Torture 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…." (Art. 1). It may be "inflicted by or at the instigation of or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

The prohibition against torture under international law applies to many measures—e.g. beating on the soles of the feet; electric shock applied to genitals and nipples; rape; near drowning through submersion in water; near suffocation by plastic bags tied around the head; burning; whipping; needles inserted under fingernails; mutilation; hanging by feet or hands for prolonged periods.

International law also prohibits mistreatment that does not meet the definition of torture, either because less severe physical or mental pain is inflicted, or because the necessary purpose of the ill-treatment is not present. It affirms the right of every person not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Examples of such prohibited mistreatment include being forced to stand spread eagled against the wall; being subjected to bright lights or blindfolding; being subjected to continuous loud noise; being deprived of sleep, food or drink; being subjected to forced constant standing or crouching; or violent shaking. In essence, any form of physical treatment used to intimidate, coerce or "break" a person during an interrogation constitutes prohibited ill-treatment. If these practices are intense enough, prolonged in duration, or combined with other measures that result in severe pain or suffering, they can qualify as torture.

The prohibition against torture as well as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is not limited to acts causing physical pain or injury. It includes acts that cause mental suffering—e.g. through threats against family or loved ones. As the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized, "coercion can be mental as well as physical…the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition" Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 448, (1966) citing Blackburn v. State of Alabama, 361 U.S. 199 (1960). As discussed below, the use of mind-altering drugs to compel a person to provide information would at least amount to inhuman or degrading treatment under the Convention against Torture.



Q: What laws prohibit torture?

Torture is universally condemned, and whatever its actual practice, no country publicly supports torture or opposes its eradication. The prohibition against torture is well established under customary international law as jus cogens; that is, it has the highest standing in customary law and is so fundamental as to supercede all other treaties and customary laws (except laws that are also jus cogens). Criminal acts that are jus cogens are subject to universal jurisdiction, meaning that any state can exercise its jurisdiction, regardless of where the crime took place, the nationality of the perpetrator or the nationality of the victim.

In 1948, following the horrific abuses of World War II, the General Assembly of the United Nations inserted the prohibition against torture in the landmark Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 5 states: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." This ban on torture and other ill-treatment has subsequently been incorporated into the extensive network of international and regional human rights treaties. It is contained in Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by 153 countries, including the United States in 1992, and in the Convention against Torture or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Convention against Torture), ratified by 136 countries, including the United States in 1994. It is also codified in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, and the American Convention on Human Rights.

The prohibition against torture is also fundamental to humanitarian law (also known as the laws of war), which governs the conduct of parties during armed conflict. An important element of international humanitarian law is the duty to protect the life, health and safety of civilians and other noncombatants, including soldiers who are captured or who have laid down their arms. Torture of such protected persons is absolutely forbidden. Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, for example, bans "violence of life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture" as well as "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." The use of force to obtain information is specifically prohibited in Article 31 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: "No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties."

According to the 1999 Initial Report of the United States to the U.N. Committee against Torture, in the United States, the use of torture "is categorically denounced as a matter of policy and as a tool of state authority…No official of the government, federal, state or local, civilian or military, is authorized to commit or to instruct anyone else to commit torture. Nor may any official condone or tolerate torture in any form…Every act of torture within the meaning of the [Convention against Torture] is illegal under existing federal and state law, and any individual who commits such an act is subject to penal sanctions as specified in criminal statutes."

Although no single provision of the U.S. Constitution expressly prohibits torture as a means to extract information, secure a confession, punish for an act committed, intimidate or coerce, or for any reason based on discrimination, there is no question that torture violates rights established by the Bill of Rights. The U.S. courts have located constitutional protections against interrogations under torture in the Fourth Amendment's right to be free of unreasonable search or seizure (which encompasses the right not be abused by the police), the Fifth Amendment's right against self-incrimination (which encompasses the right to remain silent during interrogations), the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments' guarantees of due process (ensuring fundamental fairness in criminal justice system), and the Eighth Amendment's right to be free of cruel or unusual punishment. In numerous cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has condemned the use of force amounting to torture or other forms of ill treatment during interrogations, including such practices as whipping, slapping, depriving a victim of food, water, or sleep, keeping him naked or in a small cell for prolonged periods, holding a gun to his head, or threatening him with mob violence. Torture would also violate state constitutions, whose provisions generally parallel the protections set forth in the federal Bill of Rights.

Article 4 of the Convention against Torture obligates state parties to ensure that all acts of torture are criminal offenses under domestic legislation. Although there is no single federal law specifically criminalizing torture, the United States has insisted that existing federal and state laws render illegal any act falling with the Convention against Torture's definition of torture. In the United States, most criminal laws are state rather than federal. Although a few states have laws addressing torture as such, each state has laws that criminalize violence against persons (e.g. assault, rape), regardless of whether committed by public officials or private individuals. In addition, states typically have specific laws that criminalize acts by public officials that constitute abuses of authority, "official oppression," or the unlawful infliction of bodily injury. The principal federal law that would apply to torture against detainees is 18 U.S.C. 242, which makes it a criminal offense for any public official to willfully to deprive a person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

[manu1959]

why do you insist on waging a war by rules that the other side ignors and in fact plays by no rules....

[Gaffer]

why do you insist on waging a war by rules that the other side ignors and in fact plays by no rules....

As I said before. Can someone name any war we have fought in that the enemy treated our prisoners humanely. We can have high standards and still do what is necessary.

[JohnDoe]

why do you insist on waging a war by rules that the other side ignors and in fact plays by no rules....


Tell me, how many American soldiers have been captured by the enemy and tortured the last 4 years? NONE that I know about...do you know something top secret about this that I don't know?

Even President Bush does not agree with torture, he has said so a thousand times over, so why do YOU?

But that is not the point or answer to your question... here is how I do feel about it, coming from the same article posted above:


As the United States confronts terrorism, legitimate national security needs, public anxiety, and the desire for retribution may give rise to the temptation to sacrifice certain fundamental rights. But that temptation must be vigorously resisted. The right not to be tortured or mistreated is not a luxury to be dispensed with in difficult times, but the very essence of a society worth defending.

President Bush has said that the war on terrorism is about values; he has pledged that as it fights, the United States will always stand for "the non-negotiable demands of human dignity." Standing for human dignity means rejecting torture and other forms of ill treatment.

Rejecting torture does not mean forgoing effective interrogations of terrorist suspects. Patient, skillful, professional interrogations obtain critical information without relying on cruelty or inhuman or degrading treatment. Indeed, most seasoned interrogators recognize that torture is not only immoral and illegal, but ineffective and unnecessary as well. Given that people being tortured will say anything to stop the pain, the information yielded from torture is often false or of dubious reliability.

The prohibition against torture is firmly embedded in customary international law, international treaties signed by the United States, and in U.S. law. As the U.S. Department of State has noted, the "United States has long been a vigorous supporter of the international fight against torture…Every unit of government at every level within the United States is committed, by law as well as by policy, to the protection of the individual's life, liberty and physical integrity" [U.S. Department of State, "Initial Report of the United States of America to the UN Committee Against Torture." Oct 15, 1999. (15 Nov. 2001)]. That commitment should not be abandoned. Indeed, it must be deepened as the world watches how the U.S. responds to the challenges before it. If the U.S. were to condone torture by government officials or foreign governments in its fight against terrorism, it would betray its own principles, laws, and international treaty obligations. It would irreparably weaken its standing to oppose torture elsewhere in the world. And it would provide a handy excuse to other governments to use torture to pursue their own national security objectives.

[Yurt]

JohnDoe;148960]here: 4 u yurt, but don't make me go through this again!!! ;)

http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/11/TortureQandA.htm

You again do not cite binding authority, you cite only an opinion piece that may cite to some authority, however, most of its opinion is not backed by authority. This "international" law is never identified.

And again, answer my question, if waterboarding saved just one life, would you still be opposed? 100 lives? 1000 lives? Stop citing things that opinions and have no basis or jurisdiction over this country.
[
B]
Q: What is torture?

The Convention against Torture 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…." (Art. 1). It may be "inflicted by or at the instigation of or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

The prohibition against torture under international law applies to many measures—e.g. beating on the soles of the feet; electric shock applied to genitals and nipples; rape; near drowning through submersion in water; near suffocation by plastic bags tied around the head; burning; whipping; needles inserted under fingernails; mutilation; hanging by feet or hands for prolonged periods.

International law also prohibits mistreatment that does not meet the definition of torture, either because less severe physical or mental pain is inflicted, or because the necessary purpose of the ill-treatment is not present. It affirms the right of every person not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Examples of such prohibited mistreatment include being forced to stand spread eagled against the wall; being subjected to bright lights or blindfolding; being subjected to continuous loud noise; being deprived of sleep, food or drink; being subjected to forced constant standing or crouching; or violent shaking. In essence, any form of physical treatment used to intimidate, coerce or "break" a person during an interrogation constitutes prohibited ill-treatment. If these practices are intense enough, prolonged in duration, or combined with other measures that result in severe pain or suffering, they can qualify as torture.

[Yurt]

if you really want to know yurt, and not just defend this crap, without any research or knowledge on the subject, you will do the research yourself...

whatever i post, will not be acceptable to people like you, would they? i'm not going to waste my time because you choose not to accept my link or the links it provided....time is too precious....and i would be wasting it, to do such, don't you think?

as i have said, i am not gonna ''play that game'', and not singling out this thing with you, i just don't play it, not with my 50k dial up connection!!!! :(

but if you want to know, or want to prove me wrong right now, google can be your best friend, especially if on broadband vs. the dial up connection!

jd


I have done the research, that is why I am putting you in a corner. You cannot give me any authority that backs your opinion and I know this.

[Yurt]

not fighting...terrorist are not covered by the geneva convention....they do not fight in uniform or under a flag.....technically the are spies and can be shot on sight.....

correct, besides, the geneva convention does not specifically define torture, nor does it outlaw waterboarding. he has no authority, only opinion pieces that cite to some ethereal "international" law.

[Immanuel]

Where in my post did I mention or even allude to torture of innocent people?

You didn't but when you let the general public take matters into their own hands, and you said, "Heck if it were me I'd break out the power tools", you are going to have innocent people hurt or lynched.

Most likely you would not do anything to hurt innocent people, but if you break out the power tools and the red neck down the street breaks out his etc. sooner or later someone who is innocent is going to suffer.



Originally posted by manu1959

why do you insist on waging a war by rules that the other side ignors and in fact plays by no rules....

Because I would like to think that we are still a nation of civilized human beings. I realize that makes me naive ;) but let me live in my own dream world will ya? :laugh2:

Immie

[Gaffer]

Tell me, how many American soldiers have been captured by the enemy and tortured the last 4 years? NONE that I know about...do you know something top secret about this that I don't know?

Even President Bush does not agree with torture, he has said so a thousand times over, so why do YOU?

But that is not the point or answer to your question... here is how I do feel about it, coming from the same article posted above:

Two Soldiers were captured about a year ago. Had their hands and feet cut off and were burned and mutilated before they died. Matt Maupin is still missing though there is a video of a guy being shot in the back of the head which is said to be him. Three were captured a while back. One was executed right away. One was found in the river, having been tortured and the third is still missing. Soldiers were attacked in Karbala. Five were taken prisoner and driven away. All five were executed. The culprits were iranian agents. Five Americans were taken hostage in iran in the past year. One has been released and the others are still held. They are being tortured. As the prison they are being held in is famous for its torture techniques. And I haven't even touched on what saddam did to prisoners.

[glockmail]

glock, i can understand how people feel this way....but i don't....and probably never will.

SO, for those like you, that believe we should be able to torture 1000 people for the 1 that does have good information to give you, i think you should have the united states withdraw from our binding treaties and international laws that we signed on to.

IN other words, DON'T break the Law and become lawless vigilanties, change the law, instead of being hypocrites, a signatory on the one hand while breaking those laws with the other.


jd

We're not breaking any laws, since the laws only pertain to law-abiding soldiers or citizens. With terrorists, everything is in play. And waterboarding is mild to what they'd do to you and I.

[Hobbit]

Two Soldiers were captured about a year ago. Had their hands and feet cut off and were burned and mutilated before they died. Matt Maupin is still missing though there is a video of a guy being shot in the back of the head which is said to be him. Three were captured a while back. One was executed right away. One was found in the river, having been tortured and the third is still missing. Soldiers were attacked in Karbala. Five were taken prisoner and driven away. All five were executed. The culprits were iranian agents. Five Americans were taken hostage in iran in the past year. One has been released and the others are still held. They are being tortured. As the prison they are being held in is famous for its torture techniques. And I haven't even touched on what saddam did to prisoners.

Ah, but you're forgetting when Al-Qaida went through a town and slaughtered everyone. The men of the town had to dig the graves and then watch their children get thrown into them. The dead bodies of the adults were thrown in on top of them, suffocating them under the weight of their dead parents. The slaughter was to send a message. The cruelty towards those children was to save bullets.

Then there's the mayor of another village that was being threatened by Al-Qaida. He was invited to a banquet they put on, where they served him his own son, who was still alive when they started cleaning him and may have even been alive when they started to roast him. Yeah, those terrorists just hate to use torture.