The current US administration is, in fact, a no-brainer.
| Quote: |
Cheney confirms waterboarding
WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney has confirmed U.S. interrogators subjected captured senior al-Qaida suspects to a controversial interrogation technique called waterboarding (my link - datter), which creates a sensation of drowning.
Cheney indicated the Bush administration doesn't regard waterboarding as torture and allows the CIA to use it. "It's a no-brainer for me," Cheney said.
Cheney's comments, in a White House interview Tuesday with a conservative radio talk-show host, appeared to reflect the Bush administration's view that the president has the constitutional power to do whatever he deems necessary to fight terrorism.
The U.S. Army, senior Republican lawmakers, human-rights experts and many experts on the laws of war, however, consider waterboarding cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment banned by U.S. law and by international treaties that prohibit torture.
Read more
|
datter LIBERAL MEDIA ALERT!
You'll notice,
1: They include a very unflattering picture.
2: They give extremely little information about just what this 'waterboarding' is. (Perhaps it is nothing really bad, but they don't let you decide that for yourself, do they?)
*edit*
Here's what waterboarding is (from the article):
| Quote: |
| ...pouring water on cloth or cellophane placed over the nose and mouth to simulate drowning... |
This is the gentler method, as opposed to actually holding the person's head underwater. Personally I suspect that we're using this gentler method, which doesn't seem so bad to me. As I said in the other post, I think it's great that we're facing facts. Yes, we will use coercive measures to extract info. I still hold that the US is much less violent during interrogations than the enemy who hides behind women while killing babies. 
I suppose there are people morally confused enough to be against the waterboarding of a terrorist to collect information that could save the lives of hundreds or thousands.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
LIBERAL MEDIA ALERT!
You'll notice,
1: They include a very unflattering picture.
2: They give extremely little information about just what this 'waterboarding' is. (Perhaps it is nothing really bad, but they don't let you decide that for yourself, do they?)
*edit*
Here's what waterboarding is (from the article):
| Quote: | | ...pouring water on cloth or cellophane placed over the nose and mouth to simulate drowning... |
This is the gentler method, as opposed to actually holding the person's head underwater. Personally I suspect that we're using this gentler method, which doesn't seem so bad to me. |
For the record, that's a pic I found online... it wasn't with the original article. It's a funny pic, so sue me. As noted, the waterboarding link in the article is mine as well... and it's very informative.
I find it fascinating that some Americans can actually find it within themselves to defend TORTURE. Simply unbelievable.
datterHow's that Datter? You would rather let possibly hundreds of people die than to give a killer a sense of drowing?
Explain to me the logic and morality in that.
| Exander wrote: |
How's that Datter? You would rather let possibly hundreds of people die than to give a killer a sense of drowing?
Explain to me the logic and morality in that. |
Funny you say that. Yesterday my kid got stung by something. My kid's teacher's helper threw the bug, still alive, over the fence at school. She commented later that "I don't kill anything". I replied "even when it's something that harms your children?" She was speachless.Interesting example. Living by ideals is admirable, but they do need to apply to real life situations and circumstances. They don't always do that and it's important to recognize the difference.
| Exander wrote: |
| Interesting example. Living by ideals is admirable, but they do need to apply to real life situations and circumstances. They don't always do that and it's important to recognize the difference. |
You mean the difference between the left saying torture never works but the Generals on the ground with proof that it does work and has saved lives?
Yeah.That's exactly what I mean.
I think it's also important that we monitor closely what is done and to whom, to make certain it does not cross certain boundries. While I approve of the techniques we are using, I wouldn't approve of techniques that involved mutilation and dismemberment.
| Exander wrote: |
That's exactly what I mean.
I think it's also important that we monitor closely what is done and to whom, to make certain it does not cross certain boundries. While I approve of the techniques we are using, I wouldn't approve of techniques that involved mutilation and dismemberment. |
I agree. But I wouldn't monitor to the point that the technique is available to the enemy as they could use it to prepare.Really, I'm not sure why we should bother with torture...
Why not just lock them up in their cells and tell them we'll trade food for information; otherwise, no food.
That way, if they cooperate, they'll have quite good treatment, but if they don't cooperate, then they're still an enemy and they can starve if they want to.
Problem with that is that too can be considered torture, a classification I would agree with.
We're beginning to have a malfunction in the world today where anything that makes someone uncomfortable is being defined as torture. Of course, all the easier to demonize the U.S. with our "secret gulags" our hideous torture techniques (no twinkies for you!) and our president who some say in the same breath is a complete dolt, but in the next breath profess he masterminded the 9/11 attacks.
Well, I'm off . Got to go sue my college for torture, on the grounds of massive sleep deprivation.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
Really, I'm not sure why we should bother with torture...
Why not just lock them up in their cells and tell them we'll trade food for information; otherwise, no food.
That way, if they cooperate, they'll have quite good treatment, but if they don't cooperate, then they're still an enemy and they can starve if they want to. |
what a mercy!
what would you feel if anyone treat you like this? | palavra wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | Really, I'm not sure why we should bother with torture...
Why not just lock them up in their cells and tell them we'll trade food for information; otherwise, no food.
That way, if they cooperate, they'll have quite good treatment, but if they don't cooperate, then they're still an enemy and they can starve if they want to. |
what a mercy!
what would you feel if anyone treat you like this? |
That's getting let off easy compared to, ohhh, say... having your head sawed off on national TV, or having your mutilated body drug thru town as if on parade, to be hung up on a bridge for all the world to see, or getting burried to your shoulders (women) and stoned to death by kids, or having a hand or foot or penis cut off...
Yeah, I can think of lots worse things to do what what the US does.It's a sad world we live in! Torture has taken place for thousands of years. Most people would say they are against torture, although they would agree with it in certain instances.
Pulling someone's fingernails out, growing bamboo shoots under the finger nails, cutting of limbs, dismemberment is all torture in the ancient and truest sense.
Holding a wet cloth over someone's nose is not as violent and leaves no physical scars.
Most of us are not responsible for the lives of millions, nor do we live to protect our fellow citizens. We cannot possibly know what goes on in prisons, political or otherwise. Nor can we judge those who use questionable methods to protect us unless we have been placed in the same situations they have.
If the ends justify the means then torture till you run out of water. What if some of the persons we are torturing were in the wrong place at the wrong time? I guess we could say "My Bad" and give them a bag of food and some money as compensation. What separates us from those we hunt if we use some of the same methods? Can we promote ourselves as the good guys when we use some of the methods of the bad guys? What if by doing this we create more terrorists than we kill, sort of a losing battle if we give them more reasons to join the cause. I am not going to suggest I have the answers or that I am Jack Bauer and know how to extract information at all costs to stop a nuclear attack.
| Quote: |
| What separates us from those we hunt if we use some of the same methods? Can we promote ourselves as the good guys when we use some of the methods of the bad guys? |
Do you honestly think giving someone the sensation of drowing, or keeping them up all night listening to rock music is on par with methods used by our enemies?
It's not, and it doesn't make us like them to try to stop them. I like hearing different points of view, but I have yet to hear someone who is against our methods come up with a better way to get information from someone who doesn't want to give it.
| Quote: |
| What if by doing this we create more terrorists than we kill, sort of a losing battle if we give them more reasons to join the cause. |
And how would waterboarding someone who helped plan 9/11 create more terrorists? Doing nothing about terrorism makes more (witness the 90's) and fighting them makes more. So what are our options...to give up?
If more will join the cause no matter what, then I'd rather fight them, until there is no cause to join, our the penalty for joining that cause has been made so steep that no one will want to. | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| As I said in the other post, I think it's great that we're facing facts. Yes, we will use coercive measures to extract info. I still hold that the US is much less violent during interrogations than the enemy who hides behind women while killing babies. |
good oneCheney loves torture --- I think that he's into S&M as well.
Look for a picture of Cheney that is more flattering : http://www.wonkette.com/politics/white-house/big-dick-cheney-oh-yes-very-big-025650.php | palavra wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | Really, I'm not sure why we should bother with torture...
Why not just lock them up in their cells and tell them we'll trade food for information; otherwise, no food.
That way, if they cooperate, they'll have quite good treatment, but if they don't cooperate, then they're still an enemy and they can starve if they want to. |
what a mercy!
what would you feel if anyone treat you like this? |
I would shortly become very hungry, and I would begin to seriously consider giving them some info, and that's the whole point, right?
If I cooperated, I would be as well-treated as any imprisoned US citizen.You know, if it works so good, maybe we should start using it in police stations in the US. I mean, if a little "persuasion" could get some info that would stop a killer, why not? And since we are using these tactics on suspected terrorists, no need to only torture convicted felons here. Anyone who MIGHT have info could be tortured. Sure, if we can get info to stop a crime, why not use any tactic on anyone who might know something.
Seems kinda extreme, but as long as it works why not. The police can be trusted to only torture the "right" people.
| Quote: |
Do you honestly think giving someone the sensation of drowing, or keeping them up all night listening to rock music is on par with methods used by our enemies? It's not, and it doesn't make us like them to try to stop them. I like hearing different points of view, but I have yet to hear someone who is against our methods come up with a better way to get information from someone who doesn't want to give it.
|
OK. Since I'm such an opponent let me try to explain why torture is a bad thing.
1) The examples you give are not representative. Try facts, not euphamistic imagery. Let's get real and look at what we know.
Here's some numbers which are admitted by all sides as factual: | Quote: |
By the Numbers
The DAA Project has to date documented at least 330 cases in which U.S. military and civilian personnel are alleged to have abused detainees, ranging from beatings and assaults, to torture, sexual abuse, and homicide. Among the cases:
# At least 600 U.S. personnel are implicated (numerous cases involve more than one perpetrator). Military personnel comprise over 95 percent of those implicated (at least 570 people), and at least ten CIA or other intelligence personnel are implicated, and approximately twenty civilian contractors working for either the military or the CIA.
# At least 460 detainees have been subjected to abuse, including people held in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at Guantánamo Bay.
# The majority of the approximately 330 cases took place in Iraq (at least 220 cases), followed by Afghanistan (at least sixty cases), and Guantánamo Bay (at least fifty cases).
# DAA Project researchers found that authorities opened investigations into approximately 210 out of the 330 cases (about 65 percent).9
# In the remaining 35 percent of cases—approximately 120 cases—either no investigation was opened or the authorities have not publicly disclosed whether one took place. Over 70 percent of these 120 unresolved cases involve incidents that took place more than two years ago.
# The 210 cases in which there is evidence of an investigation involve at least 410 personnel (in many cases, more than one perpetrator is alleged to be involved in a case).
# Almost all of the military personnel who have been investigated are enlisted soldiers (approximately 95 percent of the total), not officers.
# Of the approximately 410 personnel implicated in cases that the military and civilian authorities have investigated, only about a third have faced any kind of disciplinary or criminal action. As of April 10, 2006, the DAA Project identified seventy-nine military personnel who were ordered by commanders for court-martial.10 (This number includes summary courts-martial conducted abroad, for which thirty days’ confinement is the maximum sentence.) Only one person, a civilian contractor, has been indicted in federal court.
# Of the seventy-nine courts-martial ordered by commanders, fifty-four resulted in conviction or a guilty plea. Another fifty-seven people have faced non-judicial proceedings in which punishments include no or minimal prison time. (See box below on “Parallel Disciplinary Mechanisms: Criminal and Non-judicial Proceedings.”)11
# 75 percent of the cases in which investigations were conducted do not appear to have resulted in any kind of punishment (approximately 160 of the 210 investigated cases, involving approximately 260 accused personnel). The DAA Project found approximately 110 cases (involving approximately 190 accused personnel) were closed without punishment. And in at least fifty cases (involving at least seventy other people), the Project could not find any evidence that investigations had resulted in punishment and could not determine whether the case was still open.
# Researchers identified more than 1,000 individual criminal acts of abuse.
# The most common alleged types of abuse were assault (found in at least 220 cases), use of physical or non-physical humiliation (at least ninety cases), sexual assault or abuse (at least sixty cases), and use of “stress” techniques (at least forty cases). |
The following are some of the stories behind the numbers: | Quote: |
# An Army criminal investigation in January 2004 revealed that an Army specialist in the 300th Military Police Company in Iraq physically abused a detainee and subjected him to a “mock execution” during a search operation in late 2003. The specialist took the detainee into a field away from other detainees and guards, “head-butted” the detainee, placed the barrel of his unloaded M-4 automatic weapon in the detainee’s mouth, and “dry-fired” the weapon. The specialist then put a round into the weapon and fired the round into the dirt next to the detainee. Criminal Investigators concluded that the specialist had committed aggravated assault, assault/battery, and negligent discharge of a firearm, and found probable cause to bring charges. Commanders instead ordered a non-judicial hearing, and the specialist received a punishment of two months of extra duty, restriction to base, reduction of rank, and a fine.30
# In a case detailed in the military investigation report of Maj. Gen. George Fay and Lieut. Gen. Anthony Jones, three soldiers in the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion sexually assaulted a female detainee in Iraq in 2003.31 The Fay-Jones report described the assault: First, the group took her out of her cell and escorted her down the cellblock to an empty cell. [Unnamed Soldier] stayed outside the cell while another held her hands behind her back, and the other forcibly kissed her. She was escorted downstairs to another cell where she was shown a naked male detainee and told the same would happen to her if she did not cooperate. She was then taken back to her cell and forced to kneel and raise her arms while one of the soldiers removed her shirt. She began to cry, and her shirt was given back as the soldier cursed at her and said they would be back.
During the Army’s criminal investigation, the victim identified the three soldiers from a photograph lineup provided by military investigators. Two months later, the criminal investigation was closed. Instead of a court-martial, commanders chose to punish the soldiers involved in this case non-judicially. The three soldiers each received one month of confinement and one of the soldiers was fined $500, while the other two were fined $750.# As Human Rights First documented in a February 2006 report, non-judicial punishment, in lieu of prosecution, was taken against nine Navy personnel implicated in the November 2003 homicide death of Manadel al-Jamadi at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. In another case, the first reported death of a detainee in U.S. custody in Afghanistan, occurring in August 2002, commanders used non-judicial punishment even after criminal investigators found probable cause to recommend charges of murder and conspiracy against four members of a Special Forces unit who captured the detainee (a civilian non-combatant) and later shot him. The troops’ commander declined to order a court-martial and instead ordered that one of the soldiers simply be discharged from the military. (These cases are discussed in greater detail in Appendix B.) |
It is clear that this treatment was part of an organised regime and it is equally clear that it was not specifically authorised or planned to extract particular information from particular detainees but, instead, as a general softening up procedure to be applied generally.
Here is the HRW report on US torture :-
http://camres.frih.net/resources/politics/USTorture.pdf
Here is the Amnesty International report :
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511142003
And here is a summary of documented torture contained in the US military's own report on the Taguba prison. In other words the Army have admitted that the following took place so these are things we can be sure happened.
| Quote: |
Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet; Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees; Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing; Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time; Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear; Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped; Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them; Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture; Writing "I am a Rapest" (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked; Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture; A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee; Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee.
Major General Taguba also found "credible" evidence that the following abuses took place:
Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol; Pouring cold water on naked detainees; Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; Threatening male detainees with rape; Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
|
Next, the point about getting information from a terrorist is frequently raised. It is almost completely bogus and this is easy to demonstrate (as follows):
1) Name one instance where information gained via torture has saved lives. You cannot, of course, because no such examples exist.
2) Information gained via torture is regarded by all the professional agencies concerned (secret service, MPs etc) as highly dubious and unreliable.
Here is a brief and rather obvious summary of the reasoning :
| Quote: |
First, consider the American and European witch trials. During these trials a significant number of people confessed, under brutal torture, to being witches. If torture is an effective means of acquiring truthful information, then these trials provided reasonable evidence for the existence of witches, magic, the Devil and, presumably, God. However, it seems rather odd that such metaphysical matters could be settled by the application of the rack, the iron maiden and the thumb screw. As such, the effectiveness of torture is rather questionable. Second, extensive studies of torture show that it is largely ineffective as a means of gathering correct information. For example, the Gestapo's use of torture against the French resistance in the 1940s and the French use of torture against the Algerian resistance in the 1950s both proved largely ineffective. As another example, Diederik Lohman, a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch, found that the torture of suspected criminals typically yields information that is not accurate. A final, and rather famous example is that of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. Under torture, al-Libi claimed that Al Qaeda had significant links to Iraq . However, as he himself later admitted, there were no such links. Thus, the historical record seems to count against the effectiveness of torture.
Third, as history and basic human psychology show, most people will say almost anything to end terrible suffering. For example, a former prisoner from Abu Ghraib told the New York Times that, after being tortured, he confessed to being Osama Bin Laden to put and end to his mistreatment. Similar things occur in the context of domestic law enforcement in the United States : suspects subjected to threats and mistreatments have confessed to crimes they did not commit. As such, torture seems to be a rather dubious way of acquiring reliable intelligence.
|
If you want a more philosophic line of reasoning then try :
| Quote: |
| Given that torture is not effective as a means of gathering reliable information, the utilitarian argument in its favor must be rejected. This is because torturing people is not likely to yield any good consequences. Despite its ineffectiveness as a means of extracting information directly, torture does seem to be an effective means towards another end, namely that of intimidation. History has shown that authoritarian societies successfully employed torture as a means of political control and as a means of creating informers. Ironically, while actual torture rarely yields reliable information, the culture of fear created by the threat of torture often motivates people to bring information to those in power. Given its effectiveness as a tool of coercion and intimidation, torture and the threat of torture could be used as weapons against terror. If the threat of torture is both credible and terrible enough, then the likelihood of terrorist activity could be reduced and the number of useful informants could increase significantly.From a moral standpoint, if torture were to prove effective as a means of reducing terrorist activity then it could be argued that the use of torture is morally acceptable. The gist of the argument is that the moral harms of threatening and utilizing torture are outweighed by the moral consequences-namely a reduction in terrorist activity. While this argument has a certain appeal, it faces three problems. First, it seems likely that adopting torture and the threat of torture as weapons would be morally harmful to the society in question. To see that this is likely, one needs to merely consider the nature of societies that have already embraced the use of torture. Second, the use of torture as a means of coercion and intimidation certainly seems to be a form of terrorism. As such, the reduction in one type of terrorism would be, ironically, offset by the increase in another. Third, terrorism is denounced as a moral evil and its alleged opponents, such as George Bush, seem to revel in claiming the moral high ground. However, a society that accepts the use of torture cannot claim the moral high ground-they are walking the same ground as the terrorists. Thus, it would seem that the use of torture is not morally acceptable. |
As a British military (MI6) report on the matter says :
| Quote: |
Aside from its immorality and its illegality torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."
Given the overwhelmingly negative evidence, the really interesting question is not whether torture works but why so many people in our society want to believe that it works. At the moment, there is a myth in circulation, a fable that goes something like this: Radical terrorists will take advantage of our fussy legality, so we may have to suspend it to beat them. Radical terrorists mock our namby-pamby prisons, so we must make them tougher. Radical terrorists are nasty, so to defeat them we have to be nastier.
|
A Newsweek report concurs :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14924664/site/newsweek/
So we have an unreliable method of obtaining information which is brutal, degrading, inhumane and condemned by most 'civilised' societies.
Finally we have the legal and moral arguments:
1) The US has signed up to the treaty on Torture which expressly forbids the type of actions it currently carries out.
2) The US is almost certainly in breach of international law in this matter but will, of course, face no sanctions since it has opted out of the World Court and refuses to partake in the
International Criminal Court.
3) The torture is supposed to be a specific and strictly necessary response to terrorist threat. This is bogus, as Chomsky points out:
| Quote: |
Terrorism Works – Terrorism is not the Weapon of the Weak
That is the culture in which we live and it reveals several facts. One is the fact that terrorism works. It doesn’t fail. It works. Violence usually works. That’s world history. Secondly, it’s a very serious analytic error to say, as is commonly done, that terrorism is the weapon of the weak. Like other means of violence, it’s primarily a weapon of the strong, overwhelmingly, in fact. It is held to be a weapon of the weak because the strong also control the doctrinal systems and their terror doesn’t count as terror. Now that’s close to universal. I can’t think of a historical exception, even the worst mass murderers’ view the world that way. So pick the Nazis. They weren’t carrying out terror in occupied Europe. They were protecting the local population from the terrorisms of the partisans. And like other resistance movements, there was terrorism. The Nazis were carrying out counter terror. Furthermore, the United States essentially agreed with that. After the war, the US army did extensive studies of Nazi counter terror operations in Europe. First I should say that the US picked them up and began carrying them out itself, often against the same targets, the former resistance. But the military also studied the Nazi methods published interesting studies, sometimes critical of them because they were inefficiently carried out, so a critical analysis, you didn’t do this right, you did that right, but those methods with the advice of Wermacht officers who were brought over here became the manuals of counter insurgency, of counter terror, of low intensity conflict, as it is called, and are the manuals, and are the procedures that are being used. So it’s not just that the Nazis did it. It’s that it was regarded as the right thing to do by the leaders of western civilization that is us, who then proceeded to do it themselves. Terrorism is not the weapon of the weak. It is the weapon of those who are against ‘us’ whoever ‘us’ happens to be. And if you can find a historical exception to that, I’d be interested in seeing it. |
So there I have quickly outlined the practical, as well as moral and legal, case against Torture for you to consider....
Chris.I have to agree with Chris on this one, justification for torture seems unlikely to appear anytime soon. It's truly chilling to see so many normalized to the idea of torture, trivializing serial brutality without any thought of the new reality they have acquiesced to. Even if the arguments against it weren't so compelling (and they are, i think Chris has well covered the main points), how can we be sure that torturees will have anything to confess? A case in hand would be those abducted from Afghanistan to Guantanemo Bay - many were captured merely for the bounty paid for 'Al-Qaeda members' by American soldiers. Cases abound of ordinary citizens arrested (abducted), detained without charge, tortured over several months/ years and then released, still without any criminal charges brought.
So the question i would put to torture's proponents is an obvious one: would you still feel the same way if this had happened to you? Since Bush can now legally (sic) detain any citizen of the world without access to trial or the legal system, even on the suspicion of deviant activity, how long is it before you or someone you care about is subject to this sort of treatment? "But we're not terrorists", i hear you cry. That's ok! - get out a few of the wrong library books, join a peace group, be unfortunate enough to share a name with a known felon, and you too could get the VIP treatment. All for the war on terrorism... as a pertinent fellow recently pointed out, 'when is terrorism likely to surrender?'
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin Chris,
Thank you for the informative post. I will respond in kind when I have some more time.
It should be noted, however, that indeed the primary example in my posts was represenative, at least to the topic of this thread, which was water-boarding.
adredwood, I will respond to yours as well.
| Exander wrote: |
Chris,
Thank you for the informative post. I will respond in kind when I have some more time.
It should be noted, however, that indeed the primary example in my posts was represenative, at least to the topic of this thread, which was water-boarding.
adredwood, I will respond to yours as well. |
Ermm, the title is clear and although the original post was specific on waterboarding (a term I find offensive and disturbing), I don't think that I strayed from the point at hand which was concerned with the US VPs cavalier and dismissive attitude to allegations of torture which were known, even at the time, to involve much more than 'waterboarding'.
Regards
Chris | ocalhoun wrote: |
LIBERAL MEDIA ALERT!
You'll notice,
1: They include a very unflattering picture.
2: They give extremely little information about just what this 'waterboarding' is. (Perhaps it is nothing really bad, but they don't let you decide that for yourself, do they?)
*edit*
Here's what waterboarding is (from the article):
| Quote: | | ...pouring water on cloth or cellophane placed over the nose and mouth to simulate drowning... |
This is the gentler method, as opposed to actually holding the person's head underwater. Personally I suspect that we're using this gentler method, which doesn't seem so bad to me. |
Oh so that is waterboarding. Bah that is nothing new. I believe someone in the Bush administration probably got inspired by some old Chinese movies demostrating the executions of princes in imperial China for rebellion. After coups have failed against emperors, they kill the plotters by covering their faces with wet silken clothes to preserve the diginity of the imperial family( since the coup leaders were family...).
As we can see, such form of interrogation by the US security services actually bestow respects for the prisoner involved. Moreover, the prisoners all didn't die you know? So how can it be tortore? It is an honor I say.
