Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
McCain has a right to his opinion just like everyone else. I'm curious, has he started a campaign against our military waterboarding our own soldiers during training or is that okay?
There's a world of difference between being waterboarded as part of military training, and being waterboarded as part of interrogation. The military trainers care if you live or die. The military trainers tell you what they are going to do. The military trainers tell you roughly what you're going to feel. The soldier knows it's part of training. That there are people present who can stop the whole thing at a moment's notice.
The suspected terrorist, knows the people who are doing this to him, hate him. He knows that the interrogators might prefer he live another day, so they can do this to him again and again, but won't care if he dies.
If waterboarding doesn't create a real fear of potential death, of what use is it? Why tell the interrogators anything, if it's just water in the face and a little discomfort? Torture isn't in the act, it's in the fear it creates in the prisoner. The fear is the torture. We know that. That's why we train our soldiers in waterboarding. To remove the fear.
There's a world of difference between being waterboarded as part of military training, and being waterboarded as part of interrogation. The military trainers care if you live or die. The military trainers tell you what they are going to do. The military trainers tell you roughly what you're going to feel. The soldier knows it's part of training. That there are people present who can stop the whole thing at a moment's notice.
The suspected terrorist, knows the people who are doing this to him, hate him. He knows that the interrogators might prefer he live another day, so they can do this to him again and again, but won't care if he dies.
If waterboarding doesn't create a real fear of potential death, of what use is it? Why tell the interrogators anything, if it's just water in the face and a little discomfort? Torture isn't in the act, it's in the fear it creates in the prisoner. The fear is the torture. We know that. That's why we train our soldiers in waterboarding. To remove the fear.
That's a good point about our soldiers. Having never been waterboarded, I don't know if that offers any real comfort while it's being done. I would imagine that the natural instinct still allows for real fear or it wouldn't be worthwhile training exercise though, but I'm sure there is some difference.
There is no question that waterboarding creates fear.
If Democrats want to ban waterboarding, then why have they not outlawed it? They after all have all 3 branches of government in their control and could deem it "torture" tomorrow..
The Democrats don't have to make waterboarding illegal. IT'S BEEN ILLEGAL THIS WHOLE TIME!
The US tried and convicted several Japanese interrogators for waterboarding US troops during WWII. As recently as 1983 a Texas sheriff and 3 deputies were tried and conviced in federal court of water boarding a criminal suspect. The sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
That's a good point about our soldiers. Having never been waterboarded, I don't know if that offers any real comfort while it's being done. I would imagine that the natural instinct still allows for real fear or it wouldn't be worthwhile training exercise though, but I'm sure there is some difference.
There is no question that waterboarding creates fear.
I shouldn't have said that training can remove the fear. I'm sure it can't. But it can defuse it enough that the person can work through the fear. And if someone has been waterboarded 183 time, the fear probably isn't gone completely, because he knows the animosity that the interrogators have for him, but at that point, is the waterboarding the torture, or the threat of being waterboarded again, the torture?
And what effect does this have on the people conducting the waterboarding? People who have been waterboarded, even in controlled circumstances, say that they have nightmares, that even rainfall can trigger flashbacks and horror. Do the people conducting the interrogations have nightmares? Or are they hardened to the reactions of the person they have waterboarded? And if they are hardened to those reactions, does that distance spill over to the rest of their lives?
I shouldn't have said that training can remove the fear. I'm sure it can't. But it can defuse it enough that the person can work through the fear. And if someone has been waterboarded 183 time, the fear probably isn't gone completely, because he knows the animosity that the interrogators have for him, but at that point, is the waterboarding the torture, or the threat of being waterboarded again, the torture?
You're probably right about the response of our soldiers.
As for the person that gets it 183 times, I'm sure the prospect of it does become frightening in itself. A question we have to ask ourselves is whether or not this person's experience of fear is worth it if it prevents a large scale massacre like the one that had apparently been planned in LA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
And what effect does this have on the people conducting the waterboarding? People who have been waterboarded, even in controlled circumstances, say that they have nightmares, that even rainfall can trigger flashbacks and horror. Do the people conducting the interrogations have nightmares? Or are they hardened to the reactions of the person they have waterboarded? And if they are hardened to those reactions, does that distance spill over to the rest of their lives?
I would guess that it has a different effect on different people. I know some that have been in situations (not that one), that have had trouble adjusting afterwards and some that have not. I'm sure it varies and I'm sure that some have lasting effects from it. I'm sure that's the case with all aspects of combat, police work, firefighting etc. - some will pay a price unfortunately.
The Democrats don't have to make waterboarding illegal. IT'S BEEN ILLEGAL THIS WHOLE TIME!
The US tried and convicted several Japanese interrogators for waterboarding US troops during WWII. As recently as 1983 a Texas sheriff and 3 deputies were tried and conviced in federal court of water boarding a criminal suspect. The sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
The article is two pages long....you only linked to the second page.....that's like telling a story starting from the middle without the beginning. It talks about water torture including the water cure (waterboarding).
The article reads:
"Here's the testimony of two Americans imprisoned by the Japanese:
They would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness.
And from the second prisoner:
They laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air. . . . They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water".
The water was poured directly into their mouth and nose. In addition, the article says that as a result of such accounts, the Japanese prison-camp officers were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were convicted of torture (water torture), not waterboarding.
The sheriff and his deputies were convicted of violating prisoner's rights by forcing confessions. He used waterboarding when he did it but, it's not the waterboarding itself that's illegal...it's that he used it to force confessions.
The article is two pages long....you only linked to the second page.....that's like telling a story starting from the middle without the beginning. It talks about water torture including the water cure (waterboarding).
The article reads:
"Here's the testimony of two Americans imprisoned by the Japanese:
They would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness.
And from the second prisoner:
They laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air. . . . They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water".
The water was poured directly into their mouth and nose. In addition, the article says that as a result of such accounts, the Japanese prison-camp officers were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were convicted of torture (water torture), not waterboarding.
The sheriff and his deputies were convicted of violating prisoner's rights by forcing confessions. He used waterboarding when he did it but, it's not the waterboarding itself that's illegal...it's that he used it to force confessions.
"Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment.
'The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army,' recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.
Earlier in 1901, the United States had taken a similar stand against water boarding during the Spanish-American War when an Army major was sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in the Philippines.
'Even when you're fighting against belligerents who don't respect the laws of war, we are obliged to hold the laws of war," said Rejali. "And water torture is torture."'
"Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment.
'The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army,' recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.
Earlier in 1901, the United States had taken a similar stand against water boarding during the Spanish-American War when an Army major was sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in the Philippines.
'Even when you're fighting against belligerents who don't respect the laws of war, we are obliged to hold the laws of war," said Rejali. "And water torture is torture."'
I don't dispute that waterboarding is torture....if you question that, read my first post about John McCain (on page 2 of this thread) in reply to the member that originated this thread. BTW, your ABC link backs up my statement that mcCain has said along that waterboarding constitutes torture. It quotes him in the article and the date of the article is Nov. 29, 2005 (long before the campaigning for the 2008 election even started).
What I'm critical about concerns your link to the article, "Waterboarding Used to be a Crime" and the fact that you said, "It's been illegal this whole time". The article is vague about what exactly it's referring to that's a crime or is illegal (and under what law/court and jurisdiction)...is it waterboarding or water torture or are they just talking about torture....and those prosecuted, what exactly were they charged with and guilty of.
As an example, the testimony of both of the prisoners that were tortured by the Japanese, states that water was poured directly into their mouth and nose (without any kind of cloth, like used in waterboarding). The article says, as a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war....so does the phrase, "such accounts" mean that's exactly why they were convicted and the only reason or does it mean accounts similiar to that along with other water torture or just other torture in general....where they convicted because of the water torture then or was there other torture and that's just the one thing the author wrote about (intentionally or unintentionally omitting the others).
The same thing holds true with the link to the ABC article. It says, the photo in the Washington Post led to that soldiers severe punishment.....within one month after the photos, he was drummed out of the army. OK, the photos led to him being severely punished, it doesn't say that's why he was specifically punished....so, is it the only thing he did to get kicked out of the army or did it lead to an investigation that uncovered other things that got him kicked out.....it's vague.....it's worded so that the reader makes that assumption without having to actually lie (in other words, it may be a lie of omission, it's not clear). It also says, it was designated illegal by U.S. generals....so was it a military trial and only that was designated illegal or were other things too (and under what law...the Geneva Convention.....the U.S. Military laws and codes)....it's vague.
I tried to research it and when I googled it to find out more about it, it's all over the Internet but, in every case, it's exactly the same quote from the same political science professor at Reed College.....so in spite of it being every where it says exactly the same couple of sentences from that one source (the professor) and offers no further info about what actually happened in detail. Look for yourself:
This is totally coincidental, but I happened to go to Reed College and took a class from this particular professor, Darius Rejali. If you're really curious about these cases I could email him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno3314
I don't dispute that waterboarding is torture....if you question that, read my first post about John McCain (on page 2 of this thread) in reply to the member that originated this thread. BTW, your ABC link backs up my statement that mcCain has said along that waterboarding constitutes torture. It quotes him in the article and the date of the article is Nov. 29, 2005 (long before the campaigning for the 2008 election even started).
What I'm critical about concerns your link to the article, "Waterboarding Used to be a Crime" and the fact that you said, "It's been illegal this whole time". The article is vague about what exactly it's referring to that's a crime or is illegal (and under what law/court and jurisdiction)...is it waterboarding or water torture or are they just talking about torture....and those prosecuted, what exactly were they charged with and guilty of.
As an example, the testimony of both of the prisoners that were tortured by the Japanese, states that water was poured directly into their mouth and nose (without any kind of cloth, like used in waterboarding). The article says, as a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war....so does the phrase, "such accounts" mean that's exactly why they were convicted and the only reason or does it mean accounts similiar to that along with other water torture or just other torture in general....where they convicted because of the water torture then or was there other torture and that's just the one thing the author wrote about (intentionally or unintentionally omitting the others).
The same thing holds true with the link to the ABC article. It says, the photo in the Washington Post led to that soldiers severe punishment.....within one month after the photos, he was drummed out of the army. OK, the photos led to him being severely punished, it doesn't say that's why he was specifically punished....so, is it the only thing he did to get kicked out of the army or did it lead to an investigation that uncovered other things that got him kicked out.....it's vague.....it's worded so that the reader makes that assumption without having to actually lie (in other words, it may be a lie of omission, it's not clear). It also says, it was designated illegal by U.S. generals....so was it a military trial and only that was designated illegal or were other things too (and under what law...the Geneva Convention.....the U.S. Military laws and codes)....it's vague.
I tried to research it and when I googled it to find out more about it, it's all over the Internet but, in every case, it's exactly the same quote from the same political science professor at Reed College.....so in spite of it being every where it says exactly the same couple of sentences from that one source (the professor) and offers no further info about what actually happened in detail. Look for yourself:
This is totally coincidental, but I happened to go to Reed College and took a class from this particular professor, Darius Rejali. If you're really curious about these cases I could email him.
Well that's the problem, everything there is about it, seems to have all come from him. I'm not saying he's lying but, everyone seems to be biased today and because of that reason, I never listen to one source for anything any more. I watch (or read) several sources for news so I can get the whole story. When you compare what each source reports about the same story, you can usually find the truth some where in the middle. I don't remember actually reading/hearing a lie from a news source....they're just all being deceptive in their wording and/or omissions so, that the reader/viewer makes assumptions that are not necessarily accurate or true.
I the example I brought up, what I'd like to see, is the actual unedited transcipts of the trial (court-martial)...which being military, I'm not sure is made public.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
