Is Waterboarding torture?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I split off the debate over why the Democrats are talking about waterboarding into its own thread.

[Tiger Al 0]

I split off the debate over why the Democrats are talking about waterboarding into its own thread.

OK...sorry, I didn't see it.

[AURaptor 1,126]

So, Raptor, how is waterboarding NOT an act of torture as you've asserted it isn't?

There's no perminant physical damage,

There's no legal requirement that there be permanant physical damage.

there's no risk of death.....the list goes on and on.

This statement is very telling. Either you are being intentionally obtuse or you don't have a clue about what you are defending.

By your definition supplied, waking up and getting out of bed constitutes 'torture' .

No, it isn't.

Some of you pansies live in a pollyanna world where you believe if we tell the terrorist we'll act nice, then they'll act nice back.

Try to respond to arguments that have actually been made. I don't think John McCain is a pansy or lives in a pollyanna world and he has no problem recognizing or calling waterboarding what it is: torture.

And they're laughing at us for just having this conversatino. While they're raping and torturing folks simply for the hell of it, we're trying to get info from prisoners so we can SAVE LIVES!. On no plain of existance what so ever can we ever be compared to them. This talk of " we've become the monsters we're fighting " is pure crap. And deep down, you know that, or did, and have been shamed into thinking that it's some how wrong to get tough with these monsters. And that's what they are, make no mistake about that. Ask those who are fighting them...there's no soul in those eyes.

This is interesting rhetoric, but, that's all it is.

Not rhetoric at all. It's called REAL LIFE.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Not rhetoric at all. It's called REAL LIFE.

We're not proposing anything that isn't "real life."

Now how about you engage and give a real answer instead of copping out with snippy soundbites?

[BZ770 2]

Its not torture, having electrodes tied to your mountain oysters is torture. L:ibbies just need something to talk about in the media to try and get people away from Football this time of year.

I live in Mobile. Will you agree to let me and some of my MP buddies from the 1165th waterboard you?

WHy would you want to waterboard me, for Masonic Secrets? This is an information tactic used on enemies of the state. If if was my rules I would put 2 of the Gitmo prisoners beside each other then give one of them a chance to talk if he refuses shoot him on the spot and the other one spill his guts.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

If if was my rules I would put 2 of the Gitmo prisoners beside each other then give one of them a chance to talk if he refuses shoot him on the spot and the other one spill his guts.

That should inspire those under tyrannical rule to aspire to be like us.

[AURaptor 1,126]

When you use evil means to combat evil, you are becoming what you are fighting. This isn't rocket science. A civil society that goes by the rule of law and believes in certain inalienable rights and the dignity of the human person does not torture. Period.

Wrong. You don't use sheep to protect other sheep from wolves. You use bad ass dogs who'll stand up to the wolves, and not back down.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

When you use evil means to combat evil, you are becoming what you are fighting. This isn't rocket science. A civil society that goes by the rule of law and believes in certain inalienable rights and the dignity of the human person does not torture. Period.

Wrong. You don't use sheep to protect other sheep from wolves. You use bad ass dogs who'll stand up to the wolves, and not back down.

Let the dogs defend, but they really aren't great interogators.

[BZ770 2]

Terrorists should have no rights, do they regard our innocents NO, they lost all there respect on their jihad voyage, US needs to stop being such a Nanny wanny wussy boy and do what works good ole hard core Marathon Man interrogation tactics. Bring our troops back and defend our borders and spend all the money we are wasting on this war for Education, Getting people out of the Ghetto and whatever social issues this country faces.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Terrorists should have no rights, do they regard our innocents NO, they lost all there respect on their jihad voyage, US needs to stop being such a Nanny wanny wussy boy and do what works good ole hard core Marathon Man interrogation tactics. Bring our troops back and defend our borders and spend all the money we are wasting on this war for Education, Getting people out of the Ghetto and whatever social issues this country faces.

If you believe convicted terrorists have no rights, that's one discussion. This discussion is about those suspected of of having some connection to or knowledge about terrorism.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Its not torture, having electrodes tied to your mountain oysters is torture. L:ibbies just need something to talk about in the media to try and get people away from Football this time of year.

I live in Mobile. Will you agree to let me and some of my MP buddies from the 1165th waterboard you?

WHy would you want to waterboard me, for Masonic Secrets? This is an information tactic used on enemies of the state. If if was my rules I would put 2 of the Gitmo prisoners beside each other then give one of them a chance to talk if he refuses shoot him on the spot and the other one spill his guts.

Two problems:

1. Expert interrogators say it doesn't work. They make crap up to get you to stop, which wastes time and costs lives.

2. We're doing this to innocent people.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

When you use evil means to combat evil, you are becoming what you are fighting. This isn't rocket science. A civil society that goes by the rule of law and believes in certain inalienable rights and the dignity of the human person does not torture. Period.

Wrong. You don't use sheep to protect other sheep from wolves. You use bad ass dogs who'll stand up to the wolves, and not back down.

Why do you have such a hard time grasping the concept that not torturing people does not mean you just lay down and let people do whatever they want to you or make no attempt to use more effective means to get the information you need?

[AURaptor 1,126]

1. Expert interrogators say it doesn't work. They make crap up to get you to stop, which wastes time and costs lives.

2. We're doing this to innocent people.

If the experts doing the interogations say it doesn't work, then why are we having this discussion? Who the hell is to say we DO use it ? No one ! But letting the terrorist know for certain that we WON'T use it is ,imo, counter productive.

How do you know we're doing this to innocent people ? Based on what?

[Auburn85 432]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/1...sive-only-.html

[TitanTiger 20,511]

1. Expert interrogators say it doesn't work. They make crap up to get you to stop, which wastes time and costs lives.

2. We're doing this to innocent people.

If the experts doing the interogations say it doesn't work, then why are we having this discussion?

Not the experts doing THESE interrogations. Experts in the field of interrogation. I posted some quotes from some of them. I could produce scores of others. This stuff is readily available to anyone who's willing to take the time and has an open mind.

Who the hell is to say we DO use it ? No one ! But letting the terrorist know for certain that we WON'T use it is ,imo, counter productive.

We do use it. We use this and many other methods that contradict our signed and ratified treaties that defined what torture is.

How do you know we're doing this to innocent people ? Based on what?

Start by typing in the name "Maher Arar" into Google. Here's a quick link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/21/...ain594974.shtml

There are many links with more in depth versions.

If you think he's the only one, you've got your head in the sand.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/1...sive-only-.html

1. Narrowing the scope to "Al Qaeda operatives" and done by the CIA doesn't really tell the whole story.

2. Waterboarding is only one of many methods that we are employing that would be considered torture by the definitions we signed and ratified, but fall far short of what some here are arguing (permanent physical or mental damage).

3. Related to point #1, this story does not cover renditions.

[AURaptor 1,126]

A story by CBS, the famed ' forged documents ' folks ? Yeah, that's REAL credible. I have no doubt he was detained, but how can we be certain he was waterboarded ? Because he says so ? What better way to get hush $$ than to claim you were tortured ? Your basis for saying we waterboard is simply " we do it " . Wow. OK...I'm convinced now.

Not.

Best we can know for sure is that 3 have been waterboarded, and not since '03 has it been used.

For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director.

Officials told ABC News on Sept. 14 that the controversial interrogation technique, in which a suspect has water poured over his mouth and nose to stimulate a drowning reflex as shown in the above demonstration, had been banned by the CIA director at the recommendation of his deputy, Steve Kappes.

Hayden sought and received approval from the White House to remove waterboarding from the list of approved interrogation techniques first authorized by a presidential finding in 2002.

The officials say the decision was made sometime last year but has never been publicly disclosed by the CIA

So why all the fuss ?

[channonc 466]

When you use evil means to combat evil, you are becoming what you are fighting. This isn't rocket science. A civil society that goes by the rule of law and believes in certain inalienable rights and the dignity of the human person does not torture. Period.

Wrong. You don't use sheep to protect other sheep from wolves. You use bad ass dogs who'll stand up to the wolves, and not back down.

I think our military has some of the smartest people in the world, they should be smart enough to think of other ways to get information out of someone, other than the use of torture.

Judging by your comments, you must think that these guys are only smart enough to use torture to get what they want. I happen to have more faith in their abilities than that.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

A story by CBS, the famed ' forged documents ' folks ? Yeah, that's REAL credible.

As I said, type his name into Google. You'll find more than enough corroborating sources. Among them, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp (he's a Canadian citizen), Time Magazine, The Washington Post, The Christian Science Monitor, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The BBC, ABC News. It's also an entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Sorry, you don't get to worm out of presenting an actual counterargument by simply questioning the source. He even testified before Congress about his experience.

And Sec. of State Condolezza Rice has admitted the U.S. wrongly imprisoned and sent him to a country where he was tortured:

October 24, 2007, Washington, DC – According to press reports, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice admitted during a House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing today that the U.S. government mishandled the rendition of Center for Constitutional Rights client and Canadian citizen Maher Arar, saying, “I do not think this case was handled as it should have been. We do absolutely not wish to transfer anyone to any place in which they might be tortured.”

http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-relea...tion-maher-arar

And a Congressional committee comprised of both Democrats and Republicans, including some who still support renditions acknowledged what happened to him:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Congress_apo...rture_1019.html

I have no doubt he was detained, but how can we be certain he was waterboarded ? Because he says so ? What better way to get hush $$ than to claim you were tortured ? Your basis for saying we waterboard is simply " we do it " . Wow. OK...I'm convinced now.

Not.

Best we can know for sure is that 3 have been waterboarded, and not since '03 has it been used.

For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director.

Officials told ABC News on Sept. 14 that the controversial interrogation technique, in which a suspect has water poured over his mouth and nose to stimulate a drowning reflex as shown in the above demonstration, had been banned by the CIA director at the recommendation of his deputy, Steve Kappes.

Hayden sought and received approval from the White House to remove waterboarding from the list of approved interrogation techniques first authorized by a presidential finding in 2002.

The officials say the decision was made sometime last year but has never been publicly disclosed by the CIA

So why all the fuss ?

Please pay attention. I've answered this already:

1. Narrowing the scope to "Al Qaeda operatives" and done by the CIA doesn't really tell the whole story.

2. Waterboarding is only one of many methods that we are employing that would be considered torture by the definitions we signed and ratified, but fall far short of what some here are arguing (permanent physical or mental damage).

3. Related to point #1, this story does not cover renditions.

Point #3 is key. The case of Maher Arar wouldn't be covered by the narrow definition given by this story. So what if "only 3" people...who were specifically "Al Qaeda operatives" were waterboarded by...specifically "CIA operatives?" If you're also detaining people who are not members of Al Qaeda but merely on some terror watch list, and your shipping them off to other countries and essentially outsourcing the torture and interrogations to their intelligence services, it's easy to keep those numbers down.

And though the issue that started this thread is waterboarding, the larger issue we've been discussing is the morality of torture and now whether we're doing it to innocent people.

Here's a link to what he has testified happened to him:

http://www.maherarar.ca/mahers%20story.php

Among the things done:

Early in the morning on October 10 Arar is taken downstairs to a basement. The guard opens the door and Arar sees for the first time the cell he will live in for the following ten months and ten days.

Arar calls the cell a “grave.” It is three feet wide, six feet deep and seven feet high. It has a metal door, with a small opening which does not let in light because of a piece of metal on the outside for sliding things into the cell. There is a one by two foot opening in the ceiling with iron bars. This opening is below another ceiling and lets in just a tiny shaft of light. Cats urinate through the ceiling traps of these cells, often onto the prisoners. Rats wander there too.

There is no light source in the cell...

He is beaten on his palms, wrists, lower back and hips with a shredded black electrical cable which is about two inches in diameter. He is threatened with the metal chair, electric shocks, and with the tire, into which prisoners are stuffed, immobilized and beaten.

The next day Arar is interrogated and beaten on and off for eighteen hours. Arar begs them to stop. He is asked if he received military training in Afghanistan, and he falsely confesses and says yes. This is the first time Arar is ever questioned about Afghanistan. They ask at which camp, and provide him with a list, and he picks one of the camps listed.

Arar urinated on himself twice during the interrogation.

Throughout this period of intense interrogation Arar was not taken back to his cell, but to a waiting room where he could hear other prisoners being tortured and screaming. One time, he heard them repeatedly slam a man’s head on a desk really hard...

During the second week of the interrogation, Arar is forced into a car tire so he is immobilized.

This man was taken into custody on Sept 26, 2002 and was denied a lawyer. He was not released to go back home until October 5, 2003...over a year later. They didn't just detain the man and then play patty cake or talk to him rudely.

So, to get back to the subject, we have several problems when it comes to torture:

1. We are violating agreements that we signed and ratified, stating we would not torture people. Waterboarding fits the definition that we signed yet we admit at least 3 specific, narrowly defined cases.

2. Torture, according to the testimony of Maher Arar and others plus the word of numerous military interrogators, produces false confessions and bad information. Everytime we get crap info from some guy that said it just to make the beatings, electroshocks, waterboarding or whatever stop, we waste valuable resources and sometimes put our men in harm's way chasing down nonexistant leads.

3. It violates every principle and notion about what America is. We cannot claim any moral high ground whatsoever when we use evil to combat evil.

4. We're doing this to innocent people which only compounds the immorality.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Another article from

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime

By Evan Wallach

Sunday, November 4, 2007

As a JAG in the Nevada National Guard, I used to lecture the soldiers of the 72nd Military Police Company every year about their legal obligations when they guarded prisoners. I'd always conclude by saying, "I know you won't remember everything I told you today, but just remember what your mom told you: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." That's a pretty good standard for life and for the law, and even though I left the unit in 1995, I like to think that some of my teaching had carried over when the 72nd refused to participate in misconduct at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

Sometimes, though, the questions we face about detainees and interrogation get more specific. One such set of questions relates to "waterboarding." That term is used to describe several interrogation techniques. The victim may be immersed in water, have water forced into the nose and mouth, or have water poured onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed.

The media usually characterize the practice as "simulated drowning." That's incorrect. To be effective, waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death. That is, the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut. The main difference is that the drowning process is halted. According to those who have studied waterboarding's effects, it can cause severe psychological trauma, such as panic attacks, for years.

The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture...I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

In this case from the tribunal's records, the victim was a prisoner in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies:

A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.

The United States (like Britain, Australia and other Allies) pursued lower-ranking Japanese war criminals in trials before their own tribunals. As a general rule, the testimony was similar to Nielsen's. Consider this account from a Filipino waterboarding victim:

Q: Was it painful?

A: Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious. Like drowning in the water.

Q: Like you were drowning?

A: Drowning -- you could hardly breathe.

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.

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

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

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

Evan Wallach, a judge at the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, teaches the law of war as an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School and New York Law School.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0201170_pf.html