Waterboarding Used 266 Times on 2 Suspects

[TX-Beau]

It's time to put up or shut up.

You don't honestly think there are many people in this discussion taking you seriously do you?

 

[jackoroe]

^Maybe when you answer the question, your opinion will be of some consequence.

 

[TX-Beau]

LOL, there's nothing I can say you will hear in the first place.

 

[Glafna]

Yeah, I do read the threads. And I still haven't read a decision, by a competent court of law, having decided that any of our people tortured anybody. We've been aware about these issues for years. Yet, mysteriously no complaint of torture by our people has been adjudicated. No decision by the World Court, no decision by SCOTUS, no decision by anybody of any consequence whatsoever. Just the peanut gallery here at JUB.

I don't much care about what anybody may or may not have been convicted of previously, let's deal with here and now. Especially since Obama and company doesn't appear likely to bring any charges anytime soon.

It's time to put up or shut up.

During WW2, and Vietnam, water boarding was conducted on US soldiers by Japanese and Vietcong in both conflicts, and the government of the United States condemned them for their use of torture on the P.O.W's.

Want the link?? Find it yourself. I've gotten tired of looking up shit for this thread, because it is as you said

I don't much care

. And funny thing is, you don't give a shit, same as Henry, same as chance. As long as it doesn't involve US citizens, you don't care. Get it through your thick skulls that your country is a declining super power surrounded by enemies who are growing in number due to the arrogance of your past leaders, the stupidity of your politicians, and the complete disregard for both human and civil rights.

I'm tired about arguing about a country founded on greed and war. Deal with it yourselves.

 

[Kulindahr]

After 12 years, he had zero credibility.

So acting in a way that puts a serious spike in our own credibility is a good response?

No, you take him at his word: you say we want inspection teams at all border crossings, and inspection patrols along the borders, to inspect anything they please, coming or going, for evidence of WMDs. You send in a new inspection team every week, with a full infantry company for security, and inspect anything that comes to mind -- chemical plants, paint stores, hospitals, government offices, whatever. You take him at his word -- and push it. If he sticks to what he said, great; if he doesn't, you've made an exceptional case for wanting to avoid bloodshed and destruction... and you probably know where he is, so you go snatch him, offer his #2 the job....

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah, I do read the threads. And I still haven't read a decision, by a competent court of law, having decided that any of our people tortured anybody. We've been aware about these issues for years. Yet, mysteriously no complaint of torture by our people has been adjudicated. No decision by the World Court, no decision by SCOTUS, no decision by anybody of any consequence whatsoever. Just the peanut gallery here at JUB.

I don't much care about what anybody may or may not have been convicted of previously, let's deal with here and now. Especially since Obama and company doesn't appear likely to bring any charges anytime soon.

It's time to put up or shut up.

Kinda hard to prosecute when the perpetrators are in charge of all the avenues of evidence -- it's rather like having to investigate and prosecute the mob when they run the detective departments in all the police agencies.

That you don't care about what's been decided previously says that your morals are hitched to political expediency, which means you really have none at all.

That Obama and company don't seem likely to bring charges merely shows that they're moral wimps -- it's not an excuse for anyone else to smugly take the message that torture is okay.

Yes, it is time to put up or shut up: put up the evidence that the United States officially, preferably by an act of Congress, abrogated its international agreements, repudiated its former stance on the morality of these methods, and declared them to be just and moral, acceptable in the eyes of all civilized persons -- or admit that you're defending barbarism, and thereafter keep silence.

 

[hotatlboi]

Physical, Psychological, or Other Effects: Severe mental suffering; no physical effects unless the tactic results in suffocation.

Nnnnnnot torture.

Severe mental suffering isn't torture?

You have a strange definition of torture.

And waterboarding certainly does have physical effects. If it's employed too long your lungs will fill with CO2 and you will pass out.

 

[White Eagle]

Yeah, I do read the threads. And I still haven't read a decision, by a competent court of law, having decided that any of our people tortured anybody. We've been aware about these issues for years. Yet, mysteriously no complaint of torture by our people has been adjudicated. No decision by the World Court, no decision by SCOTUS, no decision by anybody of any consequence whatsoever. Just the peanut gallery here at JUB.

I don't much care about what anybody may or may not have been convicted of previously, let's deal with here and now. Especially since Obama and company doesn't appear likely to bring any charges anytime soon.

It's time to put up or shut up.

Of course there are no decisions by a court of law. You worded your post to protect you from being wrong. Therefore, I submit, that I have no decision by that court of law. But to prove the whole issue is about torture, maybe you will believe McCain.
This goes for jav1231 & HenryReardon:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/14/mccain-opposes-torturing-americans/

McCain Takes Bold Stance On Torture: ‘We Cannot Ever Torture Any American’

Today, during the question-and-answer period of Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) address to the Associated Press, a journalist asked McCain about torturing terrorism detainees, saying "Don't we stand for something better?" McCain seemed to get confused, talking instead about his opposition to the torture of Americans:

I've made it very clear, I've made it very clear in my statements and in my support of the Detainee Treatment Act, the Geneva Conventions, etc., that there may be some additional techniques to be used, but none of those would violate the Geneva Conventions, the Detainee Treatment Act...And we cannot ever, in my view, torture any American, that includes waterboarding.

Watch it:

The video is from CSpan and I don't know how to insert it into JUB. You can find it at the above link.

Of course, the question had nothing to do with torturing Americans, something no American would support. The question was about how Americans should treat detainees in the war on terror -- an issue McCain has hardly been "very clear" on.

As he did today, McCain has condemned waterboarding in the past. He has called it a "horrible torture technique" and a "terrible and odious practice" that "should never be condoned in the U.S." Yet in February, McCain voted against a bill banning the CIA from using torture, specifically including waterboarding.

When the bill passed, McCain encouraged Bush to veto it -- effectively supporting the CIA's use of "stress positions, hypothermia, threats to the detainee and his family, severe sleep deprivation, and severe sensory deprivation."

The only thing McCain has been "very clear" on is his completely uncontroversial -- and completely irrelevant -- opposition to the torturing of Americans. Like Bush, will McCain claim that "America does not torture" and yet condone torture behind closed doors?

 

[White Eagle]

Or maybe this one from McCain:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/20/mccain-ksm-183/

McCain Reacts To KSM Being Waterboarded 183 Times: ‘One Is Too Much. Waterboarding Is Torture’

This morning on Fox News, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) responded to the startling information -- first noted by blogger Marcy Wheeler -- that detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times. "It's unacceptable," McCain said, adding:

One is too much. Waterboarding is torture, period. I can ensure you that once enough physical pain is inflicted on someone, they will tell that interrogator whatever they think they want to hear. And most importantly, it serves as a great propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us.

McCain later reiterated his point, "The image of the United States of America throughout the world is a recruiting tool for Islamic extremists." Watch it:

Well, my link to Ytube didn't work so you can get the video at the above link.

Despite his outspoken advocacy against torture, he said it was a "serious mistake" for the Obama administration to release the torture memos. "The release of these memos helps no one, doesn't help America's image, does not help us address the issue." Obama adviser David Axelrod said the president's belief in "the law and his belief in transparency" ultimately convinced him to release the memos.

McCain touted his sponsorship of the Detainee Treatment Act, which "prohibited torture." In fact, that legislation contained a loophole permitting CIA agents to continue engaging in torture.

 

[HenryReardon]

Or maybe this one from McCain:


]

Or maybe this one from McCain's autobiography:

Sen. John McCain is leading the charge against so-called "torture" techniques allegedly used by U.S. interrogators, insisting that practices like sleep deprivation and withholding medical attention are not only brutal - they simply don't work to persuade terrorist suspects to give accurate information.

Nearly forty years ago, however - when McCain was held captive in a North Vietnamese prison camp - some of the same techniques were used on him. And - as McCain has publicly admitted at least twice - the torture worked!

In his 1999 autobiography, "Faith of My Fathers," McCain describes how he was severely injured when his plane was shot down over Hanoi - and how his North Vietnamese interrogators used his injuries to extract information.

"Demands for military information were accompanied by threats to terminate my medical treatment if I did not cooperate," he wrote.

"I thought they were bluffing and refused to provide any information beyond my name, rank and serial number, and date of birth. They knocked me around a little to force my cooperation."

The punishment finally worked, McCain said. "Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant."

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/100012.shtml

 

[White Eagle]

If this what you believed, then he is saying it is torture.

Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number and confirmed that my target had been the power plant.

Isn't much in giving up info. They would have known this already.

 

[HenryReardon]

If this what you believed, then he is saying it is torture.

Isn't much in giving up info. They would have known this already.

What I believe is not relevant. He said, in that book, that torture worked.

Today he says othewise.

 

[TX-Beau]

My point is simple. Is it technically a form of torture?

Yes it is. It has been considered such for a hundred years, you don't get to change that. You're moving into the realm of willful ignorance.

If you don't want to listen to us, do your own research. The information is out there. But you don't want to do that do you, you want to ignore it and justify it away, because it's you who needs the definition of torture to be politically expedient. The people you supported ordered it done.

 

[TX-Beau]

It's not willful ignorance, it's simply viewing it in the broader context.

Of course it's willful ignorance. The law, the experts, the military, and half of the republican party say it's torture, it's just you and some fool partisans on Fox who are still trying to justify it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Gee, Jav, that showed a great deal of maturity.

How about I take a turn? Here's something to respond to using reason, and not little childish snits:

Hell, I can hit a guy with a live 110V wire over a 180 times and not injure him -- I guess that's not torture, either.

I'm sure my old Tai-Kwon-Do instructor could have punched and kicked someone over 180 times without causing injury, so that wouldn't be torture, either.

I could stand a guy by a fence and put over 180 rounds into the wood around him with my dependable old Enfield, without injuring him, so that wouldn't be torture.

I could tie a guy down on the railroad ties between the rails, face up, and run over 180 train cars over him, without injuring him, so that wouldn't be torture, either.

I could make a guy eat shit every day for over 180 days without injuring him, so that's not torture, either.

"Chinese water torture" doesn't cause injury, but everyone acknowledges it's torture (or everyone used to).

There are many forms of torture which cause no injury -- in fact the KGB perfected many, believing that the best torture is that which leaves no mark, save in the victim's mind.

Your definition of torture is unrealistic and self-serving.



We had a paramedic standing by during lifeguard training when we underwent our release/escape tests, because those entailed a risk of drowning. After that experience, I must agree that any time you inflict something emulating a near-drowning on a person without that person's consent and without training him for dealing with it, it's torture -- it comes darned close when you have consented, and have been trained!

Anyone with a modicum of common sense will grasp that there are all forms of torture -- and waterboarding is right in there with them.

 

[TX-Beau]

Okay, I can do this all day. I qualified my statement. It's not ignorance.

186 times...no injury...nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnot torture.

Your turn.

You can do this all day, but it's getting tedious for me. If you won't listen, you won't. I'm done with it.

 

[Kulindahr]

When TX responds sarcastic remarks and "childish snits" then that is the manner in which I will respond. Sorry. His purpose is to demean the messenger not discuss merits.

I've quantified my statements already but those who wish to bash and impose their will could care less. I realize waterboarding is classified by many as "torture." I simply refuse to include it in what the average person would call torture because to do so is to equate it with racking, cutting off of limbs, and such. In my opinion, that is idiocy. You don't have to agree. I'm simply telling you my view and on what I base my view. Yet, I'm met with derision.

You're met with derision because what you're saying is the view of the "average person" almost certainly isn't. Torture brings to mind things from the movies, such as I've described -- electricity, beatings -- and not drastic dismemberment. Many things that are commonly viewed as torture don't involve physical injury at all, which is why people think your definition foolish.

 

[HenryReardon]

If my thinking that waterboarding is a whole other class of "torture" than dismemberment is foolish, then so be it.

As it turns out, the NYT (as usual) got it wrong. It wasn't 266 waterboarding sessions, it was 266 pours of water or thereabouts. Of course accuracy was never a strong point of the NYT:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...ts-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-waterboarded-times/

U.S. official with knowledge of the interrogation program told FOX News that the much-cited figure represents the number of times water was poured onto Mohammed's face -- not the number of times the CIA applied the simulated-drowning technique on the terror suspect. According to a 2007 Red Cross report, he was subjected a total of "five sessions of ill-treatment."

"The water was poured 183 times -- there were 183 pours," the official explained, adding that "each pour was a matter of seconds."

The Times and dozens of other outlets wrote that the CIA also waterboarded senior Al Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah 83 times, but Zubayda himself, a close associate of Usama bin Laden, told the Red Cross he was waterboarded no more than 10 times.

 

[Kulindahr]

If my thinking that waterboarding is a whole other class of "torture" than dismemberment is foolish, then so be it.

That's a nice statement, but why did you attach it to the quote from me? it doesn't respond to my statement at all.

 

[Kulindahr]

Ummmm....okay. You said I look foolish in my position...thus my response.

But what you said didn't address the point, which was that your definition of torture does in fact not match what most people think of, because things that most people will think of as torture include numerous things which neither do injury nor even leave marks, and don't involve bloodshed, for that matter. Chinese water torture is a good example.