Political Discussions
Mancow gets waterboarded
Posted by satijournal • 5/22/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: politics, waterboarding
Right-wing talk show host Erich "Mancow" Muller gets waterboarded -- admits waterboarding is torture. Also, a reporter from Playboy and Christopher Hitchens.
blogs.suntimes.com/sportsprose/2009/05/mancow_gets_waterboarded.html
User Comments
-
And he freaked out full well knowing he was safe, they would not let him drown. He didn't go through this a person who had no idea what was happening, what would happen, how far they would go - and also being handled by people who truly hate and want him dead.
3 seconds. *chuckles* The playboy guy lasted a whole 15 seconds.-
At least this "mancow" character isn't a coward like Sean Hannity.
-
Thats because Hannity knows what it is. He's insane, but not stupid. Of course he won't ever do it - it would be the suicide of his career.
-
-
When's Hannity gonna make good on his promise?! I doubt that far right wuss is a man of his word.-
the Catholics should protest him like they did to Obama
-
-
Did he suffer any intense physical or mental harm? What about the playboy boy?
Torture = the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure "merriam-webster"
Humm, don't seem like torture to me....-
Obviously they did - or they would have been able to sit through more than a few seconds of it - without fear. Keeping in mind, of course, that they were not being handled by hostile interrogaters, not knowing whether they would actually stop or not, or what else they might do. Keeping in mind that the guys who volunteered for a mock waterboarding knew that their handlers would stop, not let them drown, not beat them, spoke their language, had no intention of harming them, did not capture them, throw a bag over their head, detain them, put them through various other forms of "interrogation" such as stress positions, extreme temperature exposure for long hours, forced sexual positions, beatings, etc and so forth. Keeping in mind that the guys who volunteered did not have to go through this type of proceedure every day, several times a day while people are screaming at them, letting them go longer and longer...
And full well knowing all of that, they still couldn't handle it.
Man, when people claim it's not torture, volunteer to do it, and turn around and say it IS torture, you guys still don't believe it.
Why not do it yourself? I mean if it's not so bad and all. Have your kids do it too. Your wife, your mom. It's not torture, right? -
Anok, We have had this discussion, so I'm not going to get into another long debate.
However, I do need to point out a fallacy with your assumption that if it is not so bad, I should go through it myself, or have someone in my family go through it. You have no idea what training I went through while I was in the military. The majority of the training I went through would probably be considered torture by people who have never experienced real torture.
What we did to those terrorists pales in comparison to what they have done to Americans and others around the world. Do you know of any terrorist the U.S. waterboarded that died, was seriously injured, suffered any mental problems or any other problems? Hell those animals get better medical care than the average American. Now there is your true crime! -
There have been detainees who have been released (appearently because they were not terrorists o_0) who have undergone torture--the dislocation of shoulders (aka John McCain syndrome) the cutting of genitalia etc.
Am I to assume from your response that it is OK to torture foriegn civilians into "confessing" information that might or might not be of any intelligence value? o_O -
So... because the terrorists behave badly, we should too so long as it's to a slightly lesser degree?
I'm not buying that argument. Kids use that argument. "Well Johnny did worse stuff then I did! So I shouldn't get into trouble!!" It doesn't work that way
If it's not torture, and it causes no harm or damage, then it should be OK for everyone to do it. It should be safe for everyone to try it. Right? I mean, if an enemy army (any enemy army) captured US troops, and used waterboarding on them in conjunction with other US styled interrogation techniques, you'd be OK with that, right?
So far, everyone who has tried it, has changed their opinion to "It's torture". Why is that not acceptable? -
@Agit8r, Stay with us here... It's waterboarding not cutting someone's nuts off or breaking bones... So no that is not right and subjecting civilians to interrogations is not right either, but sometimes it happens. The cops pick up people, interrogate them and later find out they had the wrong person. Finding bad guys is hard work and sometimes innocent people get caught up in the mix. This is not an exact science, but the military and the cops do the best they can with what they have to work with.
@Anok, Is it all or nothing with you? So what do you suggest we use to extract information that could save lives? "Pretty please, tell us where the bomb is." It's a great concept, but reality is hell.
As far as our troops go, a large majority of them have been waterboarded "In training" and if that was all they ever did to our troops, I would bet you the world our troops would jump for joy. However, (here is that reality thing again), our troops have always been subjected to much worse treatment while in captivity. Even if we served the terrorists tea and asked pretty please, it would not make one bit of difference how our troops would be treated, if captured.
When discussing this issue, there is reality and then there is the land of oz... I think you running with the TIN MAN here on this.. ;-) -
"This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we -- not our enemies -- occupy the moral high ground," Army Gen. David H. Petraeus wrote in an open letter dated May 10 and posted on a military Web site.
He rejected the argument that torture is sometimes needed to quickly obtain crucial information. "Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary," he stated.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051001963.ht...
PETRAEUS: What I would ask is, does that not take away from our enemies a tool, which again they have beaten us around the head and shoulders in the court of public opinion? When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Convention, we rightly have been criticized. And so as we move forward, I think it is important to again live our values to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those.
From FOX "news"
www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/30/736966/-Petraeus-Stands-Tall-against-T... -
sat, So what's your point? My point is clear and not based on political BS from either side. I do not think waterboarding is torture.
According to the UN: "For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
Now the problem with this is the phrase "severe pain or suffering". I'll bet your definition is different from mine and many others.
Pain and Suffering n. the physical and mental distress suffered from an injury, including actual broken bones and internal ruptures
How many of the terrorist suffered these types of injuries? -
My point is clear and not based on political BS from either side.
You think what David Petraeus says is political BS?
I do not think waterboarding is torture.
It's not up to you to decide. For over 50 years it has been designated by the U.S. as a form of torture. -
Bob - why is it that when US troops are tortured, they don't give up info (like hero McCain!) but when terrorists are put through what you consider to be a mild interrogation tactic - they give it all up straight away?
That's not even how terrorist cells work for God's sake. They're designed so that information gained in interrogation sessions is worthless. They don't and won't know the current info because if they knew the info in the first place, it will only be with regards to their cell only, and their cell would abandon their plans.
Either way, you can't argue that torture works when we use it, but not when it's used against us. It either works or it doesn't - and as we all know it doesn't work. Particularly not in a guerrilla, cell organized style of warfare.
And yeah, it's still torture. it is designed to make the detainee think they are going to drown. They do it over and over again - it causes not only physical stress but also mental stress that results in serious issues later on.
And no - our troops are not waterboarded in boot camp as training. My husband, nor anyone in his camp, nor anyone on his boat, nor anyone in his division, nor any of the marines on his boat was ever - and I'll repeat EVER waterboarded during training. Didn't. Happen. -
Oh, by the way - we executed the Japanese for waterboarding our troops in WWII.
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/18/john-mccain/history...
"I forgot to mention last night that following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding," he told reporters at a campaign event.
"If the United States is in another conflict ... and we have allowed that kind of torture to be inflicted upon people we hold captive, then there is nothing to prevent that enemy from also torturing American prisoners."
McCain is referencing the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as "water cure," "water torture" and "waterboarding," according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning.
-
@sat, I don't give a rat's ass what you think. I never said Gen Petraeus was talking political BS, my point was directed to you and the spineless Politicians in Washington. He talked about torture, I don't think waterboarding is torture. I provided my opinion based on the facts and the information I have. We disagree fine, it's my opinion and that is that. Get over it!
@Anok, How do you know our troops don't give up information? You assume too much. As for my comment about our troops being waterboarded, I never said our troops get waterboarded during "boot camp, so don't try to sound like you know what your talking about because your hubby and some other family was in the military. Military members who enter into certain specialties undergo some very specific training. Aircrew members, Special OPs, etc all go through SERE training. During this training, they get waterborarded.
As far as this BS about how we treat prisoners, relates to how our troops are treated, all I can say is: Name one war the US was in where our troops were not tortured well beyond waterboarding? -
Jeebus! Ammo Bob, don't you read any foriegn news?!
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/4551441/UK-government-...
'Two High Court judges last week said they wanted to release the full contents of a CIA file on his treatment but they held back seven paragraphs of information after David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, argued that it could compromise intelligence sharing with the US.
A British official, who is regularly briefed on intelligence operations, said: "The concern was that the document revealed that intelligence from the British agencies was used by the Americans and that there were British questions asked while Binyam Mohamed was being tortured.
"Miliband is being pushed hard by the intelligence agencies to protect the identity of those involved."
The 25 lines edited out of the court papers contained details of how Mr Mohamed's genitals were sliced with a scalpel and other torture methods so extreme that waterboarding, the controversial technique of simulated drowning, "is very far down the list of things they did," the official said.'
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/aug/02/terrorism.humanrights1 -
Agit8r, Didn't you read what I wrote?
I did not say it was ok to use torture, such as you indicated above "torture--the dislocation of shoulders (aka John McCain syndrome) the cutting of genitalia etc."
I said I do not believe waterboarding is torture.
You are trying, as others are here, to paint me as condoning "TORTURE". Let me be very clear. I DO NOT CONDONE TORTURE.
Where we seem to disagree is on the case of waterboarding. I do not think waterboarding is torture and as you so rightly stated, "methods so extreme that waterboarding, the controversial technique of simulated drowning, "is very far down the list of things they did,"
This is my point! The world and the armchair analysts here on BC are getting hung up on the US waterboarding a few very bad terrorists when there were actually some real torture going on.
Please provide a reference citing the physical and mental distress suffered from an injury, including actual broken bones and internal ruptures that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah or Abd Al-Rahim al-Nashiri received during their waterboarding session. -
@sat, I don't give a rat's ass what you think.
Sure you do. Otherwise it wouldn't make you so angry. -
You are trying, as others are here, to paint me as condoning "TORTURE". Let me be very clear. I DO NOT CONDONE TORTURE.
Sure you do. Waterboarding is outlawed by our country because it has been defined as torture. You don't get to decide what is and what isn't torture; that's the government's responsibility. You condone waterboarding. Waterboarding is torture. Therefore, you condone torture. -
@sat, To address your two comments:
1. I can always count on you for a good laugh… You think I’m angry because I don’t give a rat’s ass about what you think? I find you comical, like a little parrot repeating all the Obama Talking points…. I would hardly be angry over that…
2. For your other comment. Circular reasoning? If A is wrong, then B is wrong. Come on sat, you can do better….
I’m done with this nonsense. I stand by what I said. The US used waterboarding on three very bad terrorists. The information we gained saved lives. None of those idiots were harmed in the process. Obama said the US will never use it again - we better hope he is right… So I think you need to just get over it and move on… -
@sati - "Sure you do. Waterboarding is outlawed by our country because it has been defined as torture. You don't get to decide what is and what isn't torture; that's the government's responsibility. You condone waterboarding. Waterboarding is torture. Therefore, you condone torture."
This is circular logic and thusly it is false. What AmmoBob is trying to say is that it is HIS OPINION that waterboarding is not torture. Unless you have deemed it necessary to put yourself in the position that he is not entitled to his opinion. Have you?
Besides, waterboarding was outlawed in our country so Obama could score some points with his far left base. Also, what everyone is forgetting is that there are varying degrees as to how the waterboarding is conducted. The Japanese soldiers from WWII were not executed for waterboarding. The soldiers that were tried for various war crimes, of which included torture that had waterboarding as an instrument of that torture were only given 15 years in prison, not a death sentence. Incidentally, the Japanese form of waterboarding was considered torture because they forced the subjects to ingest the water to the point that their stomachs were distended and then they repeatedly punched and kicked them, causing them to throw the water back up. In this case, yes I agree THAT was torture. The practice that the CIA employed against three high level terror detainees is far different from what our soldiers underwent in WWII.
crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/correction-we-actually-did-execute-j
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding -
2. For your other comment. Circular reasoning? If A is wrong, then B is wrong. Come on sat, you can do better….
No, circular reasoning involves a fallacy. What I used was a simple transitive relationship: if A = B and B = C, then A = C.
As far as parroting left wing talking points, since when did David Petraeus become a left-winger? -
@ammo
It sounded to me like you were saying that the actions that I referenced, had not gone on, in association with the CIA or Gitmo. -
I like how everyone conveniently ignores the fact that The US executed Japanese troops for waterboarding US troops in WWII.
It was torture worth executions then and when used against us, but it's OK now, or when we use it against others?
@Ammobob - McCain was a POW who was tortured and allegedly never gave up any info. The US has a long standing history of (stating that) we never give up sensitive info. Furthermore - my husband went through the training, and had access to many various groups of military troops, and yes, they talked about their training. As did my father, my step father, my uncle, my grandfather etc and so forth. All of whom are veterans of foreign wars. Some who have purple hearts.
They do not waterboard US soldiers during training. -
Okay, after doing more research, I found the transcripts from the Tokyo Trials in which Japanese soldiers and officers were tried for war crimes against the Allied Forces. In it I found that Japanese soldiers and officers WERE executed for war crimes.
The following counts were what was charged in the Tokyo Trials in which the above mentioned soldiers were executed:
"COUNTS OF INDICTMENT:
# Count 1: as "leaders, organizers, instigators, or accomplices in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy .. to wage wars of aggression, and war or wars in violation of international law."
# Count 27: waging unprovoked war against China.
# Count 29: waging aggressive war against the United States.
# Count 31: waging aggressive war against the British Commonwealth.
# Count 32: waging aggressive war against the Netherlands.
# Count 33: waging aggressive war against France (Indochina).
# Count 35 & 36: waging aggressive war against the USSR.
# Count 54: "ordered, authorized, and permitted" inhumane treatment of Prisoners of War (POWs) and others.
# Count 55: "deliberately and recklessly disregarded their duty" to take adequate steps to prevent atrocities."
As you can see, only counts 54 and 55 are in regards to torture, although the word torture is not used in the indictments.
Taken directly from the transcripts:
"All seven sentenced to death were found to be guilty of inciting or otherwise implicated in mass-scale atrocities, among other counts."
From the wikipedia page on waterboarding as regards to the WWII Japanese soldiers, I found this that explains how they went about their version of waterboarding:
"This included waterboarding, by the method of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach"
As I stated earlier, THIS version of waterboarding, which includes violent bodily harm in the form of beatings, IS torture. I find it very highly doubtful that what the CIA did to the three high value terror detainees included any form of beatings.
Look, waterboarding isn't pleasant in the least. That is by design, otherwise we would just give the detainees flowers and candy to get the info from them.
Additionally, the SERE training used by the military does include waterboarding.
www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23220
"Then it was time for the dreaded waterboard. What I didn’t know then, but I do now, is that as in all interrogations, both for real world hostile terrorists (non-uniformed combatants) and in S.E.R.E. a highly trained group of doctors, psychologists, interrogators, and strap-in and strap-out rescue teams are always present. My first experience on the “waterboard” was to be laying on my back, on a board with my body at a 30 degree slope, feet in the air, head down, face-up. The straps are all-confining, with the only movement of your body that of the ability to move your head. Slowly water is poured in your face, up your nose, and some in your mouth. The questions from interrogators and amounts of water increase with each unsuccessful response. Soon they have your complete attention as you begin to believe you are going to drown." -
Wow, nice research. -
Thanks liberty
-
You better watch out for the pitch forks!!!!
-
The CIA were also authorised to use other techniques like, sensory and sleep deprivation, slapping, stress positions, small cage confinement and body slamming. Water boarding would not have been used in isolation it would have been used in combination with all methods at their disposal. If slamming them against a wall had good results after they had been waterboarded they would have used it.
You also need to remember that those incidents of waterboarding that were recorded included one instance where the victim was water boarded every 4 hours for 30 days.
It was torture. Consigned to history now as an unfortunate foot note to "The War on Terror". A PR disaster and an intelligence failure. -
Antics - I included a link to the brief overveiw of what happened.
but if you honestly think that "our waterboarding" was any nicer than "their waterboarding" you must be out of your mind.
Do you honestly believe that detainees suffered other forms of abuse/torture at the hands of US interrogaters, but they were all nice-like with the water boarding? Please You're smarter than that.
The Men and women who ordered, condoned, and justified the use of waterboarding as well as other tortures/inhumane treatment are on seriously thin ice right now. Mainly because not only has waterboarding has been classified as torture for, oh, centuries, but also because we have convicted foreign troops of doing to our military.
Regardless of whether or not choking occurred in either case. -
lol Anok, I didn't mean to come across like "ours" was better than "theirs." What I was attempting to demonstrate was the fact that the Japanese soldiers that were convicted of "mass-scale atrocities, among other counts" included beatings and violent bodily harm in their waterboarding that I am sure did not go on to the three high value terror detainees at the hands of our CIA.
I also said it wasn't a pleasant experience, I mean it is supposed to simulate drowning without holding the person under water. When your feet are elevated, CO2 collects in your lungs and combined with the water, restricted movement and having your head covered, it is a very scary experience. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was said to have lasted nearly 2 minutes in one of his waterboarding sessions. So that demonstrates that this entire discussion is moot because our enemies have already been prepared to resist. In S.E.R.E. training, it is common to only last around 14 - 20 seconds. Therefore other methods will be needed. Besides, all Obama has done is to force the CIA and other agencies to "outsource" the interrogations to other countries from now on. -
Just remember, we have investigations, allegations, and photos/documents emerging that also point the finger towards more abusive interrogations that include beatings, the breaking of bones, psychological torture (dogs, electrocution be it real or fake) and even alleged rape and other - worse - things.
We cannot behave this way. Just because potential detainees have trained for possible torture doesn't mean that we need to torture more. We are hypocrits of the highest degree if we condemn other entities for torture, but use it ourselves - or outsource it to other nations.
This country has a poor enough reputation as it is. I mean, if the US wants to be known as a ruthless badass, maybe we should just redact our name from the Geneva Convention, and go for broke, instead of beating around the bush and pretending. -
Anok! Are you advocating violence?? I am shocked! I mean really, you want to beat around on Bush?
-
-
You can continue to split hairs all you want but the fact remains that American has little credibility left among the democratic nations in the world. One can blab their face off attempting to justify waterboarding and pretend that it doesn't meet the definition of torture - to what end? IMHO only the lame brained are likely to listen to them.
-
TT, it is an overstatement to say that the US has "little credibility left among the democratic nations" of this planet. I agree that there is no excuse for Bush's policies, and I agree that Guantanamo needs to be closed, but your statement overreaches, to say the least.
As for "lame brained," well, you need to try and get inside their heads instead of calling them stupid. I for one do not think that Cheney, Rice, Bush et. al. were stupid---"just" terribly misguided and irresponsible. -
I apologize fro sounding so overblown and strident and withdraw my former statement wherein I did not express myself well.
What I meant to say is that IMO America cannot take a position against torture of any kind being used on captive American soldiers by the military of foreign nations, and also authorize the American military to use torture on captive soldiers of foreign nations, without losing credibility with other signatories to the Geneva Convention / the other democratic nations in the world.
When I hear anyone attempting to justify the use of waterboarding on the grounds that it doesn't meet the specific definition of physical torture, I wonder - to what end? It's obviously a form of mental torture and IMO it conflicts with the sentiment underlying the Geneva Convention. -
How pathetic... My comments get removed, but hers are allowed to remain? She can call people names but, win I call her on it my comments are removed... What a crock...
-
You know how it works, Bob. BC admin is purely reactive, not all-seeing. You have a problem with her comments, report them. Of course, there was a difference: yours were personal.
-
comment removed by the community
(didn't want you to feel left out, Bob) -
This is funny.
-
If we listened to all of these liberals whining about torture, we would never get anything done. They just can't realize the fact that talking to a deranged terrorist to get information isn't effective.-
You're basing your statement on feelings and emotion (and maybe a series like 24). The science is against you.
-
-
-
J, you need to pay attention more. The article as well as otehr articles have been stating that previous justifiers of waterboarding have tried it, and come out saying it's torture. Even McCain (whom I quoted above) said it's torture. He's a POW.
Also, it's been a torture technique (and classified as such) for centuries.
Also, we convicted - and executed - foreign troops for waterboarding US troops under the premise that our men and women were tortured.
Try to keep up, m'K? -
There is no exact definition of whether it is or is not torture. There are plenty of people saying it is and plenty saying it isn't. Besides this whole thing is really ridiculous. I mean a hand full of top Al Qaeda operatives were waterboarded and to not much surprise we got valuable information that saved lives. Are you telling me that you would have rather risked American lives over something that is debatable for being torture?
-
having never been tortured myself, I'm inclined to beleive Sen. McCain on this one
-
dubl post
-
What valuable information was obtained? Do you know what was obtained? Do you know what was averted? Or are you just taking it all at the face value of what Cheney is saying?
And yes, there are rules and definitions about what is and isn't torture.
you're "so what" attitude about the whole thing is what helps create the animosity towards the US. Good job. Keep it up.
Hypocrisy of the day - Do as we say, not as we do. Coz if you do as we do, we'll execute your asses for it. But us? We're untouchable. *shakes head*
The issue is not that complex. We cannot engage in activities that we have prosecuted and executed others for doing to us. if doing it to our troops was "torture" worth executing people over - then it is still torture when we do it.
A rose is a Rose and all that.
Got it? -
Anok- The man interrogated spilled the beans on a future terrorist attack if you hadn't already heard. That is a fact. You should know that by now miss I am an informed anarchist.e
-
-
Via Wikipedia:
"Physical torture methods have been used throughout recorded history and can range from a beating with nothing more than fist and boot, through to the use of sophisticated custom designed devices such as the rack. Other types of torture can include sensory or sleep deprivation, restraint or being held in awkward or damaging positions, uncomfortable extremes of heat and cold, loud noises or any other means that inflicts physical or mental pain. The boundary between torture and legitimate interrogation techniques is not universally agreed, and techniques such as waterboarding and the use of stress positions remain controversial."
"...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."
So in truth, no one is right and no one is wrong because it is such a debatable issue. As of right now it is all politics. If Obama's administration had did waterboarded, them the Republicans would be calling it torture and the Democrats would say it is not.-
In the first paragraph, it outlines all of the "harsh interrogation" methods that the US used as torture.
it is also the same methods - including waterboarding - that we prosecuted and executed foreign troops for doing to US troops.
I'll say this slowly:
I F - I T - W A S - T O R T U R E - W H E N - I T - W A S - U S E D - A G A I N S T - U S (AS DEFINED BY THE US) T H E N - I T - I S - T O R T U R E - W H E N - W E - U S E - I T - A G A I N S T - O T H E R S .
Got it now? -
if it was used in the catholic inquisitions, it is probably torture
-
By that definition jhixon, reading some of the posts on BC could be construed as torture...well only certain ones anyway.
-
I really don't think anybody really knows the true boundaries between torture and enhanced interrogation. All we know as a fact is that if it hurts them physically or mentally it is torture.As for making them feel uncomfortable it is a different story. Besides, knowing our military we would have had a medical team standing by if they felt the prisoner was in any way dangered.
As for now, this whole discussion in general is torture in and of itself. I feel as if I'm on the Iron Maiden.
-
-
The U.S. never defined waterboarding as torture, therefore why was it approved for usage on the Al Qaeda opperatives and not called torture? Besides, the story your talking about was from 1947 and the Japanese soldier used waterboarding on a CIVILIAN. (If the story is different please send me what you read)
Also if it was defined as torture, how did the Navy Seals use it post-Vietnam era and not get in trouble for it? Never in what I read did it say that waterboarding was torture.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.ht...
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
