Nobody considers drowning a way of life. Convincing your brain that your body is being deprived of oxygen is not a way of life. This isn’t some minor difference of opinion here. It’s not a matter of “some people prefer to breathe air, and some prefer water.”
And the US has prosecuted people who have waterboarded others as torturers going back to the Spanish-American War, so it’s not like it’s an unsettled point in law, either.
And I’ve heard people condemn America for torture and training torturers for our puppet regimes for as long as I’ve been paying attention to politics, back during Reagan. The fact that you apparently weren’t paying attention doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. And Clinton wasn’t a liberal anyway; he’s been called “the best Republican President” for a reason.
No, “reasonable people” can do no such thing, and don’t. Since the “official techniques” in question have been defined as torture for a long time, treated by us as torture for a long time, and only started being defended as not being torture when WE wanted to torture people.
Reasonable people can disagree, this much is certain. Some quite reasonable people point out that torture is morally repugnant, and beneath the contempt of a civilized nation. Others are quick to point out that a strategy that fills your enemy’s recruitment centers with eager recruits is strategically in error, that those methods are unsound.
Sooner or later, some other reasonable person is likely to point out that both of those points can be, and are, entirely correct, that no real disagreement exists. The rest of us will then most likely tell him to shut up and quit being such a smart ass.
That’s the thing; torture is such a bad idea that all the reasonable people are on one side, the side against it. It’s one of the wrongest ideas I’ve ever heard of; it’s wrong on all levels. Morally, politically, practically, militarily.
The Japanese would use it to drown prisoners, pump saltwater into their stomach which was fatal, and jump on the prisoners distended stomachs. The jumping would cause the prisoner to vomit and often damaged internal organs. I’d say that the Japanese method is a wee bit more severe
Here is one account:
And I’ve heard people condemn America for torture and training torturers for our puppet regimes for as long as I’ve been paying attention to politics, back during Reagan. The fact that you apparently weren’t paying attention doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. And Clinton wasn’t a liberal anyway; he’s been called “the best Republican President” for a reason.QUOTE]
I didn’t refer to Clinton as a liberal. He was only slightly left of center. I was referring to Nancy Pelosi and company
Here, I’ll repost the wording from the U.N. treaty on torture that we signed in 1988:
“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.”
So, yes, by our own standards, EIT is torture. While the incidental suffering a prisoner experiences from merely being incarcerated is NOT.
That is a much more clear definition than the one posted earlier. I was responding to that definition. I believe you are half right…I see the difference between incidental suffering versus inflicting severe pain to extract information. I just don’t believe waterboarding meets the definition of severe pain (physical or mental)
There is a considerable body of evidence to indicate that you are wrong. Its that pile, right over there. Yeah, to your left, right there…no, not that one, *that’s *Mt. Everest, the big one next to it…that’s the body of evidence…
“What we did was totally OK ! Some guys on our side wrote us little papers telling us so !”
Ha ! Thanks for the perfect setup : no. I think you’ll find it’s something your Big Brother would do to you in Room 101.
It’s a 1984 reference.
It’s a book. Look it up.
Yeah, I hear you… torture, not torture, innocent and terrorist, cruel and humane, right and wrong, sensical and nucking futs, it’s all so vague and hazy. Thankfully, we can trust God and that nice Mr. Cheney to tell us what’s what.
How much evidence do you need to change your belief? We have provided plenty, the literal mountain of evidence argues against your belief. I’ll add another data point here. First his bona fides:
Sure looks like as honest-to-god an expert on this as you are likely to find. He’s been there, done that.
Let’s see what his opinion of waterboarding is (bolding original).
Lots more on it at the link. I encourage you to go read it.
The above UN Treaty the United States signed was the CAT (Convention Against Torture). It’s important to note how our treaty obligations work because people use them as if they are binding law on the United States (and why shouldn’t they be, we signed them, right).
In this case, the Senate used an “understanding.” An understanding is basically saying, “yes, we consent to the treaty, but here’s how we interpret it.” The understanding apply domestically, only. Two important understanding in this treaty were:
(1) It emphasizes the “severe” pain; not just regular; and (2) Must include “specific” intent; therefore it’s subjective; (if waterboarder subjectively believed they were not inflicting “severe” pain, you’re ok; they might believe this because they were told, correctly, that we used this technique on our own soldiers.)
So likely waterboarding was legal domestically per the US’s legal interpretation of the CAT. but, just because something is legal, does not mean it’s moral. Hence the outrage against waterboarding.
And the above “understandings” only apply to the United States interpretation of the CAT Treaty. Other countries, say Spain, interpretation of the CAT would include a prohibition of against waterboarding and they could prosecute US persons for violating the treaty.
I was simply replying to the posted CAT Treaty and making a point that the treaty as signed, is not the exact treaty language as the US understands it. There seems to be an honest mistaken belief that the treaty language the US signs is binding on us domestically. That’s not always true.
Re: 2340. Yes, that is a domestic law against torture, but by its own language it only applies “outside the United States.” This would include de-facto US jurisidictions such as GTMO. Even so, it reflects the “severe” and “specific intent” requirements that we included in the CAT treaty. Consistent we be.
re: Geneva Conventions; they do have the force of law in the US, but regarding what exactly is not entirely clear. Most of the Geneva Conventions apply to Prisoners of War and to be a POW you need to be fighting on behalf of a recognized State. This leaves out a lot of who we are fighting. What is likely to apply, regardless of State connection, is common Article 3; this covers inhumane treatment.
Like you said, there is more than that. What I’m hoping to make clear is likely what we did was not illegal (domestically). It was immoral, and that’s a fact. Now, whether it’s justifiable to do an immoral act to possibly retrieve information that could save US lives is a matter of debate. In the short term, maybe; in the long term, never.