Waterboarding isn't torture? Try it

  • Thread starter Thread starter News Feed
  • Start date Start date
Depends on the conditions...

In distillation, then, basically "as long as our guys do it, it's not torture". Thanks for clarifying.

Now if your were sitting in a cave with your Mullah, getting waterboard would be a joy compared to getting the Daniel Pearl treatment since I'm not of the "book" (kafir/pagan).

Nice strawman defence there. Is that all, or do you have other informal fallacies you'd like to try out?
 
If I am a enemy combatant and not wearing a military uniform (if I was wearing a uniform, then that would be covered under the Geneva Conventions)

There is no such thing as an "enemy combatant" in the sense that you're using. That's a newspeak term to try to dodge responsibility under the Geneva convention.

With or without a uniform they would still officially be classed as army, irregular army for sure, but the convention is quite specific.

There is a reason Condoleza Rice was heckled out of the EU parliament.

Once you are a enemy combatant without the coverage of the Geneva War Convention (being a terrorist isn't covered as neither are spies), your SOL for nothing short of physical torture (that would leave to life time physical scars, partial disablement, or death).

Err, excuse me. Terrorism is covered under civilian criminal law, the military also have laws regarding the treatment of irregular soldiers that are based on the Geneva convention. Attempting to brand irregular (think guerilla) armies as some kind of middle ground is a complete nonsense.

Physical and psychological torture is also covered not only within the Geneva convention but within common law. You do not do it.

Try again.

Now if your were sitting in a cave with your Mullah, getting waterboard would be a joy compared to getting the Daniel Pearl treatment since I'm not of the "book" (kafir/pagan).

Strawman.
 
John McCain rips GOP presidential candidates Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann on waterboarding

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ding-article-1.977717?localLinksEnabled=false

From the article:

“Ask any military lawyer; ask any person who knows about the Geneva conventions that we're signatories to. We actually prosecuted Japanese war criminals specifically for the act of waterboarding against Americans,” he said.

And there it is ladies and gents.

Game, set, match I believe.

Nice find theonestonecutter.
 
And for legal clarification:

If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered " unlawful " or " unprivileged " combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.

Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy.

This comes as an official statement from International Comittee of the Red Cross, specifically about the various International Humanitarian Law treaties as well as customary law, of which, you guessed it: Both the US and UK are signatories of (although the US has never signed up for the landmine or cluster munitions bans).

Problem?
 
Problem is that it gets Dammy's rocks off and he likes the guys that did it therefore it can't be illegal because, if it was, he'd have to admit to supporting illegal activities. Probably would result in some damage to his ego (which is often the result of letting the truth in - but it's not a bad thing).
 
the author is an agent in the FBI. He shows exactly how to properly interview a person and it takes intelligence, education and smarts. all qualities which the idiots who think torture works would never have.

the "trick" is to have a conversation with people and get them comfortable enough to reveal things they don't even realize they said. Do that to enough of these people and you can do what is normal in police work: put together a coherent explanation of the facts.

torture does none of that. ever

Torture has been historically proven to be quite effective means of extracting information

The work, he insists, is not for amateurs. Take torture you must know just how far to go. Even if you intend to kill the person in the end, you must proceed carefully in order to get the necessary information.

They are so afraid, he explains, they are usually cooperative. Sometimes when they realize what is going to happen to them, they become aggressive. Then you take their shoes away, soak their clothes, and put a hot wire to each foot for fifteen seconds. Then they understand that you are in charge and that you are going to get the information. You can’t beat them too much because then they become insensitive to pain. I have seen people beaten so badly that you could pull out their fingernails with pliers and they wouldn’t feel it.

You handcuff them behind their backs, sit them in a chair facing a hundred-watt bulb, and you ask them questions about their jobs, number and age of children, all things you have researched and know the answer to. Every time they lie, you give them a jolt from an electric cattle prod. Once they realize they can’t lie, you start asking them the real questions how many loads have they moved to the U.S., who do they work for, and if they are not paying your boss, well, why?

...

A T-shirt was soaked with gasoline and put on their backs, lit, and then after a while pulled from their backs. The skin came off with it. Both men made sounds like cattle being killed. They were injected with a drug so they would not lose consciousness. Then they put alcohol on their testicles and lit them. They jumped so high—they were handcuffed and still I never saw people jump so high.

Their backs were like leather and did not bleed. They put plastic bags on their heads to smother them and then revived them with alcohol under their noses.

This went on for three days. They smelled terrible because of the burns. They brought in a doctor to keep reviving them. They wanted them to live one more day. After a while they defecated blood. They shoved broomsticks up their asses.

...

“The sicario: A Juárez hit man speaks”
 
I'd love to help out here.....I'm sure i would be really good at it :D
Water!!! i need Water
when your finished waterboarding danny, its only fair that afterward you get the "water treatment"

During World War II, Japanese troops (Kempeitai) commonly used the "water treatment" on prisoners in occupied territories. The victim was bound in a prone position; and a hose was forced into his mouth, then water was poured in until his lungs and stomach were filled with water until near bursting and he lost consciousness. if the the victim vomits the torture begins again. Once the stomach is filled, pressure is then applied, by jumping upon his abdomen to force the water out, and rupturing the internal organs. The practice was to revive the victim and successively repeat the process.

..
 
Torture has been historically proven to be quite effective means of extracting information
only in the movies.
NOT in real life.
 
Water!!! i need Water

:lol:
LOL :D

On another note; as waterboarding isn't torture,
Pizza is a vegetable!
epic-fail-probably-bad-news-im-finally-getting-those-daily-servings.png
 
yeah, i heard that. what a bunch of idiots :rolleyes:

and congress has an approval rating around 13%
lowest in my lifetime I believe. sheesh

someone on G+ said they can't wait for pepper spray to be categorized as a vegetable :lol:
 
yeah, i heard that. what a bunch of idiots :rolleyes:

and congress has an approval rating around 13%
lowest in my lifetime I believe. sheesh
I wonder if they think fruitcakes like themselves are vegetables as well.. Seriously, this is mental. By keeping these nutters in your government the US will soon be the laughing stock of the rest of the world.
someone on G+ said they can't wait for pepper spray to be categorized as a vegetable :lol:
:D:D:D
 
By keeping these nutters in your government the US will soon be the laughing stock of the rest of the world.
I AM trying, :D
but others have to vote out the nutters with me.
 
There is no such thing as an "enemy combatant" in the sense that you're using. That's a newspeak term to try to dodge responsibility under the Geneva convention.

With or without a uniform they would still officially be classed as army, irregular army for sure, but the convention is quite specific.

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
  • 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
  • 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
    • that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
    • that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
    • that of carrying arms openly;
    • that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

No, the terrorist clearly do not fit in the above definitions of, "Prisoners of War."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
 
No, the terrorist clearly do not fit in the above definitions of, "Prisoners of War."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention

According to your own citation, if we're going down the ultra literalist route, US Army personnel would not fit the above definitions either.

It also doesn't help your cause when the rest of the world called BS on it. The ICC called your governments definitions an utter nonsense when it all came out for good reason.

Also from your own quote, nice quote mining btw:

4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Most Taliban do all of the above... Specifically targeting army convoys and allowing civvies to pass unhindered.

--edit--

Also omitted I note:

Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

The Bush administration did not uphold this until international there was international outcry.

Even if convicted, as a bog standard prisoner, your country being a signatory to so many international humanitarian laws would still not be permitted to either directly torture or outsource said treatment.

It should further be stated, that there is no gap between the third and fourth Geneva conventions. As such, any person who might be considered an "unlawful combatant" is to be tried locally under local law.

In other words, no matter which way you play it, your country was and remains in the wrong.
 
Leander, I agree you are correct here in the intereptation. The problem really is that the victors almost never get to go to trial themselves. The losers are much more likely to have to withstand trail for their behaviors. I imagine if at the outcome of any war the leadership of both sides had to stand trial to ensure humanitarian treatment was properly carried out we might see less war.
 
I guess these CIA agents are very thankful they were not waterboarded: http://gma.yahoo.com/exclusive-cia-spies-caught-fear-execution-middle-east-233819159.html
And this is relevant to the discourse on waterboarding as torture how, exactly? That's right; it isn't. Or did you take my offer to present any more logical fallacies you may have had up your sleeve seriously? ;)

However, as a side note, I would imagine that someone facing the death penalty for anything would probably still welcome not being tortured first. I know I would.
 
.
.
From the article:

“Ask any military lawyer; ask any person who knows about the Geneva conventions that we're signatories to. We actually prosecuted Japanese war criminals specifically for the act of waterboarding against Americans,” he said.

And there it is ladies and gents.

Game, set, match I believe.

Nice find theonestonecutter.

FAIL

The Japanese were prosecuted for "water treatment" not for waterboarding.
 
.
.

FAIL

The Japanese were prosecuted for "water treatment" not for waterboarding.

FAIL

The Japanese were in fact water boarding, they may have called it the "water cure", but that doesn't change the fact that it was still in practice, the same thing.

Citation. --edit-- and another.

Again for the intellectually dishonest:

Game.

Set.

Match.
 
Back
Top