Bush: "Damn Right I Approved Waterboarding!"

[93henfan]

Having seen the video of the journalist who underwent waterboarding and lasted less than 15 seconds, I agree it's torture.

I also have no problem with us using it to extract information.

The definition of torture is sufficiently subjective that there is a huge gray area here. The journalist was scared shitless, but not hurt. Some may consider that torture. I don't.

Take a look at John McCain. He can't raise his arms all the way. There's a reason for that and it was torture.

[Skjellyfetti]

The definition of torture is sufficiently subjective that there is a huge gray area here. The journalist was scared shitless, but not hurt. Some may consider that torture. I don't.

Take a look at John McCain. He can't raise his arms all the way. There's a reason for that and it was torture.

Torture isn't just physical duress. It's also mental duress. John McCain considers waterboarding torture.

[BlueHen86]

The definition of torture is sufficiently subjective that there is a huge gray area here. The journalist was scared shitless, but not hurt. Some may consider that torture. I don't.

Take a look at John McCain. He can't raise his arms all the way. There's a reason for that and it was torture.

Torture isn't just physical duress. It's also mental duress. John McCain considers waterboarding torture.

[AZGrizFan]

The definition of torture is sufficiently subjective that there is a huge gray area here. The journalist was scared shitless, but not hurt. Some may consider that torture. I don't.

Take a look at John McCain. He can't raise his arms all the way. There's a reason for that and it was torture.

Torture isn't just physical duress. It's also mental duress. John McCain considers waterboarding torture.

Ah, therein lies the rub.

Waterboarding may be "torture", but there are no long-term physical effects like what McCain endured. THAT'S why I have no problem with it.

[93henfan]

The definition of torture is sufficiently subjective that there is a huge gray area here. The journalist was scared shitless, but not hurt. Some may consider that torture. I don't.

Take a look at John McCain. He can't raise his arms all the way. There's a reason for that and it was torture.

Torture isn't just physical duress. It's also mental duress. John McCain considers waterboarding torture.

I think John McCain has a reason to be hypersensitive to any act that could lead to or even resemble torture.

[native]

Having seen the video of the journalist who underwent waterboarding and lasted less than 15 seconds, I agree it's torture.

I also have no problem with us using it to extract information.

The definition of torture is sufficiently subjective that there is a huge gray area here. The journalist was scared shitless, but not hurt. Some may consider that torture. I don't.

Take a look at John McCain. He can't raise his arms all the way. There's a reason for that and it was torture.

None of the waterboarded subjects suffered any physical damage. There is a reason for that, and the reason is that we performed carefully calculated enhanced interrogations - NOT torture.

[93henfan]

So I think we've narrowed this down to mental versus physical duress.

I'll go down on record as saying I do not consider mental duress to be torture.

I'll respect anyone's opinion who thinks it is, but I personally disagree.

Are we done with this thread?

[AZGrizFan]

So I think we've narrowed this down to mental versus physical duress.

I'll go down on record as saying I do not consider mental duress to be torture.

I'll respect anyone's opinion who thinks it is, but I personally disagree.

Are we done with this thread?

I think so. It's really semantics whether you say it's "not torture" or it's "an acceptable form of torture'.

They're really one in the same....

[native]

So I think we've narrowed this down to mental versus physical duress.

I'll go down on record as saying I do not consider mental duress to be torture.

I'll respect anyone's opinion who thinks it is, but I personally disagree.

Are we done with this thread?

Depends on ky jelly. I have not disagreed with anyone else's posts.

[Skjellyfetti]

So what about the Japanese soldiers we convicting of torture for waterboarding?

What about the US soldiers we courtmartialed for waterboarding in the Spanish-American war?

NY Times article from 1902 on soldiers charged with using the "water cure" on the enemy:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-fr ... 946397D6CF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Money quote from Elihu Root, Secretary of War:

Great as the provocation has been in dealing with foes who habitually resort to treachery, murder and torture against our men, nothing can justify the use of torture or inhumane conduct of any kind on the part of the American Army.

[AZGrizFan]

So what about the Japanese soldiers we convicting of torture for waterboarding?

What about the US soldiers we courtmartialed for waterboarding in the Spanish-American war?

NY Times article from 1902 on soldiers charged with using the "water cure" on the enemy:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-fr ... 946397D6CF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Times change, ky.

[Skjellyfetti]

]

Times change, ky.

So, it was torture over a hundred years ago and worthy of a court martial... but, isn't now?

Seriously?

[native]

So what about the Japanese soldiers we convicting of torture for waterboarding?

What about the US soldiers we courtmartialed for waterboarding in the Spanish-American war?

NY Times article from 1902 on soldiers charged with using the "water cure" on the enemy:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-fr ... 946397D6CF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Money quote from Elihu Root, Secretary of War:

Great as the provocation has been in dealing with foes who habitually resort to treachery, murder and torture against our men, nothing can justify the use of torture or inhumane conduct of any kind on the part of the American Army.

The Spanish, unlike the Japanese, were not throwing little children up in the air and catching them on bayonets, and unlike the Islamo-fascists, did not throw acid on schoolgirls' faces or behead civilian prisoners.

[93henfan]

So what about the Japanese soldiers we convicting of torture for waterboarding?

What about the US soldiers we courtmartialed for waterboarding in the Spanish-American war?

NY Times article from 1902 on soldiers charged with using the "water cure" on the enemy:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-fr ... 946397D6CF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Money quote from Elihu Root, Secretary of War:

Great as the provocation has been in dealing with foes who habitually resort to treachery, murder and torture against our men, nothing can justify the use of torture or inhumane conduct of any kind on the part of the American Army.

We'd need a lot more detail than two internet links to incidents that occurred 60+ years ago to determine if there was torture involved. The Spanish-American War article mentions, among other things, the burning and killing of "anyone over ten". I think torture was the least of the problems with those vigilante troops. They were, hopefully, punished accordingly.

In your earlier post about the Japanese and the Doolittle Raid, the techniques used there, again, are not torture to me. They were mental duress. Nobody left with a bruise or a limp. Obviously, the US wanted to throw the book at the "sneaky Japs", the center of our ire at the time. So we did. We charged them with every flipping thing we could come up with. I understand what the sentiment and motivation must have been like at the time when you look at the casualties we sustained winning WWII, particularly against the country that started the war against us.

[Skjellyfetti]

We'd need a lot more detail than two internet links to incidents that occurred 60+ years ago to determine if there was torture involved. The Spanish-American War article mentions, among other things, the burning and killing of "anyone over ten". I think torture was the least of the problems with those vigilante troops. They were, hopefully, punished accordingly.

If you want more detail, here you go. I might get around to reading it later and could pull some key sections out... but, can't at the moment. But, give it a read if you wish.
http://www.vsb.org/docs/sections/military/water.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Skjellyfetti]

The Spanish, unlike the Japanese, were not throwing little children up in the air and catching them on bayonets, and unlike the Islamo-fascists, did not throw acid on schoolgirls' faces or behead civilian prisoners.

The Spanish weren't committing horrific acts of cruelty.

But the Filipinos were.

[Skjellyfetti]

Also, here's some soldiers in Vietnam waterboarding a North Vietnamese soldier. They were later court martialed:

In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

"All of these trials elicited compelling descriptions of water torture from its victims, and resulted in severe punishment for its perpetrators," writes Evan Wallach in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law.

On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.

Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=15886834" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[FargoBison]

I approve of it in this instance. The man who was waterboarded killed thousands of people and possessed valuable information about the workings of our enemy and what else they were planning. If he doesn't talk you make him talk, I don't care about his rights. When he did what he did, he forfeited his rights.

I don't think we should go around waterboarding everyone but in certain circumstances like this damn right it should happen.

[AZGrizFan]

Also, here's some soldiers in Vietnam waterboarding a North Vietnamese soldier. They were later court martialed:

In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

"All of these trials elicited compelling descriptions of water torture from its victims, and resulted in severe punishment for its perpetrators," writes Evan Wallach in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law.

On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.

Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=15886834" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The fact they were court martialed 42 years ago doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

[Skjellyfetti]

The fact they were court martialed 42 years ago doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

The fact that they were court martialed consistently over the past 100+ years for waterboarding... means that our military had consistently considered it torture and against policy... until GWB.

Fucking sad, really.

[YoUDeeMan]

Some people think a college exam is torture.

Frankly, I don't give a hoot about whether we tortured a terrorist or not. War is hell...the objective is to get the other side to give up. That sometimes included killing and, oh my, hurting people.

Tell me how a bayonette in the guts isn't "torture". Tell me how getting burned to death in a fire caused by a bomb isn't "torture". Tell me how losing your family in a hail of bullets isn't "torture".

Its war...it is going to be ugly at times.

Let's face it, the only reason why we've drawn up rules agaisnt using certain tactics is that leaders don't want to become victims of the wars they start. Wouldn't want to make it "legal" to assasinate other leaders. Outlaw mustard gas...never know when those winds might take it off the battlefield and into areas with wealthy merchants or political leaders. We must be civilized in war. Heck, let's go back to marching in lines and complaining when guerillas won't come out and fight like men. Better yet, resolve disputes with paper, rocks, and scissors.

If waterboarding gets results and saves lives of our people, then use it. End of story.

[Skjellyfetti]

The fact they were court martialed 42 years ago doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

The fact that they have been consistently court martialed people for waterboarding for over 100+ years means that our military considered it torture and against policy. That changed with GWB.

[Skjellyfetti]

[youtube][/youtube]

[AZGrizFan]

The fact they were court martialed 42 years ago doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

The fact that they have been consistently court martialed people for waterboarding for over 100+ years means that our military considered it torture and against policy. That changed with GWB.

Not sure why you felt the need to post this twice, but it doesn't matter.

I'm glad the military (and GWB) changed our country's position on wateboarding.

[grizzaholic]

I approve of waterboarding and any other means that they can think up.