• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Step right up, Rush

fff

Well-known member
One Less Torture Advocate

Conservative radio shock jock Eric "Mancow" Muller (sample quote: "Obama can keep his "hope", the rest of us would like to keep our money, guns, and God!") decided to prove that waterboarding isn't torture by subjecting him self to it on the air. Of course, as my colleague Chris Orr has pointed out, getting waterboarded for a limited duration under circumstances you control is nothing like being waterboarded as a prisoner. Still, the experiment was interesting:

"The average person can take this for 14 seconds," Marine Sergeant Clay South answered, adding, "He's going to wiggle, he's going to scream, he's going to wish he never did this."

With a Chicago Fire Department paramedic on hand, Mancow was placed on a 7-foot long table, his legs were elevated, and his feet were tied up.

Turns out the stunt wasn't so funny. Witnesses said Muller thrashed on the table, and even instantly threw the toy cow he was holding as his emergency tool to signify when he wanted the experiment to stop. He only lasted 6 or 7 seconds.

"It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke,"Mancow said, likening it to a time when he nearly drowned as a child. "It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back...It was instantaneous...and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

"I wanted to prove it wasn't torture," Mancow said.

I think the torture debate would be mighty different if more of the conservatives who scoff at waterboarding would try the same thing.

--Jonathan Chait

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/05/22/one-less-torture-advocate.aspx

Don't like the source? Here's another:

http://www.drudge.com/news/121303/mancow-muller-has-waterboard-cow

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Mancow-Takes-on-Waterboarding-and-Loses.html
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
fff, couple of quick questions?

If the US had a terrorist in custody with information on an attack to be conducted in a major US city within a week...

Would it be okay to waterboard him to find out the plans?

Which moral values are worth more, saving lives, or having a terrorist go through waterboarding?

What will Obama do in that situation?
 

fff

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
fff, couple of quick questions?

If the US had a terrorist in custody with information on an attack to be conducted in a major US city within a week...

Would it be okay to waterboard him to find out the plans?

Which moral values are worth more, saving lives, or having a terrorist go through waterboarding?

What will Obama do in that situation?

No, it's not ok. In spite of Cheney's lies, and straw men, there's no proof that waterboarding gets accurate information. Period. The end. That's why they waterboarded those guys dozens and dozens of time: because the information they got wasn't the truth! Various intelligence officials have said torture doesn't work. When you're hurting a guy, he'll say anything to make you stop, truth or not. You know the main reason for waterboarding was to justify the connection between Bin Laden and Saddam? There was none and all the waterboarding in the world didn't make it true.

I don't know what Obama will do. I hope he'll stick with his stated beliefs.
 

don

Well-known member
hypo didn't you state in another thread that you could take waterboarding because you knew they wouldn't actually drown you? still feel that way?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
See that's your problem. You can not define torture, or the values and morals that go with your/Democratic view of American values.

Who is going to define what torture is, and in what situations can certain methods be used?

Isn't that what Congress, the lawmakers are for? Isn't that what they did?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
don said:
hypo didn't you state in another thread that you could take waterboarding because you knew they wouldn't actually drown you? still feel that way?

Yep. Just the same as the military goes through the training.

And to tell you the truth, I'd waterboard someone else to save just one life.

Think of it this way. Why is it okay for the Government to force someone to go through pain/discomfort for a medical procedure, to save their life.

But not an hour of shaky and discomfort, for a terrorist, to save thousands?
 

fff

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
See that's your problem. You can not define torture, or the values and morals that go with your/Democratic view of American values.

Who is going to define what torture is, and in what situations can certain methods be used?

Isn't that what Congress, the lawmakers are for? Isn't that what they did?

There are international treaties that define torture. Throughout history waterboarding has been considered torture. Maybe under another name, but it's still illegal and has been for decades.

Remember George W. Bush: "We don't torture." He lied. Cheney is still lying and trying to cover his ass.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834

The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Sounds like your mind is made up. Hopefully no one will ever have to be asked the question, why they did not use it before a terrorist attack killed 5000.

Waterboarding may be widespread, but it has not been used everywhere. There's no evidence that either the Nazis or the Soviets used the technique, Rejali says. These regimes, he says, weren't concerned about public opinion, and so they often used harsher methods that left permanent scars or killed their victims. If anything, Rejali says, waterboarding has been an interrogation technique preferred by the world's democracies.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
There are international treaties that define torture. Throughout history waterboarding has been considered torture. Maybe under another name, but it's still illegal and has been for decades.

You shouldn't have a problem finding that law then?

Could you find a link, that defines waterboarding a terrorist against the law?

Thanks.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The United States Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, said that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law." However, the United States has a historical record of regarding water torture as a war crime, and has prosecuted as war criminals individuals for the use of such practices in the past. In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese civilian who had served in World War II as an interpreter for the Japanese military, Yukio Asano, for "Violation of the Laws and Customs of War," asserting that he "did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for" prisoners, but, far worse, that he also "did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture" prisoners of war. Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor. The charges against Asano included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward." The specifications in the charges with regard to "water torture" consisted of "pouring water up [the] nostrils" of one prisoner, "forcing water into [the] mouths and noses" of two other prisoners, and "forcing water into [the] nose" of a fourth prisoner.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
You're not in a war, it's a "contingency operation", and the terrorists are not military, they are creators of "man-made disasters"

Obama has done nothing differently than Bush, he has left himself an out, and "will do anything necessary to protect the American public"

You are being fooled again!

You'll have no problem showing me that waterboarding used on terrorists is a crime, will you? The lawmakers approved it, in Congress.

Thanks
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
That would be against the law Kola. And Torture is too, right?

I'm sure that the participants in this experiment, from the article, will be charged with some sort of crime. Won't they?

Rule of Law and everything.

Or is it just morally unacceptable, as Obama has explained?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
fff, "No, it's not ok. In spite of Cheney's lies, and straw men, there's no proof that waterboarding gets accurate information. Period. The end."

Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean the proof doesn't exist. Cheney says it does exist and that is exactly why he was trying to get documents released so people would know the WHOLE story, not just the snips Obama was letting out.

You're doing the work for a fool.
 

Mike

Well-known member
I'll bet the Taliban, Al Queda, and the old Japanese & Vietnamese Torture Chamber Head guys are laughing their azz off at the argument over the so-called "Torture" methods of the U.S., i.e. "Waterboarding". :lol:

Was just reading a few weeks ago about the Taliban throwing acid all over some young girls in Afghanistan for just going to school.

Do any of you Moonbats realize how weak we look in their eyes?

All because some whackos like you'all want to gain their respect? :lol: :lol:

Yea, buddy. They'll respect you all right. :roll:

They'll respect you til your head rolls......................
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The United States Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, said that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law." However, the United States has a historical record of regarding water torture as a war crime, and has prosecuted as war criminals individuals for the use of such practices in the past. In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese civilian who had served in World War II as an interpreter for the Japanese military, Yukio Asano, for "Violation of the Laws and Customs of War," asserting that he "did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for" prisoners, but, far worse, that he also "did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture" prisoners of war. Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor. The charges against Asano included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward." The specifications in the charges with regard to "water torture" consisted of "pouring water up [the] nostrils" of one prisoner, "forcing water into [the] mouths and noses" of two other prisoners, and "forcing water into [the] nose" of a fourth prisoner.

Tell that to the prisoners of the Vietnam era!!!!
Tell that to the prisoners of Korea!!!
Tell that to the solders drug thru the streets and burnt!

If waterboarding would save even your life oldtimer I would use it, and not hesitate one second would you do the same?
EH?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Here OT, I'll help you out a bit, with that definition you are looking for. Read to the end to find out what Obama's DOJ thinks the definition is.

Interrogators were still getting nowhere, so on October 11, 2002, the head of the Southern Command, General James Hill, was asked to approve an enhanced interrogation schedule, divided into three categories of coercion beyond those covered in the U.S. Army field manual:

Category I, yelling and deception.

Category II, stress positions for up to four hours, light deprivation, removal of clothing, shaving of facial hair (very shaming to a Muslim male), and exploitation of fear phobias, including fear of dogs.

Category III, “the use of scenarios” to convince the detainee that his life is in danger, including waterboarding.

On November 15, against FBI objections, Hill approved the use of Categories I and II, but not Category III. He also approved a plan for applying them to Qahtani by degrees on a thirty-day schedule beginning on November 23. On December 2, Rumsfeld weighed in with his own authorization, which, again, did not include waterboarding. Rumsfeld had his doubts in any case, and on January 15 rescinded his authorization pending further review.

Still, that proved to be enough time to break Qahtani. He was subjected to 20-hour interrogation sessions, being tied to a dog leash (no actual dogs were involved), having water poured continually on his head (but no waterboarding), while women’s clothes were dropped on his face and a bra strapped across his clothed chest. These and other humiliations, including turning up the air-conditioning to uncomfortable levels, did result in Qahtani’s brief hospitalization in early December with brachyocardia. However, none remotely approached the definition of torture defined by the OLC’s August 2002 memo as administering physical pain equal to the intensity “accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death,” or psychological harm “lasting for months or even years.”

By then, Qahtani had confessed that he worked for al Qaeda. One by one, without hesitation, he picked out pictures of all nineteen of the 9/11 hijackers and called out their names—and admitted that he, not Zacarias Moussaoui, had been slated to be the twentieth hijacker. He also revealed that the true mastermind of the attack was Osama bin Laden’s deputy Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Qahtani also fingered another Saudi al-Qaeda operative, Adnan el-Shukrijumah, who was in the United States organizing another 9/11-style attack for the summer of 2004. Khalid Mohammed’s subsequent capture in Pakistan in March 2003 revealed still more details which, we now know, enabled the Bush administration to foil a second wave of suicide attacks directed at Los Angeles.

Whether Qahtani’s interrogation constituted “torture” might be a matter of debate, but not, it seems, to the new Obama administration. For according to an argument advanced by Obama’s Justice Department in May regarding the possibility that the concentration-camp guard John Demjanjuk would be tortured were he to be deported to Germany, the Qahtani interrogation could not be judged to have risen to the standard of torture because meeting that standard would have required “his prospective torturer [to] have the motive or purpose” of inflicting extreme pain and suffering. That was certainly not the case with Qahtani.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/special-preview--the-gitmo-myth-and-the-torture-canard-15154
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The UN Treaty on Torture that the US Senate ratified in 1994. The definition of torture is: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female 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."

Last week I heard AG Holder tell Congress that he follows that definition-and that it is his belief waterboarding is torture- and when the Congressmen started nitpicking over the Seals training being torture- he reminded them that like everything else involving the law- it involves the circumstances and intent----and that there is a big difference from a volunteer serviceman taking volunteer SEAL training- and knowing he has a stop button at any time he can't take anymore-- and a detainee that is purposely and intentionally against his will subjected to 280 sessions, not knowing if they will let him die or not- to gain information from him.....
Definitely a difference in intent....

So Hypocrit--- do you believe it is alright for the US to charge and convict Japanese as war criminals for using waterboarding as torture against US detainees- but that we- the supposed higher and mightier folk- should be allowing it used on our detainees..... :???:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The UN Treaty on Torture that the US Senate ratified in 1994. The definition of torture is: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female 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."

Last week I heard AG Holder tell Congress that he follows that definition-and that it is his belief waterboarding is torture- and when the Congressmen started nitpicking over the Seals training being torture- he reminded them that like everything else involving the law- it involves the circumstances and intent----and that there is a big difference from a volunteer serviceman taking volunteer SEAL training- and knowing he has a stop button at any time he can't take anymore-- and a detainee that is purposely and intentionally against his will subjected to 280 sessions, not knowing if they will let him die or not- to gain information from him.....
Definitely a difference in intent....

So Hypocrit--- do you believe it is alright for the US to charge and convict Japanese as war criminals for using waterboarding as torture against US detainees- but that we- the supposed higher and mightier folk- should be allowing it used on our detainees..... :???:

So oldtimer what about the Viet Nam charging our captive solders with crimes against them and torture them MCCAIN as well as othjers!
You want to reach back reach a little closer!

What about the dragging of our people thru the streets and burning them?

If waterboarding saved just one life including yoiurs oldtimer it is worth it!!! :wink:
 
Top