For example, we learned the other day that the CIA destroyed videotapes that revealed some of its "harshest interrogation tactics" that may have included waterboarding and other torture despite a court order.
However, it's probably OK because President Bush has said that he didn't know about the destruction of CIA videotapes and we know that President Bush would never outright lie or even mislead about his knowledge of anything important.
Moreover on the one hand, President Bush has said, “We do not torture."
So, cool, right?
On the other hand, the White House will not confirm whether or not the US waterboards suspects.
But on, uh, another hand (you need a lot of hands to follow this story), Vice President Dick Cheney remarked about allowing the CIA to use waterboarding, "It's a no-brainer for me."
So, I guess it maybe all comes down to whether or not you believe that waterboarding is torture.
Now, we know that in 1947 that the United States prosecuted a Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II. We also know that "In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognized "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record, and critics of waterboarding draw parallels between the two techniques, citing the similar usage of water on the subject."
We also know that "On September 6, 2006, the U.S. Department of Defense released a revised Army Field Manual entitled Human Intelligence Collector Operations that prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel. The revised manual applies only to U.S. military personnel, and as such does not apply to the practices of the CIA. However, under international law, violators of the laws of war are criminally liable under the command responsibility, and could still be prosecuted for war crimes."
This would all seem to say that waterboarding is, indeed, torture.
But, wait! Apparently waterboarding is not torture.
How do I know this?
Because Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) has told us so:
GWEN IFILL: I just would like to -- but do you think that waterboarding, as I described it, constitutes torture?Now you know: the US does not torture (even if it occasionally must destroy tapes of torture); the US does not waterboard (except when it does); and, anyway, waterboarding is not torture (except when it is).
SEN. KIT BOND: There are different ways of doing it. It's like swimming, freestyle,
backstroke. The waterboarding could be used almost to define some of the techniques that our trainees are put through, but that's beside the point. It's not being used.
Or, to represent this in pictorial form:
WATERBOARDING:
NOT WATERBOARDING:
WATERBOARDING:
Got it? Well, alrighty then!
.
15 comments:
John K. says: That waterboarding worked. The three islamo thugs who were waterboarded gave up enough info to stop terrorist attacks for 6 years. I suppose the left would have preferred to see another building coming down with another 3,000 civilian casualties.
Six years? I heard it was 100, or maybe it was 1,000.
Silly rabbit, there's been no proof ever given that it thwarted even one plot.
John's right. Waterboarding has worked. We used it on KSM and he gave up his buddies. Come on libs, why is it you want to protect terrorists but you condemn our soldiers in Iraq the moment their accused of doing bad thing?
Maria, although the question of whether waterboarding "works" is eminently debatable, it is completely beside the point. The question is whether it is moral, legal, and Constitutional. The answer to these questions is not particularly debatable, being "no," "no," and "no," in that order.
Let's set aside the fact that this kind of torture is often inflicted on innocent people and just focus on its morality on "known" guilty people.
The firebombing of Dresden "worked" in acheiving its aims. The gas chambers of 1940s Germany "worked" in achieving their aims. Armed robbery "works" in achieving its aims. So?
What do each of these examples have in common with performing torture? Each corrupts the society or person practicing it. If we want to become the same kind of barbarous demons that we accuse our enemies of being, we should continue and expand our "enhanced interrogation practices" to include using pliers on testicles, screwdrivers on eyeballs, and blow torches on the children of our captives. We'll get all the information we want.
Schmuck,
I understand.
You understand that.
But, JK and O never will understand that.
Just also thought that I'd point out to them that even most experts agree it doesn't supply reliable intelligence because you'll say ANYTHING to get it to stop.
Arguing directly with folks like JK and O on the basis of morality is spitting in the wind.
But your comments were most appreciated.
(And, I know we're not supposed to feed the trolls.)
well said !
And, I know we're not supposed to feed the trolls.
Yeah. Especially when we know how angry they are. (:^}
Seriously, we're the Bushits just the sorest winners in the history of mankind? Worse than the N E Patriots.
John K and Omnitheist are right. It did work so well that the moral argument against must be moot. Just look at this testimony:
"Q: What other physical treatment was administered to you at that time?
A: Well, I was given what they call the water cure.
Q: Explain to the Commission what that was.
A: Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water was poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let me up until I'd get my breath, then they'd start over again.
Q: When you regained consciousness would they keep asking you questions?
A: Yes sir they did.
Q: How long did this treatment continue?
A: About twenty minutes.
Q: What was your sensation when they were pouring water on the towel, what did you physically feel?
A: Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death."
It worked great for the Japanese when used upon Captain Chase Nielsen, a crew member in the 1942 Doolittle Raid on Japan when captured by the Japanese. That's his testimony in United States v. Sawada.
I guess we should now pardon the Japanese we convicted of war crimes such as the Kempeitai officer Lt. Col. Sumida, who waterboarded US citizens in Singapore and was hung as well as were six other members of the kempeitai and an interpreter during the waterboarding.
They showed it worked as well right?
As an aside, all of us wingnuts do not agree with waterboarding, or any form of torture.
The US has always taken the high ground, and we earned it, and this debate is repugnant to me.
I did not serve my country to defend it in that manner.
Welcome to the land of the pussies, X.
Could someone please tell this European Girl why a lot of Americans always feel like they are above the law? Like their country is better than any other country?
Of course waterboarding is torture and therefore illegal and a warcrime. Duhuh!
I find it somehow similar to the climate change thing that is going on in Bali now. Come on US, you know you are polluting extremely and need to cut down on CO2. Why won't you sign for it like the rest of us? It's so childish.
The question is not whether the US torture or pollute. The question is when the US will finally step up to the plate, accept responsibility and do something about it.
John K. says: What would the left have said if we had those three terrorists in custody and failed to extract the info to stop the next 9-11? But we did stop the next 9-11 and the one after that and on and on all because we waterboarded three islamo thugs. Which is why the left now has the privilege of whining about waterboarding. When the left comes up with a better plan to deal with these islamo thugs (other than me converting to islam) then we will see. Until then, Bush is the Man!
John, you're getting to be less and less amusing. Where are all the LOLs these days? Whence the LMAOs? Why have you abandoned all the "I'm so funny, I make myself shit my pants" lines? An occasional boast about the Whitehouse baboon's non-existant competence just isn't cutting it.
And don't think that just because you now have Mr. Omnitheist picking up the inanity slack for you that you can ease off. He's not nearly as funny as you, although he is almost as much of a stranger to reason, evidence, writing skills, and credibility.
I fear you are losing energy and may leave us. Of course that would make 2PJ a much more intelligent blog, but it would generate far less entertainment and less discrediting of the Extreme-Minority Right's positions.
BTW, has anyone else notice that MOT dropped the "militant" part? Was it just too much typing for him?
John K. says: What would the left have said if we had those three terrorists in custody and failed to extract the info to stop the next 9-11?
What would the Right say if Bush had a presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US two months before 9/11?
Oh, right: nothing.
Perhaps Bush could have been waterboarded until he promised to pay attention to it.
Waterboarding, smoterboarding. Seems to me that after 6 years, we've come no closer to answering this simple question: Where is Osama bin Laden? Who is protecting him? I do not believe that our government does not know where he is.
Post a Comment