[RobOnTheCape]

This may belong in the political lounge(feel free to move), however, I think the subject extends beyond just politics. This link to another site/forum is one of the most startling threads I've come across in awhile, and has been picked up by many other sites. Great insight and reading.
Straight Dope Message Board - I waterboard!

[OreoCookie]

Just in case some of you guys don't want to read the whole thing, here's the conclusion (emphasis mine):

Originally Posted by straightdope

So, is it torture?

I'll put it this way. If I had the choice of being waterboarded by a third party or having my fingers smashed one at a time by a sledgehammer, I'd take the fingers, no question.

It's horrible, terrible, inhuman torture. I can hardly imagine worse. I'd prefer permanent damage and disability to experiencing it again. I'd give up anything, say anything, do anything.

The Spanish Inquisition knew this. It was one of their favorite methods.

It's torture. No question. Terrible terrible torture. To experience it and understand it and then do it to another human being is to leave the realm of sanity and humanity forever. No question in my mind.

[Laminar]

It's not so bad.

[RobOnTheCape]

Though those are his conclusions immediately after the waterboarding, he changes his view slightly. However, the value in the posting is in knowing this members past on the forum, and the responses afterward. I enjoyed the discussion about pros and cons, however, it was also interesting to see what people had to say about the guy himself:

"Sockmunkey :
In local news, record tides have been reported due to the gravitational influnece of Scylla's massive balls.

Seriously, giving props in joke form is the only way I can wrap my brain around this."

[subego]

You can read for yourself, but I'd say the person does an excellent job of seeming unbiased.

[BRussell]

I'd say the fact that it's been used as torture by torturers like the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge, and the fact the it has been treated as torture by legal bodies in the recent past, suggests that it's torture. The only reason I can think of for not calling it torture is to defend someone who has used it.

[IceEnclosure]

what is waterboarding? I decided no googling today.

[IceEnclosure]

nvmnd, I'll pass on waterboarding.

[ctt1wbw]

It might be considered torture under the Geneva Conventions, but do Islamic fundamentalist radicals fall under the Geneva Convention? I say get the group of hard hittin niggas together, with their pliers and a blowtorch and extract information out of them that way.

[Chuckit]

Just to head it off: The question of whether waterboarding is torture and whether torture is permissible are two different things. I wasn't sure about the former, but I believe it now. I suppose the answer to the latter would be, "It can achieve good, but you're still an evil mother****er if you do it."

[invisibleX]

Of course its torture because its being used to, ya know, torture people.

Is torture good or bad? Some people will say it is necessary for the greater good, other people will say our enemies deserve it. I would say the loss of confidence is the civility and morality of the nation out-weighs any information gained. After all the primary difference between Islamic extremists and America is how they treat their enemies; once you lose that distinction you have to realize that the wars haven't been for any just cause and that the nation isn't holding the moral high ground. Is it wort using torture? Not to me.

[BRussell]

A related question: Is viewing iTunes store videos on 1080p HDTVs torture?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

A related question: Is viewing iTunes store videos on 1080p HDTVs torture?

Another related question: Should people able to afford 1080p HDTVs ever be allowed to complain about anything, anytime?

Context: I just got done playing Halo 3 and Forza 2 on a 10 year old 25" TV. Keep your mouth shut.

[KeriVit]

This is a very odd topic.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Context: I just got done playing Halo 3 and Forza 2 on a 10 year old 25" TV.

I vote torture.

[osiris]

I vote torture on both.

Poor Laminar... but at least the TV has color, which I think the Geneva Convention clearly mandates.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Another related question: Should people able to afford 1080p HDTVs ever be allowed to complain about anything, anytime?

Yeah. I'd complain about getting my fingers smashed OR being waterboarded regardless of if I had a 1080p set. And I'd feel justified doing so.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by loki74 

Yeah. I'd complain about getting my fingers smashed OR being waterboarded regardless of if I had a 1080p set. And I'd feel justified doing so.

Even if you asked your wife to do it?

[Jawbone54]

On topic: after reading through quite a bit of information, it definitely sounds like torture to me.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Even if you asked your wife to do it?

Wait, I'm confused... do you mean, if I had a wife, and she asked me to... have my fingers smashed or be waterboarded? Eh, I just think I wouldn't agree to such a thing. And I doubt I'd be interested in anyone who would make that kind of demand.

And since I don't want to derail too much here, I'll try to contribute something relevant:
Sounds to me like it's torture. Describing the procedure, one might imagine it's physical torture. I'd say this probably isn't physical torture. It's extreme psychological torture (which, in many ways, can be much worse than physical torture). It kind of reminds me of the Milgram experiments on obedience... except that its to a much greater degree, and more of a first-person experience instead of a second-person experience.

[ghporter]

The Geneva Conventions are pretty much a "guideline" here since a) unlawful combatants are not in any way protected by them and b) the U.S., while signatory to the various conventions, is not necessarily bound to any part of the Conventions because of the situation-an occupying power is fighting an insurgency from outside the occupied country.

What's particularly important is Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention (1949, as amended). Article 4 defines "prisoners of war."

(Article 4) "Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy"

* "Members of the armed forces"
* "militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"
* "Persons who accompany the armed forces"
* "Members of crews...of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft"
* "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."

bold emphasis is mine.

The persons being held are NOT qualified as POWs. They have never been even suggested to have behaved in such a manner as to "respect the laws and customs of war," because their entire tactic base has been to opposite of that-firing on troops from crowds of women and children, from hospitals and places of worship, etc. is NOT allowed by the laws and customs of war. These have developed over time to make it clear who is a civilian and who is a combatant. By violating these rules, the detainees became "unlawful combatants." In WWII most "unlawful combatants" were dealt with as spies and saboteurs; the Nazis often overlooked distinctive dress used by the French Resistance so that they had a pretext to shoot them, but that sort of backfired on them starting in 1946...

Now, torture? Is that even covered by the Geneva Conventions? Yes, but only in reference to the treatment of POWs (Third Geneva Convention) or civilians (Fourth Convention). Unlawful combatants are neither.

I AM NOT CONDONING TORTURE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. Quite the contrary. But citing some authority that has nothing to do with the subject is either an intentional distraction or a lack of information on the subject, which I hope to correct. I do not believe that we are advancing our cause by using aggressive questioning techniques that could be construed as torture; in using these techniques, we are lowering ourselves to the level of the insurgents and others who would subvert peace and freedom. The people conducting interrogations want to get information that can be used to prevent more losses of our troops. Is that a bad motivation? I don't think so. But they do not have sufficient supervision to prevent them from using the wrong methods for the right reasons. And at this point in time, those wrong methods seem to have become institutionalized-which reflects a lack of leadership. Since it's not just Soldiers doing this (hardly!), that leadership is beyond the Army or even the Department of Defense. And who's above both of them? Right.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The Geneva Conventions are pretty much a "guideline" here since a) unlawful combatants are not in any way protected by them and b) the U.S., while signatory to the various conventions, is not necessarily bound to any part of the Conventions because of the situation-an occupying power is fighting an insurgency from outside the occupied country.

The US Supreme Court doesn't see it that way.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

The US Supreme Court doesn't see it that way.

True enough. But the fact that the Supreme Court had to weigh in shows how complex it is to apply the provisions of the Conventions.

Note also that the Court's ruling applies specifically to the military commissions established to try those charged with crimes. This has nothing to do with how the majority of detainees are treated because most of them (at that point in time anyway) had not been charged with a crime. The Conventions call for specific ways of establishing tribunals with specific rules for how they operate-DoD tried to set up something slightly different because the detainees were not technically POWs. The Court basically held that since Rumsfeld had stated that we would treat the detainees as if they were POWs, that we had to go all the way and treat them as POWs in trying them. Yes, it's pretty darn complex. Getting an annual training course in this gives a person a bit of practice in figuring some of this out...

[Shaddim]

So, to be within the law, and to hold to the Geneva Conventions, we should have just tortured them, questioned them, and then executed them.

By showing any mercy whatsoever we gave them wiggle room in relation to their "unlawful combatant" status. That's just messed up.

[Shaddim]

FWIW, I've been in a room when someone was being interrogated via waterboarding. It wasn't "real", it was an exercise, but it still yielded the desired results in only minutes.

It causes a panic reflex, the deepest animal instinct of self-preservation. However, unless the person has heart problems or goes insane, which is rather unlikely, the individual is almost completely back to normal within half an hour. It's difficult to abandon a technique that can yield such incredible results with a much much lower mortality rate, compared to beating, cutting, and burning.

However, usually waterboarding isn't used on it's own, it's combined with exhaustion and sleep deprivation. In those situations you almost never even have to take the person to the panic stage, they're babbling anything you'd ever want to know long before it gets to that extreme.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

True enough. But the fact that the Supreme Court had to weigh in shows how complex it is to apply the provisions of the Conventions.

Note also that the Court's ruling applies specifically to the military commissions established to try those charged with crimes. This has nothing to do with how the majority of detainees are treated because most of them (at that point in time anyway) had not been charged with a crime. The Conventions call for specific ways of establishing tribunals with specific rules for how they operate-DoD tried to set up something slightly different because the detainees were not technically POWs. The Court basically held that since Rumsfeld had stated that we would treat the detainees as if they were POWs, that we had to go all the way and treat them as POWs in trying them. Yes, it's pretty darn complex. Getting an annual training course in this gives a person a bit of practice in figuring some of this out...

As I understand it (never having had a course like you), POW is not the only status covered under Geneva. It's certainly true that would-be suicide bombers are not regular military. But my understanding is that 1) anyone picked up in a signatory's country is covered, 2) their status (POW or something else) has to be determined via legal proceedings, not just declared by someone, and 3) even if they're not POWs doesn't mean they can be tortured.

[OreoCookie]

Glenn, respectfully, but you are wrong when you claim that it is optional to treat detainees as if they were POWs. GC3 Article 5 reads:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

It is not optional to afford them all of the rights as POWs at least until a qualified (see Article 3) military tribunal later on determines they aren't.

[BadKosh]

It's NOT torture, it's a form of face and hair washing. Who knows where those nasty terrorists have had their heads!

[art_director]

this is a rather bizarre and misguided thread, in my view.

in the united states i was raised in americans do not engage in such activities. it's simply against the core of our national being. because a gaggle of rather corrupt pricks, like what we have currently in the bush administration, we should not forget who we, as a nation, really are.

there is no debate as far as i'm concerned. geneva conventions be damned, torture or not, we do not do things like waterboarding.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Glenn, respectfully, but you are wrong when you claim that it is optional to treat detainees as if they were POWs. GC3 Article 5 reads:

It is not optional to afford them all of the rights as POWs at least until a qualified (see Article 3) military tribunal later on determines they aren't.

i could not agree with you more. however, when your president, vice president, atty. general and secretary of defense all consider the constitution to be merely a list of suggestions, it appears anything goes.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by art_director 

this is a rather bizarre and misguided thread, in my view.

in the united states i was raised in americans do not engage in such activities. it's simply against the core of our national being. because a gaggle of rather corrupt pricks, like what we have currently in the bush administration, we should not forget who we, as a nation, really are.

there is no debate as far as i'm concerned. geneva conventions be damned, torture or not, we do not do things like waterboarding.

You're extremely naive if you think this type thing didn't happen during the Clinton administration.

When push turns to shove, any leader will use torture to gain info that will save lives.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You're extremely naive if you think this type thing didn't happen during the Clinton administration.

When push turns to shove, any leader will use torture to gain info that will save lives.

i invite you to show me where i said such things didn't occur with other administrations, whether clinton's or any other. don't worry, i'll wait for you to realize how you interpreted my post inaccurately.

[art_director]

i suggest that everyone grab a copy of 'legacy of ashes. history of the cia' by tim weiner. it will open your eyes to what our government is really like -- both rep and dem.

[OreoCookie]

@Shaddim
The difference is that now it's official policy.

Originally Posted by art_director 

i could not agree with you more. however, when your president, vice president, atty. general and secretary of defense all consider the constitution to be merely a list of suggestions, it appears anything goes.

Probably somebody needs to tell them that signed treaties become national law (!) when they are ratified by Congress.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@Shaddim
The difference is that now it's official policy.

So, it's ok as long as it remains a dirty little secret?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

When push turns to shove, any leader will use torture to gain info that will save lives.

That's not true. George Bush's government doesn't torture. I heard him say so.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

So, it's ok as long as it remains a dirty little secret?

No, it's worse when it's official policy.

[Buckaroo]

Keep in mind, these are the guys that are getting this spa treatment:





I read some of the posting, specifically about the actual event. I also read some of his personal notes before the event, I notice that he seemed to stress the fact that he was not a liberal, etc., trying to prove that he was looking at this objectively. I wonder if all of that was a plant, in fact I wonder if it's as bad as he says. At any rate, I hope the method is affective. Maybe it'll stop the constant terrorist attacks.

It's not like they'd be doing it too everyone, just a select few that they know are involved with the above.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Keep in mind, these are the guys that are getting this spa treatment:

Actually, I'm pretty sure those guys are dead...

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, it's worse when it's official policy.

No it isn't. One group simply chooses not to be hypocritical about it.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Keep in mind, these are the guys that are getting this spa treatment:





I read some of the posting, specifically about the actual event. I also read some of his personal notes before the event, I notice that he seemed to stress the fact that he was not a liberal, etc., trying to prove that he was looking at this objectively. I wonder if all of that was a plant, in fact I wonder if it's as bad as he says. At any rate, I hope the method is affective. Maybe it'll stop the constant terrorist attacks.

It's not like they'd be doing it too everyone, just a select few that they know are involved with the above.

laughable.

*some* of the people we've had custody since 9-11 are terrorists. the vast majority have not been. that is, to me, a key reason that we need to cut the torture crap out.

a reasonable review of our actions since 9-11 reveals that we took the world's supportive view of america (seen immediately after the attacks) and turned it into one of a nasty police state that doesn't value human life or dignity. we've become every bit as bad as the thugs that hit us on 9-11. and yet we profess a love of such things. the bushies have been lying through their teeth and the world see through it. the only people who do not are john and jane lunchbox here in the u.s.

[BadKosh]

Yeah, they were just inocent bystanders in the field of battle..not look-outs at all. They all claimed they new nothing. Sure.

I always hear the sissies and fools saying torture is bad - and those same people would rather die than use torture on our enemies. Cookies and milk seem to work as well, to hear them tell it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Yeah, they were just inocent bystanders in the field of battle..not look-outs at all. They all claimed they new nothing. Sure.

I always hear the sissies and fools saying torture is bad - and those same people would rather die than use torture on our enemies. Cookies and milk seem to work as well, to hear them tell it.

Howsabout this: We torture you once for every time we torture a suspected enemy. Would you be willing to go through this, or is it only OK when it happens to other people? I mean, you wouldn't want to be a sissy…

BTW, not all prisoners were standing around on a battlefield. In fact, the idea of battlefields with regards to the people we're fighting right now is not always all that accurate.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Yeah, they were just inocent bystanders in the field of battle..not look-outs at all. They all claimed they new nothing. Sure.

I always hear the sissies and fools saying torture is bad - and those same people would rather die than use torture on our enemies. Cookies and milk seem to work as well, to hear them tell it.

hundreds of detainees have been released with no further action. we simply said, "sorry, mistaken. now go back to your lives. sorry for the mistake. here's a gift card for some free big macs."

people can deny, but that's what's been happening. when you attack with a knee-jerk reaction you're bound to make mistakes. and that's just what we did -- make mistakes. to a degree it was expected but not on the scale it took place.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Glenn, respectfully, but you are wrong when you claim that it is optional to treat detainees as if they were POWs. GC3 Article 5 reads:

It is not optional to afford them all of the rights as POWs at least until a qualified (see Article 3) military tribunal later on determines they aren't.

They fail at least two of the requirements for POW status: they do not wear distinctive uniforms/insignia/etc. identifying them as combatants, and they do not follow the laws of war (i.e. hiding in crowds of women and children to shoot at Soldiers), therefore there is no question that they were not POWs. They were undoubtedly unlawful combatants. No question at all.

[peeb]

LOL - of course there is contention on this point. Furthermore, you have absolutely no proof that those being held by the US and tortured even DO the things you claim, because they are being tortured without legal process.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by peeb 

LOL - of course there is contention on this point. Furthermore, you have absolutely no proof that those being held by the US and tortured even DO the things you claim, because they are being tortured without legal process.

nice retort. on my feet and clapping.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

They fail at least two of the requirements for POW status: they do not wear distinctive uniforms/insignia/etc. identifying them as combatants, and they do not follow the laws of war (i.e. hiding in crowds of women and children to shoot at Soldiers), therefore there is no question that they were not POWs. They were undoubtedly unlawful combatants. No question at all.

Undoubtedly, no assessment by a qualified tribunal has been made. Hence they are to be awarded all the rights under the GC. Remember, it's US national law.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Undoubtedly, no assessment by a qualified tribunal has been made. Hence they are to be awarded all the rights under the GC. Remember, it's US national law.

Yes, and my question is, what happens even after they're legally found not to be POWs? From what I understand, they're supposed to get another status with lesser protections, not just get shipped off to the torture chambers.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Undoubtedly, no assessment by a qualified tribunal has been made. Hence they are to be awarded all the rights under the GC. Remember, it's US national law.

Not quite. The assessment is made in the field: individuals captured who are NOT in any kind of uniform and/or who were apprehended while in the act of violating the laws and customs of warfare (firing from a place of worship, for example) do not need anyone to judge if this was the case. And before anyone starts suggesting that valid combatants could be "set up" as in by corrupt police officers, consider that we are talking about a battlefield, not a city street-the situation is not at all amenable to abuse. Typically battlefield captives are collected to a rear area and handed over to military police who process them according to their situation. No politics, no interesting fabrications on the street, just "this guy was shooting at us from behind a crowd of civilians" and off he goes to "unlawful combatant" detention. There is no such thing as a "mitigating circumstance" in this situation, no way to "explain my apparent lack of a uniform" or anything else. Bad guys who violate the laws and customs of war do not merit and do not qualify for POW status.

However, once anyone in high enough authority says "we'll treat 'em like POWs", then we must treat them like POWs completely, including using tribunals that meet the standards for POWs. And of course that also brings in the 4th Convention's prohibition against torture of POWs. It's amazing how many unintended consequences can come from what looks like a quick fix to a suit, isn't it?