Bush vetoes ban on harsh interrogation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Treaties are signed with nations, however many only deal with warfare between standing armies. Their scope does not extend to non-military agencies.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that only the ARMY, Navy, Air Force, and Marines are bound by the Geneva Convention and the War Crimes Act when dealing with enemy combatants in a foreign arena?

So if I am an Army official interrogating a prisoner and I want to violate the Geneva convention all I have to do is call in a contractor?
 
Okay, show me a source outside the administration and it's talking heads that has stated waterboarding is not torture. If it is highly contested then there should be a pretty equal number of responses on both sides. McCain says it is torture, the senate says it is torture, the house says it is torture, the SCOTUS says it is torture, the Geneva convention says it is torture, the UN says it is torure, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

Really? The supreme court has ruled that waterboarding is torture? Thats news to me.

As far as the senate and the house, they are split on party lines so I'd say thats pretty equal. Most polls that I have seen have the nation split pretty much down the middle as well.

And then there's John McCain. While he believes that waterboarding is torture, he also has stated that the CIA should not be limited to the army field manual on interrogation. That right there should tell you something. The military is not the end all be all authority on interrogation.

However, once again, I return to my original response. Classifying waterboarding as torture has no effect on whether it is effective. You seem to think that if it is classified as torture then it isn't effective but if it is not, then it is effective. This is completely bassackwards.

Waterboarding is either effective or not in its own right. Whatever box you want to thrown it into has nothing to do with the practical results. The practical results are clear.

Vague speak at best...effective at what? Surely he can sight relevant information to counter all the official stances, such as the one expressed by General Patraeus and the Army, to the contrary...many of which are actual case studies and not just opinions.
Click to expand...

Oh give me a break. You are going to sit there and tell me "very effective", "broke within seconds" and "probably saved lives" is vague. Thats just pure bull.

As far as the case studies go, I'd be happy to see one that discusses waterboarding. Got any?


Are you saying that only the ARMY, Nave, Air Force, and Marines are bound by the Geneva Convention and the War Crimes Act when dealing with enemy combatants in a foreign arena?
Click to expand...

It depends on the particular language of the treaty. With respect to the geneva convention, al quaeda and other terrorist groups don't qualify, so this is a moot point. However there are certian treaties to which we are a part of which only address actions by military forces and not intelligence agencies.
 
And again, context matters. I've volunteered for things that were quite painful in the past, it doesn't mean suddenly it'd be no big deal if those same things were done to me against my will by a foreign government.
Click to expand...
Let me see if I follow this logic, because the argument has been made several times that there is a significant and important psychological difference between people waterboarded during training - where the person has the mental safety net of knowing it's training - versus people waterboarded for interrogation - where the person has no mental safety net.

To demonstrate this logic, some people have protested waterboarding by having themselves waterboarded in public.

Therefore, if a person wanted to protest torture in general, they would experience less pain and mental anguish by volunteering to have their fingernails ripped out in public or to have their genitals electrocuted in public. After all, they would have the mental safety net of knowing it's being done in a safe environment.

For some reason, I think you could find more volunteers for public waterboarding than for public fingernail ripping or public genital electrocution. I wonder what accounts for that difference?
 
Playboypenguin said:
Just for fun...I will offer a prize to the first person that successfully guesses my MOS (either old or new nomenclature) based on my posts.
Click to expand...

Thus far, your training and rapport based interview techniques have not compelled STAGE 2 to admit anything.....:)
 
Therefore, if a person wanted to protest torture in general, they would experience less pain and mental anguish by volunteering to have their fingernails ripped out in public or to have their genitals electrocuted in public. After all, they would have the mental safety net of knowing it's being done in a safe environment.

For some reason, I think you could find more volunteers for public waterboarding than for public fingernail ripping or public genital electrocution. I wonder what accounts for that difference?
Click to expand...

Probably the fact that waterboarding is less physically painful and less likely (for that matter, entirely unlikely) to cause permanent physical injury. Just a wild guess, though. Has anybody argued otherwise?

But yes, it is arguable that somebody would experience less psychological injury by voluntarily undergoing the treatments mentioned...but considering the physical injury involved it's probably pretty hard to find volunteers to really study it. Though I suppose there are entire subcultures that would suggest that one man's torture could be another man's pleasure, from cutters to some of your more out there sexual fetishes.
 
Therefore, if a person wanted to protest torture in general, they would experience less pain and mental anguish by volunteering to have their fingernails ripped out in public or to have their genitals electrocuted in public.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think they would experience less mental anguish if they voluntarily did that than if they were forced.

Another thing to remember is that people will do weird things to protest something they are adamantly against. For example, Bhuddist monks in Tibet have protested communism by setting themselves on fire! Some people obtain satisfaction by inflicting pain upon themselves, such as religious zealots who engage in self-flagellation. So the fact that a very few people would allow themselves to be waterboarded for a protest is not really surprising.
 
Though I suppose there are entire subcultures that would suggest that one man's torture could be another man's pleasure, from cutters to some of your more out there sexual fetishes.
Click to expand...
Taboo on national geographic is one of the best shows ever. :cool:
 
Yes, I think they would experience less mental anguish if they voluntarily did that than if they were forced.
Click to expand...

Give me a break. Thats just stupid. Especially so given the point that pulling fingernails and electrocution isn't intended to be mental encouragement but physical.
 
But yes, it is arguable that somebody would experience less psychological injury by voluntarily undergoing the treatments mentioned...but considering the physical injury involved it's probably pretty hard to find volunteers to really study it.
Click to expand...
I must admit I'm not up to speed on the current (no pun intended) state of genital electrocution, but what's the physical injury involved there? I would have thought that, except in extreme cases, there would be only pain.
 
I must admit I'm not up to speed on the current (no pun intended) state of genital electrocution, but what's the physical injury involved there? I would have thought that, except in extreme cases, there would be only pain.
Click to expand...
Same type of injury that could result in hooking any part of the body to a car battery: severe nerve and tissue damage.
 
Same type of injury that could result in hooking any part of the body to a car battery: severe nerve and tissue damage.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that there is always severe nerve and tissue damage? You words say "could," but the implication leans toward always. And so I ask in search of clarity.

I've dabbled with electronics on an amateur basis around vehicles and my home, and have had a few nasty jolts. So have friends of mine. I don't know anyone who has ever had severe nerve and tissue damage due to electricity. Therefore, there must be a range above which severe nerve and tissue damage does occur, and a range below which severe nerve and tissue damage does not occur.

The question then is whether torture via genital electrocution always causes severe nerve and tissue damage, or whether there is a lower level that is still torture but does not cause severe nerve and tissue damage?

If there is a lower level that is still torture but does not cause severe nerve and tissue damage, then the issue of severe nerve and tissue damage cannot be the reason why protesters have voluntarily submitted to waterboarding but have not voluntarily submitted to genital electrocution. And so the difference remains. But what exactly is that difference?
 
So you are saying that there is always severe nerve and tissue damage? You words say "could," but the implication leans toward always. And so I ask in search of clarity.
Click to expand...
My words were very clear. :p

On the other hand you have to recognize that there is a much greater change of doing permanent physical damage to nerves and tissue by electrocuting the testicles than say the hand or shin because there are many more nerves and they are far more delicate. The nerve density also means far, far more pain than you'd experience in any other part of the body which would increase the psychological damage.

I've dabbled with electronics on an amateur basis around vehicles and my home, and have had a few nasty jolts. So have friends of mine. I don't know anyone who has ever had severe nerve and tissue damage due to electricity. Therefore, there must be a range above which severe nerve and tissue damage does occur, and a range below which severe nerve and tissue damage does not occur.
Click to expand...
Of course. However there's a significant difference between accidentally touching a hot wire with your finger and jerking away immediately and having someone apply the current of a 12 volt car battery to your family jewels.
If there is a lower level that is still torture but does not cause severe nerve and tissue damage, then the issue of severe nerve and tissue damage cannot be the reason why protesters have voluntarily submitted to waterboarding but have not voluntarily submitted to genital electrocution.
Click to expand...
You also have to take into account that even without severe nerve and tissue damage there can be permanent damage to the reproductive system. Then of course there's the psychological fear of exposing one's coin purse to any kind of damage. And don't forget the extreme pain.

However when people volunteer to be waterboarded it's still under a controlled circumstance with people on hand to make sure you don't die. It's entirely different when one is a prisoner.
 
Using the article as a reference...http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n4_v20/ai_6676337

People that have never been waterboarded are now hypothesizing about if experiencing it in POW training is more psychologically damaging then is forced to. A bit, no, QUITE a bit of a stretch to call ANYTHING at POW training voluntary. Those folks were forced. There wasn't a show of hands for those willing to volunteer guys. Even attendence wasn't voluntary if they wished to continue in their jobs.

Now the people doing it at protests I can see the difference. They truly volunteered and at a moments notice it ended. There I see a significant difference.

And as for the fear level being higher when done by a foreign country, DUH, that is the point, it's SUPPOSED to freak em' out. Kinda counter productive to point out to them that their safety is a concern and we value the information too much to actually risk your life and that people were standing by if needed to render help if it's needed.

And again, I ask (since the only answer so far has been 'It's not effective but is useful':confused:) why would our intelligence people want to retain this tool if it is not effective?

AND why is the willingness to use techniques on our own not a reasonable line. No genital electrocution or nail pulling being done to our guys.

Until at least the first question is addressed the rest is speculation by spectators.

PBP has yet to respond BTW to the questions beyond 'That's obvious' and 'thread posted SOMEWHERE before'. Get with it PBP. Enough pretending, bring some substance. The smoke and hot air are getting stagnant.

-
The specialists do not feel it is effective but the powers that be wish to keep it around because it is a useful tool.
Click to expand...

You blew past that AGAIN. NOT effective but IS usefull...still waiting ....

-
What the 'experts' show opposite about waterbording, and the bloodthirst of 'people like Bush', and these studies showing exactly the opposite.
Click to expand...

Still no sources. You have some yes? Post or RE-post as you wish.....

-The 'not effective but useful' line, you think it's a sadistic desire?


I think your floundering................
 
Some Japs were gaoled for 15 years for waterboarding American civilians during WW2.

The US president cannot apply one standard to the world and another to its citizens and expect global respect.

I have serious legal doubts about the grounds for war in Iraq, and on this basis whether Bush and the former UK and Australian Prime Ministers should be tried for war crimes.
 
A bit, no, QUITE a bit of a stretch to call ANYTHING at POW training voluntary.
Click to expand...
Unless one was drafted into the service then it most certainly is voluntary. One can refuse to take on whatever assignment requires that kind of training with severe consequences but being thrown in jail for disobeying orders is a hell of a lot different than being forced to do something by enemy captors.

And they still have the knowledge that the people in charge of the training are NOT trying to kill them and will in fact do everything in their power to make sure they come out of the training alive and well. The Navy does not spend two years and millions of dollars training aviators only to shrug if one of them dies or is permanently injured during training.
And again, I ask (since the only answer so far has been 'It's not effective but is useful') why would our intelligence people want to retain this tool if it is not effective?
Click to expand...
You mean part of the intelligence community. The head of the Defense Intelligence Agency has stated that the Army field manual gives his people the tools to do their job.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top