Bush vetoes ban on harsh interrogation

Status
Not open for further replies.
People that have never been waterboarded are now hypothosizing about if experiencing it in POW training is more psycologically damaging then is forced to. A bit, no, QUITE a bit of a stretch to call ANYTHING at POW training vountary. Those folks were forced. There wasn't a show of hands for those willing to volunteer guys.
Click to expand...
The "voluntary" issue always comes up. Seems to me some people are forgetting a few things.

One, the terrorist who is waterboarded is not simply grabbed and waterboarded. At a minimum, he's taken from his cell, brought to the little room, and prepped. At this point, he's probably getting a clue. He's probably already been asked for the information many times but has refused. He now has a choice to make: Answer the questions or get waterboarded. If he answers the questions, he goes back to his cell when the questioning is finished. If he chooses not to answer, he volunteers to be waterboarded. He makes a choice.

Two, note the difference between that scenario and what happens in something like SERE training. You can't avoid the waterboarding unless you want to jeopardize your career. The terrorist has more of a choice than the service member does.

Three, even a terrorist knows we can't get info from him if we kill him. So to assume all terrorists assume that we are going to interrogate them to death is a foundationless assumption.
 
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."

Full article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
 
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.
Click to expand...
So then we are in agreement that you can torture someone using genital electrocution and still not cause severe nerve and tissue damage.
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.
Click to expand...
Which again brings me back to the question that the anti-waterboarders can't seem to answer: Why is it that anti-torture protesters are willing to be waterboarded, under controlled circumstances with people on hand to make sure they won't die, but anti-torture protesters are unwilling to undergo genital electrocution, under controlled circumstances with people on hand to make sure they won't suffer severe nerve and tissue damage?

The only logically consistent answer to explain the difference is that waterboarding is not torture, genital electrocution is torture, and the anti-torture protesters instinctively recognize this difference, whether they admit it or not.
 
Which again brings me back to the question that the anti-waterboarders can't seem to answer: Why is it that anti-torture protesters are willing to be waterboarded, under controlled circumstances with people on hand to make sure they won't die, but anti-torture protesters are unwilling to undergo genital electrocution, under controlled circumstances with people on hand to make sure they won't suffer severe nerve and tissue damage?
Click to expand...

I once again refer you to post #313. By your logic crucifiction is not harmful.
 
He's probably already been asked for the information many times but has refused. He now has a choice to make: Answer the questions or get waterboarded. If he answers the questions, he goes back to his cell when the questioning is finished.
Click to expand...
This assumes the guy actually knows anything in the first place.
 
So then we are in agreement that you can torture someone using genital electrocution and still not cause severe nerve and tissue damage.
Click to expand...
I never said one way or the other. I know a lot of biology but I'm not a licensed physician nor a reproductive specialist nor do I know how much electricity is required to torture someone.
Which again brings me back to the question that the anti-waterboarders can't seem to answer: Why is it that anti-torture protesters are willing to be waterboarded, under controlled circumstances with people on hand to make sure they won't die, but anti-torture protesters are unwilling to undergo genital electrocution, under controlled circumstances with people on hand to make sure they won't suffer severe nerve and tissue damage?
Click to expand...
I already answered that. And I'm only speculating, I don't know the details behind such protesters volunteering.
The only logically consistent answer to explain the difference is that waterboarding is not torture, genital electrocution is torture, and the anti-torture protesters instinctively recognize this difference, whether they admit it or not.
Click to expand...
No, there are a number of other logically consistent answers that could fit. It could be that maybe different types of torture illicit different responses. Maybe different styles cause different kinds of pain and people are more aware of physical damage over psychological damage if they've never had it happen to them.

Or maybe it's just a little more complicated than simply attaching a label to these things and arguing purely on the semantics.
 
I once again refer you to post #313. By your logic crucifiction is not harmful.
Click to expand...
You'll need to explain that entire post to me, because I don't see where it makes any sense relating to anything.
 
me after I edited :p said:
It could be that maybe different types of torture illicit different responses. Maybe different styles cause different kinds of pain and people are more aware of physical damage over psychological damage if they've never had it happen to them.

Or maybe it's just a little more complicated than simply attaching a label to these things and arguing purely on the semantics.
Click to expand...
^_^
 
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.
Click to expand...

There is no difference in standards. We don't waterboard civilians, we waterboard terrorists.

There is a world of difference between a terrorist and a civilian and a soldier in an opposing military. There is no contradiction here.
 
Just a brief clarification...

There is a world of difference between a terrorist and a civilian and a soldier in an opposing military.
Click to expand...

Agreed between the civilian and terrorist comparison, HUGE difference obviously...but please explain the other. Are you saying that there is a huge difference between a soldier in an opposing military and a terrorist?

Just because I would consider most Nazi's terrorists by definition alone.
 
Quote:
I once again refer you to post #313. By your logic crucifiction is not harmful.

You'll need to explain that entire post to me, because I don't see where it makes any sense relating to anything.
Click to expand...
The arguement put forward was that people choose to be waterboarded so it can't be all that bad while people don't choose to have their testicles electrocuted so it must be bad.

By that logic people choosing to be crucified must prove that crucifiction isn't all that bad. Or what are you trying to say?

Oh, and nobody has disputed post #63.
 
Are you saying that there is a huge difference between a soldier in an opposing military and a terrorist?

Just because I would consider most Nazi's terrorists by definition alone.
Click to expand...

Yes. Legally, and morally there is a world of difference between a soldier and a terrorist. Most international treaties including the geneva conventions recognize this difference. They may later be tried for war crimes (as the nazis were) but until they are convicted they recieve the protections that soldiers are guaranteed under these agreements.
 
The arguement put forward was that people choose to be waterboarded so it can't be all that bad while people don't choose to have their testicles electrocuted so it must be bad.

By that logic people choosing to be crucified must prove that crucifiction isn't all that bad. Or what are you trying to say?
Click to expand...

This is the dumbest argument I've heard in a long time. Who exactly do you know who has voluntarily let themselves be crucified in say that last 200 years?
 
This is the dumbest argument I've heard in a long time. Who exactly do you know who has voluntarily let themselves be crucified in say that last 200 years?
Click to expand...

The aforementioned post number 313. Please pay attention when you're casting aspersions all around.

And above
 
Last edited:
Are you saying that there is a huge difference between a soldier in an opposing military and a terrorist?
Click to expand...

Of course. One wears a uniform, is part of a recognised command, and operates more or less according to internationally recognised standards.

Strapping bombs to teenagers with Downe's syndrome does meet any of those standards.

Just because I would consider most Nazi's terrorists by definition alone.
Click to expand...

National Socialism isn't any better than any other kind of socialism, but lots of men served honourably in the Wehrmacht. I have ample antipathy for the soviets, but to hold a russian's service in the soviets military against him personally would be unwarranted.
 
The aforementioned post number 313. Please pay attention when you're casting aspersions all around.
Click to expand...

First and formost, crucifixion is a method of EXECUTION not INTERROGATION.

Secondly, I'm not casting anything. The examples you posted are not crucifixion. These people are being supported with ropes and stands. They are not being dumped into pits and lefts hanging for days.

There is a world of difference between religious nutballs doing this for minutes and waterboarding. Religious nutballs have been doing stupid things for eons. This has NOTHING to do with whether waterboarding is effective.

So instead of talking about rape or :rolleyes crucifixion, why don't you explain to me why waterboarding doesn't work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top