Waterboarding , Do You Think It Is Torture?

**Texpat** · 24-03-2008, 10:40 PM

^Perfectly clear.

It has been renounced as an interrogation technique universally.

'Cept by the people that matter.

**stroller** · 24-03-2008, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by benlovesnuk

meaningless rubbish, is that not clear in the text????????????????

It is now, thanks.

**Driventowin** · 28-03-2008, 02:32 PM

UK military admits Iraqis tortured

Originally Posted by CNN

LONDON, England (AP) -- The British military admitted Thursday that it breached the human rights of an Iraqi man who died in custody, and that its soldiers also violated the rights of eight other detained Iraqis.

UK Armed Forces Minister Bob Ainsworth condemned the abuse.

The Ministry of Defense said it expects to negotiate compensation for the survivors of the dead man, Baha Mousa, and with the eight former detainees.
The MoD admitted breaching prohibition on torture laws in the cases of all nine men.
The nine -- taken into custody as alleged insurgents -- were held in stress positions and deprived of sleep for about two days in extreme heat at a British army barracks near the southern Iraqi city of Basra in September 2003, prosecutors told a British military court.
Mousa, a 26-year-old hotel receptionist, died from asphyxia after soldiers restrained him following an escape attempt.
One soldier, Cpl. Donald Payne, 35, was convicted of inhumane treatment in that case, making him the first British soldier to plead guilty to a war crime under international law.
"I deeply regret the actions of a very small number of troops and I offer my sincere apologies and sympathy to the family of Baha Mousa and the other eight Iraqi detainees," Armed Forces Minister Bob Ainsworth said in a written statement.
"All but a handful of the over 120,000 British troops who have served in Iraq have conducted themselves to the highest standards of behavior, displaying integrity and selfless commitment. But this does not excuse that during 2003 and 2004 a very small minority committed acts of abuse and we condemn their actions."
Defense officials are due in court Friday to answer claims on behalf of the detainees.
In Mousa's case, the Ministry of Defense admitted "a substantive breach of Articles 2, right to life, and 3, prohibition of torture, of the European Convention on Human Rights."
It also admitted breaching the prohibition on torture in the cases of Mohammed Dhahir Abdulah, Maitham Mohammed Ameen Challab Al-Waz, Satar Shukri Abdullah, Joad Kadhim Jamal Al-Faeaz, Dhahir Abdullah Ali Al-Mansori, Radif Tahir Muslem Alhawan, Baha Hashim Mohamed and Ahmed Taha Mosah.
"The Ministry of Defense further accepts that the admitted substantive breaches of the convention give rise to claims for compensation," it said.
Britain's highest court, the House of Lords, ruled in June that prisoners held by British troops are protected by European human rights law.
Mousa was one of six Iraqis killed by British troops in separate incidents in 2003 whose cases were reviewed by the Lords. The other five cases did not involve detention -- a critical factor in determining whether British laws should be applied.
In 2005, the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court ruling that both the European Convention on Human Rights and the domestic Human Rights Act applied in Mousa's case, but not in the others. The Lords affirmed that ruling.

And the flood gates open.....So much for holier than thou...

**benlovesnuk** · 28-03-2008, 06:18 PM

No-one seems to be representing that one is better then the other, apart from you, the American! It is well documented about British cases, no one was denying that other countries also use these tactics, it was however the point to make persons aware of the debarkle that happens when Americans do it (no vendetta intended)!

Not only does it come out that they had executed( previously) others that they had said tortured (their own) in this exact same way in ww2. They also knowingly tried to cover it up, showing the immoral values that litter politics and American politics specifically in this case. It is this general constant in American politics (as im sure in others) that was the driving point and meaning to said topic! I watch the Daily show and it is an amusing retrospective on the events of American politics, though the show is not a relevant source to any specific views that i hold on the subject.

I think that whilst an importance to serious situations,(i.e as people losing loved ones and being killed in various ways) by one another is just that, very serious - especially when lives are given such meaningless value by leaders of any high powered organization, in preference to whatever the driving force maybe? It leads to me thinking how silly that we could be so concerned and yet appear so queer and idiosyncratic to discuss such things as we have, to what end as someone pointed out? a feeling of helpless, hapless meaning to motivate any other outcome other then that which we know is thusly entertained.

gin kai pet mach mach aroy set kap pepsi !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**Norton** · 28-03-2008, 09:04 PM

^^What he said.

**Driventowin** · 28-03-2008, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by benlovesnuk

No-one seems to be representing that one is better then the other, apart from you, the American!

First off I am not "the American" here, though I wish I could take all of the credit, there are several other such witty and highly intelligent posters of our nationality here as well (with the exception of RC that is) but thank you for the compliment anyway..

Secondly your most definately wrong, this entire thread, as have others has been primarily directed at incriminating the US and the GB admin. for their/our stance for the need to apply water boarding in rare and significant instances to gain an upper hand against the terrorist's tactics and how we are the only one's resorting to such methods.

Your just not entirely updated on the substance and haven't read back to the beginning as you've come on board (no pun intended) in the middle of the stream...

Through out this thread as other related ones as well there has been this 'holier than thou' attitude that this is strictly a US policy practiced only by us as a tool to extract much needed life saving information..
The above article is irrefutable evidence that is not the case..

**stroller** · 28-03-2008, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by Driventowin

Through out this thread as other related ones as well there has been this 'holier than thou' attitude that this is strictly a US policy practiced only by us as a tool to extract much needed life saving information.. The above article is irrefutable evidence that is not the case.

Read the article again.
No ifs and buts, no playing down, no ridiculing of the issue, an unambiguous condemnation of what happened by the British court and the military - in stark contrast to the US's positions and the comments of a number of Americans in this thread.

Btw, it is not clear from the article whether the treatment was part of 'interrogations' or a vigilante-style punishment in the mold of Abu-Graib.

**Texpat** · 28-04-2008, 02:06 PM

By Mark Mazetti
New York Times
Apr 27, 2008

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department has told Congress that US intelligence operatives attempting to thwart terrorist attacks can legally use interrogation methods that might otherwise be prohibited under international law.

The legal interpretation, outlined in recent letters, sheds new light on the still-secret rules for interrogations by the CIA. It shows that the administration is arguing that the boundaries for interrogations should be subject to some latitude, even under an executive order issued last summer that President Bush said meant that the CIA would comply with international strictures against harsh treatment of detainees.

While the Geneva Conventions prohibit "outrages upon personal dignity," a letter sent by the Justice Department to Congress on March 5 makes clear that the administration has not drawn a precise line in deciding which interrogation methods would violate that standard, and is reserving the right to make case-by-case judgments.

"The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act," said Brian A. Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, in the letter, which had not previously been made public.

Bush issued the executive order last summer to comply with restrictions imposed by the Supreme Court and Congress. The order spelled out new standards for interrogation techniques, requiring that they comply with international standards for humane treatment, but it did not identify any approved techniques.

It has been clear that the order preserved at least some of the latitude that Bush has permitted the CIA in using harsher interrogation techniques than those permitted by the military or other agencies. But the new documents provide more details about how the administration intends to determine whether a specific technique would be legal, depending on the circumstances involved.

The letters from the Justice Department to Congress were provided by the staff of Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, who is a member of the Intelligence Committee and had sought more information from the department.

Some legal specialists critical of the Justice Department interpretation said the department seemed to be arguing that the prospect of thwarting a terror attack could be used to justify interrogation methods that would otherwise be illegal.
"What they are saying is that if my intent is to defend the United States rather than to humiliate you, then I have not committed an offense," said Scott L. Silliman, who teaches national security law at Duke University.

But a senior Justice Department official strongly challenged this interpretation on Friday, saying that the purpose of the interrogation would be just one among many factors weighed in determining whether a specific procedure could be used.
"I certainly don't want to suggest that if there's a good purpose you can head off and humiliate and degrade someone," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was describing some legal judgments that remain classified.

"The fact that you are doing something for a legitimate security purpose would be relevant, but there are things that a reasonable observer would deem to be outrageous," he said.

At the same time, the official said, "there are certainly things that can be insulting that would not raise to the level of an outrage on personal dignity."
The humiliating and degrading treatment of prisoners is prohibited by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

The legal reasoning included in the latest Justice Department letters is less expansive than what department lawyers offered as recently as 2005 in defending the use of aggressive techniques. But they show that the Bush administration lawyers are citing the sometimes vague language of the Geneva Conventions to support the idea that interrogators should not be bound by ironclad rules.

In one letter written Sept. 27, 2007, Benczkowski said that "to rise to the level of an outrage" and thus be prohibited under the Geneva Conventions, conduct "must be so deplorable that the reasonable observer would recognize it as something that should be universally condemned."

Wyden said he was concerned that, under the new rules, the Bush administration had put Geneva Convention restrictions on a "sliding scale."

If the United States used subjective standards in applying its interrogation rules, he said, then potential enemies might adopt different standards of treatment for American detainees based on an officer's rank or other factors.
"The cumulative effect in my interpretation is to put American troops at risk," Wyden said.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/04/27/justice_dept_gives_looser_view_on_interrogation_ta ctics/

***

Can someone please explain what an outrage upon personal dignity is to a person who might blow up a bus full of civilians?

"Please don't touch my arms or hands," says Achmed as he unstraps the 30kg bomb from his chest following his detention on a Madrid train. "It offends my dignity and is prohitited by the Geneva Convention."

Would that Geneva standard prohibit interrogators from touching a mass monk-murderer on the head if the detainee was Thai?

What would stop a group of bad guys from claiming whatever was used to interrogate them offended their personal dignity -- and therefore be prohibited?

Letting the terrorists define the interrogation's offense.

**raycarey** · 28-04-2008, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Texpat

Can someone please explain what an outrage upon personal dignity is to a person who might blow up a bus full of civilians?

first, can someone please explain to texpat that these people haven't been convicted of anything...yet they're being tortured. 'might' is the most important word in the above quote.

then we'll move on to the importance of honoring international agreements, and the moral & ethical issues inherent to this issue.

**Texpat** · 28-04-2008, 02:35 PM

Of course! The explosive vest in my example was likely for personal protection.

Do you suggest they wait until after the bus is blown up and interrogate the corpse?

**raycarey** · 28-04-2008, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by Texpat

he explosive vest in my example was likely for personal protection. Do you suggest they wait until after the bus is blown up and interrogate the corpse?

let's go back a few weeks when you were making a complete ass of yourself by repeatedly posting.....

3 times for 5 minutes....or something equally irrelevant and banal.

which of those three were wearing explosive vests?

it seems texpat has been borrowing boon mees copies of.....

**Texpat** · 28-04-2008, 03:08 PM

Glad you remembered. See, you are capable of learning something new. But you still didn't get it quite right. C+ Ray. Keep trying.

Grand total: 3

Total duration: 5 minutes

Unlike my hypothetical example, the three that were waterboarded (see above, five minutes) were not suspected of terrorism. They had already committed atrocious acts and were planning more -- as determined by expert interrogators. According to the Geneva Convention, if KSM pronounced that water offends his personal dignity (quite believable), he would have been spared the 30-seconds of splish-splash that spilled his proverbial can of beans.

Good to see the Justice Department sees through this facade of chivalry.

**raycarey** · 28-04-2008, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by Texpat

They had already committed atrocious acts and were planning more

says who?

**Panda** · 28-04-2008, 04:01 PM

3 times for 5 minutes.
It must be true if the US government says so.

**raycarey** · 28-04-2008, 04:12 PM

it's amazing what the rubes will believe.

**Texpat** · 28-04-2008, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by raycarey

it seems texpat has been borrowing boon mees copies of.....

Never heard of it. Is it a television show in the US?

**raycarey** · 28-04-2008, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Texpat

Originally Posted by raycarey

it seems texpat has been borrowing boon mees copies of.....

Never heard of it. Is it a television show in the US?

of course you haven't.

**raycarey** · 28-04-2008, 05:12 PM

i hope some journalist will take the time to go back and research what bush has said about torture during his presidency.

it seems to me that his definition of torture, and his admitted role (and those of his assumed subordinates) has shifted greatly during that time.

**Norton** · 28-04-2008, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Texpat

Never heard of it. Is it a television show in the US?

Well tex I'm with you. Never saw this before. Guessing it is either a 24 second ejaculation count down clock for Republicans, or the number of Democratic votes McCain can count on in November.

**raycarey** · 29-11-2008, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by Texpat

Answer the question Panda. If its a fact these prisoners are gaining weight...what gives. You figure its water weight? Or are you just another delusional fuckstick standing on a soapbox out in an empty field screaming for the sake of screaming -- hoping it might change the course of events?

Ever consider accepting the fact that the US and the UN will do what is legal within the framework of the world body and there's fuck-all you can do about it?

ever thought about that?
Ever wondered why the fire-breathing devil GWB hasn't been tried for illegal or immoral acts toward prisoners? Do you have an answer for it?

I do. Most countries do the same and aren't against it.

FO.

If it's so goddamn reprehensible, surely your morally superior country has condemned the behavior. Right? Maybe? Maybe not. Check yourself before you stand out in the open and start throwing barbs.
I think you probably stink like fish.

i added the bold to one of the above quote.......it will be interesting to see what GWB actually does about this....will he or won't he grant pardons to anyone involved with administration sanctioned torture. it will be interesting to see.

Thread: Waterboarding , Do You Think It Is Torture?

Thread Tools

Display

UK military admits Iraqis tortured

Justice Dept provides latitude on interrogation tactics

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions