House passes bill to ban waterboarding

[ballz2wallz]

It turns out the House just passed a bill to ban waterboarding.

(AP) The House of Representatives on Thursday approved an intelligence bill that bans the Central Intelligence Agency from using waterboarding, mock executions and other harsh interrogation methods.

This is yet another example of Democrats focusing on something that is fruitless and unimportant. This is not something they should be consuming our time with, especially since they never worried about it earlier until it became a weapon to attack this administration with. This is a method that has saved potentially thousands of lives. This is a method that our military men endure in training. This is a method that protestors continue to do to each other (if it's torture, why do they do it themselves on themselves?).

Water-boarding, like many other interrogation techniques, could be torture in the hands of a sadist. But -- as the following article demonstrates -- it can be an effective interrogation technique and an essential tool of training, as it has been for US Navy and Air Force pilots.

Another waste.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

It turns out the House just passed a bill to ban waterboarding.



This is yet another example of Democrats focusing on something that is fruitless and unimportant. This is not something they should be consuming our time with, especially since they never worried about it earlier until it became a weapon to attack this administration with. This is a method that has saved potentially thousands of lives. This is a method that our military men endure in training. This is a method that protestors continue to do to each other (if it's torture, why do they do it themselves on themselves?).



Another waste.

I'll ignore the obvious questionability of you not considering it torture. But for those that do you really think this is a fruitless and unimportant bill?

[JaJae]

Why would they need to do this if waterboarding is already illegal?
CIA Destroyed Tapes of Interrogations
American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Blog

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I'll ignore the obvious questionability of you not considering it torture. But for those that do you really think this is a fruitless and unimportant bill?

When I was in high school, I was tortured as a kid. Getting purple nurples was torture. A nagging girlfriend is torture. A dripping water faucet when you're trying to sleep is torture.

To argue about the definition of torture is in and of itself torture.

Banning waterboarding is more fruitless than saving the lives as a result of using this technique.

I don't care whether some people 'feel' it's torture or not. It's a proven technique over and over again, and calling it 'torture' by international standards is still in question.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Why would they need to do this if waterboarding is already illegal?
CIA Destroyed Tapes of Interrogations
American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Blog

As I pointed out, torture is already illegal, and waterboarding is not quite considered torture. (well, it might be considered torture by some bleeding hearts, but then again they are way out in left field )

[motivez]

Waterboarding has been considered torture throughout our country's history, and torture is illegal. Anyone who says it's not torture simply isn't knowledgeable about it's history.

The water board technique dates back to the 1500s during the Italian Inquisition. A prisoner, who is bound and gagged, has water poured over him to make him think he is about to drown.

...

According to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., himself a torture victim during the Vietnam War, the water board technique is a "very exquisite torture" that should be outlawed.

...

Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment.

"The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.

Earlier in 1901, the United States had taken a similar stand against water boarding during the Spanish-American War when an Army major was sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in the Philippines.

"Even when you're fighting against belligerents who don't respect the laws of war, we are obliged to hold the laws of war," said Rejali. "And water torture is torture."

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

well, it might be considered torture by some bleeding hearts, but then again they are way out in left field

John McCain is a bleeding heart who's way out in left field?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

John McCain is a bleeding heart who's way out in left field?

John McCain is a politician trying to win votes.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Waterboarding has been considered torture throughout our country's history, and torture is illegal. Anyone who says it's not torture simply isn't knowledgeable about it's history.

Like Jajae asked, if it's already considered torture, then why do they need a special bill to ban it? It's already illegal right?

Water-boarding, like many other interrogation techniques, could be torture in the hands of a sadist.

[motivez]

He's also the victim of torture and has a unique insight the rest of us don't into it's cruelty and why it should be outlawed.

The USA should never be in a position where we have to defend our human rights record or defend how we treat prisoners. We should always have high standards that don't include torture.

Water torture is what Pol Pot used during the genocide in Cambodio, and what the repressive regime in Myanmar is using today on Buddhist monks.. I find it extremely sad that we're even associated with those people, because we're better than them.

We can't lecture China or anyone else on human rights so long as we continue to violate our own (and international) laws and treaties on human rights.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Like Jajae asked, if it's already considered torture, then why do they need a special bill to ban it? It's already illegal right?

This President hasn't been known to follow the law, he issues signing statements that say that he doesn't have to follow aspects of the law he disagrees with, and the Congress doesn't have a big enough backbone to challenge him on it.

It's illegal because it's torture, and the technique has a long history of being considered torture.

[JaJae]

Of course the soldier who waterboarded in the field was court-martialed. If today photos released of a soldier waterboarding in Iraq they'd be court-martialed to. You need permission from your superiors before doing something like that. That doesn't mean the act is illegal.

In a controlled environment with authority of superiors, would it have been illegal *outside* military court?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

He's also the victim of torture and has a unique insight the rest of us don't into it's cruelty and why it should be outlawed.

The USA should never be in a position where we have to defend our human rights record or defend how we treat prisoners. We should always have high standards that don't include torture.

Water torture is what Pol Pot used during the genocide in Cambodio, and what the repressive regime in Myanmar is using today on Buddhist monks.. I find it extremely sad that we're even associated with those people, because we're better than them.

We can't lecture China or anyone else on human rights so long as we continue to violate our own (and international) laws and treaties on human rights.

Originally Posted by motivez

This President hasn't been known to follow the law, he issues signing statements that say that he doesn't have to follow aspects of the law he disagrees with, and the Congress doesn't have a big enough backbone to challenge him on it.

It's illegal because it's torture, and the technique has a long history of being considered torture.

But see this is where you're wrong. Waterboarding is invoking fear of drowning, and invoking fear just isn't torture in most people's books. The water torture of old ages (as you bring up Pol Pot) is far worse.

Waterboarding refers to a technique involving water poured over the face or head of the subject, in order to evoke the instinctive fear of drowning.

[motivez]

Yes, because torture is illegal. Whether or not water torture is torture is a questioned that has been answered long ago by the actions of people involved in situations dealing with it.

If you support the use of water torture on people we capture, you also support the use of it on American soldiers if they're captive. You can't say it's acceptable for us to do to others, unacceptable for someone else while we're engaged in the practice.

This is a good article on the practice: Waterboarding is Torture… Period (Links Updated # 9) (SWJ Blog)

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

But see this is where you're wrong. Waterboarding is invoking fear of drowning, and invoking fear just isn't torture in most people's books. The water torture of old ages (as you bring up Pol Pot) is far worse.

Wrong, the lungs actually fill with water, you ARE drowning, it's just stopped before you die.

From the article I linked:

Waterboarding is not a simulation. Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.

Waterboarding is a controlled drowning that, in the American model, occurs under the watch of a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a trained strap-in/strap-out team. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim’s face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.

Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration –usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death. Its lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threaten with its use again and again.

Call it “Chinese Water Torture,” “the Barrel,” or “the Waterfall,” it is all the same. Whether the victim is allowed to comply or not is usually left up to the interrogator. Many waterboard team members, even in training, enjoy the sadistic power of making the victim suffer and often ask questions as an after thought. These people are dangerous and predictable and when left unshackled, unsupervised or undetected they bring us the murderous abuses seen at Abu Ghraieb, Baghram and Guantanamo. No doubt, to avoid human factors like fear and guilt someone has created a one-button version that probably looks like an MRI machine with high intensity waterjets.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Yes, because torture is illegal. Whether or not water torture is torture is a questioned that has been answered long ago by the actions of people involved in situations dealing with it.

If you support the use of water torture on people we capture, you also support the use of it on American soldiers if they're captive. You can't say it's acceptable for us to do to others, unacceptable for someone else while we're engaged in the practice.

This is a good article on the practice: Waterboarding is Torture… Period (Links Updated # 9) (SWJ Blog)

You continue to include waterboarding in the 'water torture' category. The debate is not whether or not water torture is torture, but whether waterboarding is torture. Is invoking fear torture? Because that's all waterboarding is.

Was invoking fear into Gitmo prisoners by tying bags over their heads and fake electricity attached to their bodies torture? I don't think so, as it was merely invoking fear of being shocked into them. Those we can directly compare. In both senses fear is being invoked. In the one sense you claim the use of waterboarding to invoke fear into them is torture and should be outlawed. Does that then make the use of bags and fake electric wires attached to body parts also torture, and they should also be outlawed? I highly doubt it.

In both cases, physical damage is never caused. Water torture of old days often caused harm or even death via water toxicity. Water torture (as you use it) and waterboarding cannot be considered the same thing.

Sure, it can be used wrongly by sadists, but so can anything.

[motivez]

water boarding is a euphemism for water torture. They changed the name to make it more PR friendly, but that's about it. It's probably slightly different than the techniques used way back when because as a society we've progressed technologically, but the overall method is still the same. The article I linked goes into more detail.

There's less a risk of the prisoner actually dying, but that doesn't change anything about what makes it torture.

I'm not sure why you think fake electricity and actual water compare. It's not like they're simply threatening to use water torture on them, they actually do.

And just because there's no physical scars from the torture doesn't mean it's any less torturous.

[bheld]

It's torture, it's already illegal, and it's time to quit with the parsing and start prosecuting. Look at how far we've fallen from when we had a national debate about what the definition of "sex" was. Do we really have to specifically define waterboarding as torture for this administration? No. They had legal counsel just like every other president and now it's time to prosecute. To hell with after-the-fact definitions.

This bill is just going to let Bush & Friends off the hook. Then again the congressional Dem leadership couldn't care less.

[ballz2wallz]

McCain makes a comparison of waterboarding to firing a blank pistol at someone:

In my view, to make someone believe that you are killing him by drowning is no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank.

Yes, the use of electricity, water, a gun or anything else to make a person BELIEVE he/she will die is the same...invoking fear.

The torture of old was forcing water down the mouths and into the stomach of victims. This caused absorption and rupturing of the cells inside the body, and sometimes water toxicity that can be lethal.

This technique is not the same. Technological advances mean nothing in these techniques.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by bheld

It's torture, it's already illegal, and it's time to quit with the parsing and start prosecuting. Look at how far we've fallen from when we had a national debate about what the definition of "sex" was. Do we really have to specifically define waterboarding as torture for this administration? No. They had legal counsel just like every other president and now it's time to prosecute. To hell with after-the-fact definitions.

This bill is just going to let Bush & Friends off the hook. Then again the congressional Dem leadership couldn't care less.

I think this is a much higher quality debate than what the definition of 'sex' or 'is' is.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

You continue to include waterboarding in the 'water torture' category. The debate is not whether or not water torture is torture, but whether waterboarding is torture. Is invoking fear torture? Because that's all waterboarding is.

Was invoking fear into Gitmo prisoners by tying bags over their heads and fake electricity attached to their bodies torture? I don't think so, as it was merely invoking fear of being shocked into them. Those we can directly compare. In both senses fear is being invoked. In the one sense you claim the use of waterboarding to invoke fear into them is torture and should be outlawed. Does that then make the use of bags and fake electric wires attached to body parts also torture, and they should also be outlawed? I highly doubt it.

In both cases, physical damage is never caused. Water torture of old days often caused harm or even death via water toxicity. Water torture (as you use it) and waterboarding cannot be considered the same thing.

Sure, it can be used wrongly by sadists, but so can anything.

What is your definition of torture?