"Waterboarding Has Its Benefits"
I've written numerous times about torture in the US and the fact that people like Giuliani are embracing it in order to appeal to the Republican base. I've also spoken of how Bush states that the US "does not torture" whilst refusing to specify what acts would constitute torture.
We already have Mukasey refusing to state whether or not he considers waterboarding to be torture, as he is unsure if the CIA are engaging in it. The clear implication being that, if the CIA are doing it, then it can't be torture as the US doesn't "do torture".
So the Bush administration's line of practiced ambiguity on this matter is well known and we all understand that, when Giuliani talks of "intensive questioning", that he's giving us a nod and a wink that he will "do what it takes" in the war on terror.
But at least Bush and Giuliani have the decency to cloak their support for this vile practice in opaque terms, never fully revealing their hand.
Not so Deroy Murdock of the National Review Online. In an astonishing article entitled, "Waterboarding has It's Benefits", Murdock states:
Waterboarding is something of which every American should be proud.So there we have it. The first Bush supporter to openly state that he favours the use of torture. Nay, that he thinks torture is something "of which every American should be proud".
Waterboarding makes tight-lipped terrorists talk. At least three major al-Qaeda leaders reportedly have been waterboarded, most notably Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
In short, there is nothing “repugnant” about waterboarding.I think Deroy Murdock is repugnant. I think anyone who favours the use of torture is repugnant. But Murdock is merely saying what Bush, Giuliani and others believe but lack the courage to defend.
Murdock is now saying that the United States should "be proud" of using a technique for which it has criminally prosecuted others for using. And he's openly stating that the US has used this technique on at least three people.
It beggars belief that anyone could attempt to make such an argument publicly. Nor is this the first time that Murdock has made this argument. He also recently wrote an article entitled, Three cheers for waterboarding! for the Scripps Howard News Service.
When you find yourself openly supporting torture like this, you really have lost all of your moral bearings. And yet, astonishingly, that is now where some Bush supporters find themselves.
Click title for Murdock's foul argument.
22 comments:
I think anyone who favours the use of torture is repugnant.
Then I would expect that your blog would be filled with rants against the real torturers in the world: regimes like Iran, the former Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, Sudan, and countless others. But since you don't, you're outrage continues to ring quite hollow.
I don't need lectures from an enabler like yourself Jason. You were one of the people constantly giving Bush the benefit of the doubt when international groups were saying the US was using torture.
And what do you mean "real torturers"? Is torture somehow less "real" because it is the US that is doing it?
And I also notice that, as someone who always insisted that there was no proof that the US was torturing people, now that we know the US has been using waterboarding that there is no condemnation towards them from you. Only the plaintive cry that other people's outrage must be "hollow".
I have said it before, there is nothing this lot could do that water carriers like yourself wouldn't find a way to rationalise.
Oh, and as for that hollow comment, this blog has condemned torture in many country's. I was one of the first ten blogs to sign up to the anti-torture campaign.
I don't need lectures from an enabler like yourself Jason. You were one of the people constantly giving Bush the benefit of the doubt when international groups were saying the US was using torture.
Enabler, eh? If by "enabler" you mean someone who doesn't get all broken up over waterboarding being used on three occasions (none since 2003), then I guess that's me.
And what do you mean "real torturers"?
Nations that systemically use torture.
Is torture somehow less "real" because it is the US that is doing it?
There is no proof of the US systemically using torture. There are bodies who believe that even hooding is torture, however it is not clear that behavior meeting the legal definition of torture under US law has occurred even in limited circumstances.
Now if you would like to attempt to counter the legal arguments, I'm all ears. If all you have is more ranting, that's not really of much value. Having read the legal arguments while admitting that I am not a lawyer, and while understanding that there are often two sides to every legal argument, I would have to conclude that it appears that the practice of waterboarding (possibly dependent on the manner in which it is applied) may be legal under US law. Congress certainly believes this may be the case as they are proposing laws to specifically make the practice illegal. If they were confident that it was already illegal, no such laws would be necessary. So given that, I'm not going to get hysterical over something used three times which is likely legal under US law to begin with. As I said though, if you are able to counter the DOJ's legal justification (I'm sure you can find a link to such an argument if you look hard enough), then that's certainly something valid worth arguing. Otherwise...
Oh, and as for that hollow comment, this blog has condemned torture in many country's.
Aside from the too numerous to count postings where you accuse the US of torture... I see a post blasting the British Army for "torturing" (well, that's what you call hooding and stress positions anyway). Wait, here's one on an account where you believe the current Iraqi army tortured a suspect under questioning. Finally, here's one commenting on Jordan's reported propensity for torture. Of course that one only came up because the UK was handing this individual (who you likened to an abused child) to Jordan. If there's more, I got bored looking for it. There certainly is no apparent trend of posts highlighting the systemic torture practices countries like the ones I previously mentioned. Instead you choose to focus on a practice the US has used three times that you believe is torture, even though US law (and that's what's important here) doesn't seem to agree with you.
I was one of the first ten blogs to sign up to the anti-torture campaign.
Has it made a difference?
Enabler, eh? If by "enabler" you mean someone who doesn't get all broken up over waterboarding being used on three occasions (none since 2003), then I guess that's me.
Then I guess that is you. An enabler who doesn't object to the US using a form of torture that the US has prosecuted the Japanese for using. Were the US wrong to prosecute the Japanese? Or is such torture okay when it is your side that are doing it?
There is no proof of the US systemically using torture.
There is certainly proof that the US are defining the Geneva Convention to it's own standard, which is illegal. Any confusion as to what the Convention demands must be clarified by an international court, which Dana Perino has stated, "We will not be doing".
Why would the US excuse itself from international norms if it did not intend to torture? And what happened to that quaint notion of the US leading the world be example? How can the US, or yourself, condemn Iran, Syria and others for using practices that you refuse to "get hysterical" over?
There are bodies who believe that even hooding is torture, however it is not clear that behavior meeting the legal definition of torture under US law has occurred even in limited circumstances.
Torture is illegal under international law and US law, although I notice that you appear to think that US law usurps international law, which is a typical empiricist view. And torture is not defined by US law, torture is defined by international treaties which the US has signed up to and by the Fourth Geneva Convention, which Perino has stated that the US will be defining for itself, which is an act of blatant illegality.
I would have to conclude that it appears that the practice of waterboarding (possibly dependent on the manner in which it is applied) may be legal under US law.
The US has regarded waterboarding as illegal since 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."
In 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.
“Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. “We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II,” he said.
So it is well established under US law that waterboarding is torture. You have already prosecuted other people for doing it.
And, as you are not going to "get hysterical" over your country using a practice for which it has previously prosecuted others for using, then you are an enabler for torture.
I am not remotely surprised by your stance. It is the stance of authoritarians everywhere. First you deny the evidence before you until it is totally beyond doubt. Then, once the evidence becomes clear that torture is taking place, you rationalise what the authorities are doing and seek to minimise the illegality and immorality of the practice. You cling to the claim that "it has only been done three times" whilst ignoring the more obvious truth that this is probably the tip of the iceberg.
I have said it before, you have no moral core, you are simply an authoritarian bowing before what you perceive as the power of your government. The idea that they are employed by you and are your civil servants is simply lost on you.
The fact that you are now justifying torture says all that ever needs to be said about your mindset.
And it's actually irrelevant that I have pointed out that this practice is illegal under US law and international law, you will support and find arguments to justify what this government is doing no matter what. That's simply what you do, Jason.
You enable. And you regard doing so as the highest form of patriotism.
So then obviously you cannot counter the legal argument. Fair enough, neither of us are lawyers, and you've certainly demonstrated no propensity to be able to make rational arguments.
An enabler who doesn't object to the US using a form of torture
My language is very nuanced, and obviously those nuances must have been going over your head. What I have repeatedly stated is that I have no objection to practices that are legal under US law. What you choose to call them is of no concern to me. If it is legal under US law I am fine with it. If it's not legal under US law, I have a problem with it. I would think that would be crystal clear enough, but I've thought that before here.
Now, I have presented the legal argument that the administration (your hero James Comey in fact) has presented. Since I'm not a lawyer, I can't say anything other than that it sounds reasonable. Of course, I am sure there are legal arguments against that are also quite reasonable. You don't choose to provide any however.
As for people being charged for similar practices in the past, my understanding is that one of the individuals who helped shape the administration legal opinion had the practice done to him. His stance was that whether or not it was torture depended on how it was done. I don't know what he meant (I heard this in an interview but if you have a link that's great). As I said, I don't pretend to be a lawyer and will hold off judgment in the absence of uncontested legal opinion. That's for the lawyers to sort out. But as I've clearly stated previously, if waterboarding is illegal under US law, I have a problem with it. If it's not, I have a problem with it. I don't think I can make it any clearer than that.
And yes, US law is the only law that matters to me. International treaties that are ratified by Congress are considered US law. Typically Congress attaches statements to their ratifications clarifying aspects of the treaty to state how they view it consistent with US law, and this was done with the CAT for example. When I was in the military I swore an oath to defend the Constitution, which is the basis for US law. I did not swear an oath to the UN Charter, for example. Any relevant international law has been enacted into US law, so the point is mostly moot.
While you in the UK may be more than happy to sell yourselves to international bodies (the EU), I would bet that most of us here aren't so willing to give up our sovereignty.
But as I've clearly stated previously, if waterboarding is illegal under US law, I have a problem with it. If it's not, I have a problem with it. I don't think I can make it any clearer than that.
Well, as the US has charged people for practicing waterboarding I take it we can agree that it is illegal? I hardly think your country could charge people for things that were not illegal, do you?
And Daniel Levin did have the practice done to him and was about to say that waterboarding constituted torture, I don't know where you get the notion that he thought waterboarding is only torture depending on how it is done. How many ways are there to perform such a hideous task?
Well, as the US has charged people for practicing waterboarding I take it we can agree that it is illegal?
Uh no, we can't. I do not know whether or not the circumstances in the cases that you made reference to (without the supporting legal opinions naturally) are the same as what's currently going on. Neither do you.
If it was clearly illegal then it would be a simple matter to prosecute those responsible. But obviously it isn't clearly illegal as that hasn't happened. Also, waterboarding is used by us against US troops training how to handle interrogation (as are hooding, stress positions, harsh language, being sent to bed without dinner, and probably all manner of other things you'd consider torture). If the practice were illegal, then one would have to assume that we could not use it in training.
So given that there is obvious legal ambiguity, a more intelligent question is whether or not it should be made illegal. I personally wouldn't have a problem with that.
Uh no, we can't. I do not know whether or not the circumstances in the cases that you made reference to (without the supporting legal opinions naturally) are the same as what's currently going on. Neither do you.
We don't need to know the "supporting legal opinions" - we are talking about the charges - and I provided links to what those charges were. The people involved were charged with waterboarding.
Clearly waterboarding is illegal. That's why people were charged by the US for practicing it.
You have made previous mentions that it depends on how it is done. In waterboarding - or lets call it what it really is, simulated drowning - the lungs are filled with water to produce the sensation of a near death experience. How many ways can that be done? I suppose one could use hot or cold water, but apart from that I fail to see the distinction people like yourself and Giuliani are seeking to make. What is the humane way to give someone the sensation of a near death experience? And as the definition of torture under international law includes "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession", how can you possibly argue that inducing the sensation of a near death experience does not constitute mental torture?
If it was clearly illegal then it would be a simple matter to prosecute those responsible. But obviously it isn't clearly illegal as that hasn't happened.
You are entering fantasy land now, my friend. Mukasey stated that the very reason that he couldn't say whether or not waterboarding was illegal was because he didn't know whether or not the CIA were using it. In other words the legality would be decided based solely on whether or not it would leave certain CIA personnel open to charges. You appear to be arguing that the fact that Americans have not been charged proves the complexity of whether or not waterboarding is illegal. Mukasey has made clear that the opposite is true. He will not say it is illegal if there is any chance that this will leave the CIA open to charges.
Also, waterboarding is used by us against US troops training how to handle interrogation
Yes, US troops are trained to resist torture, it would be surprising if they weren't.
So given that there is obvious legal ambiguity
There is no legal ambiguity. Waterboarding is one of the oldest forms of torture known to man. The only ambiguity is whether or the Bush administration will accept what every previous US administration has accepted; namely, waterboarding is torture. And the only reason that Mukasey won't accept that is because the CIA has been doing it.
A more intelligent question is whether or not it should be made illegal.
It is already illegal. That's why your country has already charged people with the crime of practicing it. I honestly find these conversations with you slightly surreal. On what planet is inducing the sensation of a near death experience not mental torture? In the Cornell University Law School definition of torture that you linked to further up the page, the definition of torture included "the threat of imminent death". How can inducing the sensation of a near death experience not be equivalent to "the threat of imminent death"?
I personally wouldn't have a problem with that.
At last... You have stopped being "someone who doesn't get all broken up over waterboarding being used on three occasions".
You have argued that I have misunderstood your reasoning and that you have only ever been concerned with whether or not waterboarding was legal under US law. You even claimed that you had been "very nuanced" in your reasoning. "Someone who doesn't get all broken up over waterboarding being used on three occasions" is neither nuanced nor concerned with legality, they are simply a supporter of the current regime's actions.
I am pleased that you have gone from "someone who doesn't get all broken up over waterboarding being used on three occasions" to someone who is now saying they would support this action being considered illegal.
The rest of the planet and every US administration before this one have already decided it's illegal, but you've made a step in the right direction...
The people involved were charged with waterboarding.
No, they weren't. The American soldier in your first link was court martialed under the UCMJ, but there is no reference to which article of the UCMJ he was charged against. The Japanese soldier was charged with war crimes, not charged with "water boarding". After having read these it is clear why they may not be relevant.
In the case of the Army soldier who was court martialed, he was charged under the UCMJ. The UCMJ is not the same as federal criminal law. There are articles in the UCMJ under which a military person may be court martialed which are not crimes under federal criminal statute. For example, failure to obey a lawful order is a punishable offense under the UCMJ that can result in prison time if convicted, but quite obviously is not a crime under federal criminal statute. In other words, just because something is punishable under the UCMJ does not mean that it is a federal crime. What that means is that one cannot draw the conclusion that water boarding is against US law because a soldier was reportedly court martialed for using the practice. The CIA, who are reported to be the ones who have used water boarding, are not subject to the UCMJ.
Regarding the Japanese soldier, it is possible that he was charged with a war crime because, as the link states, he was using the practice against a US civilian. Using such practices against a non-combatant I suspect would constitute a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. What this means is that without knowing the facts of the case (was he charged with war crimes because of the treatment of a non-combatant?), one cannot use this instance to draw the conclusion that water boarding is illegal under US federal criminal law. It is also worth mentioning that POWs are tried by military courts and not under federal criminal statute, so the previous argument made in the case of the US soldier also holds here as well.
There is no legal ambiguity.
And yet you've presented no legal argument that counters Comey's. All you've presented are the two accounts we've discussed which aren't relevant for the reasons I've outlined.
How can inducing the sensation of a near death experience not be equivalent to "the threat of imminent death"?
Those who have volunteered to be water boarded (to include those in the mlitary water boarded as part of training) knew that their life was not in danger and were under no threat, yet despite being under no threat of imminent death, it was a completely unpleasant experience. This proves that it is possible to experience the sensatins that accompany water boarding without threat of imminent death. More relevant though, I believe Comey addressed this argument.
You have stopped being "someone who doesn't get all broken up over waterboarding being used on three occasions".
No, don't get me wrong. I don't care one bit about the terrorists, and as long as the practice is legal, I am certainly not going to get broken up over it being used on three occasions. If the practice is found to be not legal, then I still could give a rat's ass about the terrorists, but I have a problem with the law being broken. Don't interpret me wanting US law to be followed or not having a problem with the practice being made illegal to have anything to do with concern for the three terrorists it was used on.
The rest of the planet and every US administration before this one have already decided it's illegal
So you keep saying. I'm not interested in the "rest of the planet" bit, but I would love to see some reference to support the "every US administration before this one" bit. If you've already presented one I must have missed it.
No, they weren't. The American soldier in your first link was court martialed under the UCMJ, but there is no reference to which article of the UCMJ he was charged against. The Japanese soldier was charged with war crimes, not charged with "water boarding". After having read these it is clear why they may not be relevant.
The war crime commited by the Japanese soldier was water boarding. That was the action which he took which was considered a war crime.
The US soldier was court martialled one month after pictures of him using waterboarding appeared in The Washington Post. He was drummed out of the army and the quote from Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College, certainly implies that he was punished for using that practice.
"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."
And yet you've presented no legal argument that counters Comey's
You have not presented Comey's argument. You provided a link to a very long document without specifying which parts of that document support your claims.
How can inducing the sensation of a near death experience not be equivalent to "the threat of imminent death"?
Those who have volunteered to be water boarded (to include those in the mlitary water boarded as part of training) knew that their life was not in danger and were under no threat, yet despite being under no threat of imminent death, it was a completely unpleasant experience. This proves that it is possible to experience the sensatins that accompany water boarding without threat of imminent death.
It is not necessary for the person to actually be near imminent death for torture to have occured. It is only necessary for the person to believe they are near to imminent death for mental torture to have taken place.
Those who volunteered obviously knew they were not going to die, and yet they found the experience so bad that Levin thought it constituted torture. Other prisoners that this has been done to are not aware that they are not going to die, indeed, the possibility that they might die is what makes them talk. Making someone think they are about to die in order to extracate information from them is as textbook a description of torture as one could ever hope to come across.
Let's be specific about what we are talking about.
Malcolm Nance, a veteran of counterterrorism operations in Iraq, has written a moving post for the counterinsurgency blog Small Wars Journal explaining, in more detail than anyone else has in public, what exactly waterboarding is:
1. Waterboarding is a torture technique. Period. There is no way to gloss over it or sugarcoat it. It has no justification outside of its limited role as a training demonstrator. Our service members have to learn that the will to survive requires them accept and understand that they may be subjected to torture, but that America is better than its enemies and it is one’s duty to trust in your nation and God, endure the hardships and return home with honor.
2. 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.
One should also bear in mind that SERE put individuals through this practice to prepare them for being captured by evil regimes who would torture them. That, alone, should tell you that this is torture.
I must admit that I find these conversations with you slightly surreal and do honestly wonder what kind of person you must be if you could possibly consider such a thing not to be torture. If waterboarding isn't torture then torture simply doesn't exist.
Sorry. I realise I didn't address your last point regarding every administration before this one regarding waterboarding as illegal. I've come across this statement in several Editorials, the first being the Washington Post:
IT'S A SAD day in America when the nominee for attorney general cannot flatly declare that waterboarding is unconstitutional. The interrogation technique simulates drowning and can cause excruciating mental and physical pain; it has been prosecuted in U.S. courts since the late 1800s and was regarded by every U.S. administration before this one as torture.
This is also from the Chicago Sun-Times:
Even as all but one of the Republican presidential candidates support tough interrogation techniques to gain intel -- Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney have no trouble with waterboarding, which every administration before the current one rejected as illegal and immoral.
He was drummed out of the army and the quote from Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College, certainly implies that he was punished for using that practice.
Waterboarding is not an approved method in the Army Field Manual. I'm assuming it wasn't then either. Therefore, its use would likely be a violation of the UCMJ. Violation of the UCMJ leads to court martial. Therefore, he was court martialed for violating the UCMJ. Further, he would have to be charged with violating a particular article or articles under the UCMJ. There is however no mention of which article(s) of the UCMJ they charged him with violating.
And as I said, regarding the Japanese soldier, it is likely he was prosecuted by a military court (and not under federal criminal code, which would not apply) for his treatment of a non-combatant, given that it was clearly stated the subject was a US civilian.
You have not presented Comey's argument. You provided a link to a very long document without specifying which parts of that document support your claims.
I posted a link to a seventeen page legal argument which stated the Administration's position. Seventeen pages isn't exactly a "very long" document. The entire document is relevant. Not everything worth knowing can be distilled into single page snippets.
It is only necessary for the person to believe they are near to imminent death for mental torture to have taken place.
Then by your reasoning, Congress is responsible for torturing tens of thousands of US citizens.
Other prisoners that this has been done to are not aware that they are not going to die
When you say "other prisoners", you're referring to the three Al Qaeda prisoners this technique has been used on, correct?
One should also bear in mind that SERE put individuals through this practice to prepare them for being captured by evil regimes who would torture them.
No, it's not to prepare them for being captured by "evil" regimes. It's to teach them how to survive behind enemy lines, evade capture, resist interrogation, and escape capture. This is consistent with the military code of conduct, which all military members are required to uphold. It has nothing to do with "evil" regimes. As a side note, if you take the US military code of conduct into account, you can see why many US military members held in such disdain the behavior of the British military personnel captured by the Iranians. Either the British don't have a comparable code of conduct, or they completely ignored it.
I must admit that I find these conversations with you slightly surreal and do honestly wonder what kind of person you must be if you could possibly consider such a thing not to be torture.
What I personally consider it is of no consequence, and I have not stated my personal opinion here one way or the other. What is important in this particular instance is whether or not it meets the legal definition of torture under US legal statutes. For example, while you may consider capital punishment murder, it does not meet the legal definition of murder under US legal statutes. Just because something might emotionally seem way does not mean that the emotion is legally codified. With that in mind, there are valid legal arguments that water boarding does not meet the legal definition of "torture" under US statues. Claims that the we are using "torture" ring as hollow as claims that putting prisoners to death is "murder" if those claims lack legal standing.
So with that in mind, members of Congress have been considering making the practice explicitly illegal. They are doing this because they realize that the practice is ambiguous under current US law.
I've come across this statement in several Editorials
Unfortunately none of those opinion pieces backed up their claims either.
What it comes down to is that there is a distinction that must be made between emotional opinion and legal fact. The only claims of this technique being used are by the CIA on three occasions. The CIA is held accountable under US criminal law, and not mlitary law. Therefore, the instances of the US soldier who was court martialed and the Japanese POW do not back up claims of the practice being illegal under US criminal law. I have presented Comey's legal argument. You chose not to refute it, which is fine, but in the face of a lack of compelling facts, resorted to an appeal to emotion (as is the case with most of your arguments actually). While emotional appeals are all fine-and-dandy, they do not go towards answering the central question, which is whether or not water boarding is illegal under US criminal law. Given a failure to address that question, the best one can do is make a claim that they think the practice should be made explicitly illegal under US law.
Waterboarding is not an approved method in the Army Field Manual. I'm assuming it wasn't then either. Therefore, its use would likely be a violation of the UCMJ. Violation of the UCMJ leads to court martial. Therefore, he was court martialed for violating the UCMJ.
God, your logic is tortured. We are assuming that his violation of the UCMJ was because he waterboarded someone and yet you insist that he was court martialed for violating the UCMJ rather than for waterboarding? And what was his violation? Oh, waterboarding!
I posted a link to a seventeen page legal argument which stated the Administration's position. Seventeen pages isn't exactly a "very long" document. The entire document is relevant. Not everything worth knowing can be distilled into single page snippets.
I have told you before that I will not read articles that you post where you attempt to get someone else to make your argument for you. If you have an argument, make it.
Not everything worth knowing can be distilled into single page snippets.
In other words you can't make a cogent argument to support what you are saying.
Then by your reasoning, Congress is responsible for torturing tens of thousands of US citizens.
Again, you post an entire article without specifying which bit you are referring to. The people put through this SERE programme are military personnel, or am I misreading which part of this you want me to take on board? They are being trained to resist torture in case they are ever captured a by a country evil enough to practice such a technique.
When you say "other prisoners", you're referring to the three Al Qaeda prisoners this technique has been used on, correct?
I find it hard to believe that they are the only three this has been practiced on but yes, I am referring to the people the US have put through this process.
It's to teach them how to survive behind enemy lines, evade capture, resist interrogation, and escape capture.
They waterboard them so they can hopefully learn to survive the technique if they ever face a regime barbaric enough to use it on them.
What I personally consider it is of no consequence, and I have not stated my personal opinion here one way or the other.
It is of every consequence. Why are you debating on here if not to talk about what you believe? If you are not on here to debate what you believe but are simply hoping to elicit a reaction then that is called "trolling". If you are simply trolling, I will bar you.
I personally don't think you are. I think you are simply backing the administration's position whilst allowing yourself a future escape route from the argument.
For example, while you may consider capital punishment murder, it does not meet the legal definition of murder under US legal statutes.
Now you are introducing strawman arguments so that you can knock them down. I have never claimed that capital punishment equals murder.
So with that in mind, members of Congress have been considering making the practice explicitly illegal. They are doing this because they realize that the practice is ambiguous under current US law.
Ah, right. And are they going to address pulling out peoples fingernails with pliers? How about gouging out the eyeballs? Is that also "ambiguous" under US law?
This is why this conversation borders on the bizarre, it is already illegal to torture under US law, there is no need for that to be clarified. What they are clarifying is whether a practice that they have engaged in constitutes torture.
Unfortunately none of those opinion pieces backed up their claims either.
And neither have you. Name the US administration prior to this one that thought waterboarding was not torture?
What it comes down to is that there is a distinction that must be made between emotional opinion and legal fact.
This is not a matter of emotional opinion, it is a matter of whether drowning someone is torture. You appear to think that matter is open to debate.
I have presented Comey's legal argument. You chose not to refute it.
There is no proof at this moment that you even understand it, as you certainly appear utterly unable to even condense it into your own words using relevant quotes where necessary.
You can't link to seventeen pages of someone else's words and think that you are engaging in debate, that's simply bonkers.
While emotional appeals are all fine-and-dandy, they do not go towards answering the central question, which is whether or not water boarding is illegal under US criminal law.
Leaving aside what the US may finally decide in the case of an action that they have already indulged in, and I'm not holding my breath for them to do the right thing on this subject, give me your opinion, which you are carefully hiding behind false questions. There is no point debating on here unless you are willing to state what you believe.
Do you, Jason, believe that drowning someone in order to extract information constitutes torture?
I find it amusing that while much of your blog consists of you plagiarizing the work of others and posting it in whole, you are unable to read links which support arguments you disagree with. I have said that there is ambiguity over its legal status and pointed to you the reason why. I know 17 pages must take a lot of effort to read, but I'm not going to spoon feed it to you. This isn't children's reading hour at the library. You're a big boy and if you were actually interested in furthering your knowledge of the topic I've given you the tools. The whole "I'm not going to read any links you post" bit, while insanely childish, also is just further indication of your intellectual dishonesty.
God, your logic is tortured. We are assuming that his violation of the UCMJ was because he waterboarded someone and yet you insist that he was court martialed for violating the UCMJ rather than for waterboarding? And what was his violation? Oh, waterboarding!
Sorry, I left out a response to your misunderstanding of the UCMJ. When one is charged under the UCMJ, he is charged with violating an article of the UCMJ. There is no article that mentions waterboarding.
There is however an article (Article 93 of the UCMJ, another link you won't read) that deals with "cruelty and maltreatment". If this were one of the articles he were charged under, the prosecution would have to make the argument that the waterboarding constituted "cruelty and maltreatment", but also that the prisoner was "subject to the order of the accused". Is this what he was charged under? I don't know, and I suspect you don't either. Maybe he was charged under article 128 or 134? Again, neither of us knows. But what we do know (well, I know anyway) is that he was not charged with "waterboarding", as there is no article about "waterboarding" in the UCMJ.
You have nicely avoided countering any of the points I have made.
And, as always, you simply resort to insult.
I have asked you a very simple question that will reveal whether or not you are a troll.
You come on here and question my beliefs and I honestly engage with you and defend what I believe. You are now claiming that the points you make on here do not, necessarily, represent your beliefs.
So I'll ask you the simple question that I asked before: Do you, Jason, believe that drowning someone in order to extract information constitutes torture?
If you are not willing to talk about what you believe, then you are simply a troll, and this is goodbye.
I get it. If one does not play your games, they are a troll. I have argued the point, quite plainly in fact, that there is ambiguity regarding the legal status of waterboarding, and as there is such, it may not be considered torture under US law. You apparently don't like that argument.
You presented why you thought it was illegal under US law by pointing to recollections of alleged cases tried by military courts, and I pointed out that the UCMJ and federal criminal law are not the same, and how something against the UCMJ is not necessarily illegal under US criminal law. You apparently didn't care for that argument either.
You made some kind of claims about how someone was charged with "waterboarding" under the UCMJ, and I pointed out how that's not technically possible, presenting you links to back up my argument, which you ignored.
I have quite clearly demonstrated my opinion as to why I believe that waterboarding may possibly not meet the legal definition of torture in the US. Not caring for that, you want my personal opinion about a loaded question you offered, which never had anything to do with my argument. And it should be noted that my personal opinion of the practice has nothing to do with the legality of the practice, as I also tried to point out.
If you had phrased the question to ask whether I personally thought "water boarding" was torture, I would have answered you. Instead you offered the loaded question about whether I felt that "drowning someone" was torture. I'm not going to play that game. If you want an honest answer, try asking an honest question.
And as for me offering insults, when every single response you make to me includes personal insults against me, you'll have to excuse the occasional indulgence on my part.
I get it. If one does not play your games, they are a troll.
No, Jason, if one comes on here and asks me what I think and then, when I attempt to talk of what your opinion is say, "What I personally consider it is of no consequence, and I have not stated my personal opinion here one way or the other" then it is obvious that you are engaging in some kind of semantics where my opinion can be challenged whilst your opinion is something that you "have not stated one way or the other".
You are not a university lecturer correcting my thesis paper. And to argue about my opinions whilst hiding what you actually think is an act of cowardice. I can understand why you are doing it as, whilst defending the Bush administration you now find yourself in the hideous position of attempting to rationalise techniques that have been considered torture since the Spanish Inquisition, and you wish to allow yourself an escape route; but it is nevertheless cowardly.
We have agreed that the issue at question is whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture under US law.
If you had phrased the question to ask whether I personally thought "water boarding" was torture, I would have answered you. Instead you offered the loaded question about whether I felt that "drowning someone" was torture. I'm not going to play that game. If you want an honest answer, try asking an honest question.
I have already pointed out that during waterboarding what you are actually doing is drowning someone. It is impossible to answer any question about waterboarding without addressing the notion of drowning.
Unless you believe waterboarding does not involve drowning? But how would I know what you believe? You argue on here whilst claiming, "I have not stated my personal opinion here one way or the other" which actually renders all conversation with you pointless.
If you are willing to come here and argue what you believe as opposed to what I believe, then do so. If you think that you can challenge my beliefs whilst cowardly hiding your own, then I am honestly not interested.
No, Jason, if one comes on here and asks me what I think and then, when I attempt to talk of what your opinion is say, "What I personally consider it is of no consequence, and I have not stated my personal opinion here one way or the other" then it is obvious that you are engaging in some kind of semantics where my opinion can be challenged whilst your opinion is something that you "have not stated one way or the other".
Sorry, but pointing out that my personal belief on waterboarding has no relation to the actual legality of the practice, aside from being glaringly obvious, is quite relevant. You began to take my claims that the practice may not be illegal under US law as me saying that I held some personal belief that waterboarding shouldn't be considered torture. I corrected you by pointing out that I had not indicated my personal belief on whether or not it should be torture, and that I was only indicating my belief that it may not be illegal. I'm sorry if you could not make the distinction.
And as far as people coming on here and challenging your beliefs... You have a blog. You open yourself up to it. If you don't want your beliefs challenged, turn off comments, unless of course you get off on the encouragement of like minded individuals.
And to argue about my opinions whilst hiding what you actually think is an act of cowardice.
I don't feel the need to express my positions in a blog. Just the fact that you post something is inviting having it challenged. There is no implied contract of quid pro quo. If you either can't defend or find it distasteful to defend your own positions, then again, you might as well just turn off comments.
But aside from that, I can't say I've ever been accused of holding back what I think. Unfortunately, you seem unable to tell the difference with somebody who is trying to make an argument based primarily on objective facts versus someone who is primarily arguing their subjective opinion. In this particular case I have been arguing my subjective opinion that waterboarding may be legal under US law by pointing out the objective facts that the administration made a cogent argument and that Congress appears to believe the same as they are seeking legislation that would explicitly outlaw the practice.
Now this subjective opinion that waterboarding may be legal is different than my subjective opinion on whether or not it should be legal, which you indicated you did not want to discuss. Given that you didn't want to discuss whether or not I thought it should be illegal, it's a bit rich for you to be going off on this diatribe.
I also think it's a bit interesting that you are devoting so much energy to a practice that was by all reports used three times by the CIA, and not at all since 2003. But that's just my opinion.
but it is nevertheless cowardly.
You've called me a coward three times in this blog entry. Let's see... On one hand, I willingly put myself in harm's way for my beliefs and to help others. On the other hand, you blog. How brave of you.
I don't feel the need to express my positions in a blog. Just the fact that you post something is inviting having it challenged. There is no implied contract of quid pro quo.
I beg to differ. I made it very clear to that you "are not a university lecturer correcting my thesis paper" and that "if you think that you can challenge my beliefs whilst cowardly hiding your own, then I am honestly not interested."
You do appear to think that this is your role here.
I've told you that I am simply not interested in that. I'm finished with you, Jason.
I'm finished with you, Jason.
Cool. I win.
Cool. I win.
Christ, could you be any more infantile? You have defended torture whilst cowardly refusing to give your own opinion on the matter, if that's victory in your world, lap it up Jason.
Post a Comment