White House: Waterboarding is groovy

[Gentle Giant]

I'm reminded of this quote from Abraham Lincoln: "Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."


White House defends use of waterboarding
Says interrogation tactic may be OK'd in future probes
By Jennifer Loven, Associated Press | February 7, 2008

WASHINGTON - The White House yesterday defended the use of the interrogation technique known as waterboarding, saying it is legal - not torture as critics argue - and has saved American lives.

President Bush could authorize waterboarding for future terrorism suspects if certain criteria are met, a spokesman said.

A day earlier, the Bush administration acknowledged publicly for the first time that the tactic was used by US government questioners on three terror suspects. Testifying before Congress, CIA Director Michael Hayden said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri were waterboarded in 2002 and 2003.

Waterboarding involves strapping a suspect down and pouring water over his cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning.

It has been traced back hundreds of years, to the Spanish Inquisition, and is condemned by nations around the world.

Hayden banned the technique in 2006 for CIA interrogations, the Pentagon has banned its employees from using it, and FBI Director Robert Mueller said his investigators do not use coercive tactics in interviewing terror suspects.

Senate Democrats demanded a criminal investigation after Hayden's disclosure.

Bush personally authorized Hayden's testimony, White House deputy spokesman Tony Fratto said.

"There's been a lot written out there - newspaper, magazine articles, some of it misinformation," Fratto said. "And so the consensus was that on this one particular technique that these officials would have the opportunity to address them - in not just a public setting, but in a setting in front of members of Congress, and to be very clear about how those techniques were used and what the benefits were of them."

Fratto said CIA interrogators could use waterboarding again, but would need the president's approval to do so. That approval would "depend on the circumstances," with one important factor being "belief that an attack might be imminent," Fratto said. Appropriate members of Congress would be notified in such a case, he said.

"The president will listen to the considered judgment of the professionals in the intelligence community and the judgment of the attorney general in terms of the legal consequences of employing a particular technique," he said. "The president will listen to his advisers and make a determination."

Fratto said waterboarding's use in the past was also approved by the attorney general, meaning it was legal and not torture.

Officials fear calling waterboarding torture or illegal could expose government employees to criminal or civil charges or even international war crimes charges.

"Every enhanced technique that has been used by the Central Intelligence Agency for this program was brought to the Department of Justice and they made a determination that its use under specific circumstances and with safeguards was lawful," Fratto said.

Critics say waterboarding has been outlawed under the UN's Convention Against Torture, which prohibits treatment resulting in long-term physical or mental damage.

They also say it should be recognized as banned under the US 2006 Military Commissions Act, which prohibits treatment of terror suspects that is described as "cruel, inhuman, and degrading."

The act, however, does not explicitly prohibit waterboarding by name.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

The act, however, does not explicitly prohibit waterboarding by name.

And that, I think, would open a whole new can of worms that needs to be opened, it seems to me.
If all the attention is concentrated on banning waterboarding, one can't avoid singling out each form of torture, then it will become a challenge for those who think "24" is a playbook for how interrogations should be conducted using other forms.
The discussion will then become a hide-and-seek excercise, with the result being that if a particular form is not actually named, then it is permissable.
Cruelty against those who are designated as the enemy is limited only by the imagination of the torturers.
Waterboarding is only one form that torture takes.
I suppose that the hooding and threat of electrocution pictured in the infamous photograph from Abu Ghraib would not be under any discussion at all.
Of course waterboarding is illegal internationally, as shown by the convictions after WWII.
But, international law seems to be a mere quaint formality to the Bush Administration these days.
Waterboarding is not the only form of torture used. All forms of torture are prohibited by international law, not that that stops those who decide to use it.
And while all this discussion is going on, so is the torture that is being discussed.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

Before you know it college kids will be waterboarding themselves for fun just like they do with tazer guns.

Gotta love YouTube.

[Hudson Boy]

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

I'm reminded of this quote from Abraham Lincoln: "Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."

Whether pro or con regarding waterboarding, is an abstract comparison of the innocent victims of slavery with terrorists a valid point?

[Noj]

The technique is torture, plain and simple, and it should be beneath America to engage in its practice on human beings regardless if that person is a terrorist or not.

[bluenoter]

Don't think of waterboarding as torture. Think of it as enhanced interrogation.

I missed the story that I linked to, and I'd never heard the term before. But I was reading some small, unsung right-wing website the other day and saw one of the Republican candidates other than McCain being praised for favoring "enhanced interrogation." Brrrrrr!

[Gary Sisco]

I'd give up the rest of my life if I could interview Cheney about the definition of torture while waterboarding him. After that, we could try the old auto battery to the scrotum. If he has one.

[jazzy mary]

Gary, I love you.

[Gary Sisco]

Geez. I never knew you cared. ;-)

We could also send some electrical disturbance to his pacemaker and fuck with his heartbeat rate for a while, see what he has to say about his secret energy panel membership.

"What's'a'matter, hey? Heart racing? Hey, let's ... slow ...... it ........... way ....................................... down."

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Hudson Boy

Whether pro or con regarding waterboarding, is an abstract comparison of the innocent victims of slavery with terrorists a valid point?

Sure it is. It's a classic what's good for the goose type of argument.

It's like supporting the war yet there's no way in hell you'd actually go over and fight it.

[Vince Kargatis]

Originally Posted by Hudson Boy

Whether pro or con regarding waterboarding, is an abstract comparison of the innocent victims of slavery with terrorists a valid point?

HB, prove within a reasonable doubt that those undergoing waterboarding are terrorists.

[Hudson Boy]

Some would make an opposite assertion such as, "Whenever I hear someone arguing against waterboarding, I have a strong inclination to subject them and their loved ones to terrorism."

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

If the terrorists are just shot on sight in Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever they are there would be no need for waterboarding.

[Hudson Boy]

Originally Posted by Vince Kargatis

HB, prove within a reasonable doubt that those undergoing waterboarding are terrorists.

That's not the point, and I'm not defending waterboarding or any other form of torture. For sake of argument, the people being waterboarded are known, avowed terrorists and the people subjected to slavery are innocent victims.

[Scott Dolan]

Good lord.

[patricia]

May I suggest that everyone who is comfortable with the use of torture read "The Torture Papers - The Road To Abu Ghraib?" [Cambridge University Press]

One of the comments about the book is by John D. Hutson [Rear admiral - ret] Dean & President of Franklin Pierce Law Centre.

"This book is a must read for anyone who cares about the role the United States plays on the world scene. It describes the steps in an ominous path leading from the high road down to the low road in the words of those who took that journey. Throughout our history, the United States has taken justifiable pride in our adherence to the Rule of Law and our strong advocacy for human rights. Read The Torture Papers and see for yourself if that is still true. If we do not have the courage and wisdom to confront this shameful episode, then we are bound to repeat it."

Another is by Michael Ratner, who is President of the Centre for Constitutional Rights.

"The Torture Papers may well be the most important and damning set of documents exposing U.S. government lawlwssness ever published ... Each page tells the story of U.S. leaders consciously willing to ignore the fundamental protections that guarantee all of us our humanity. I fear for our future. Read these pages and weep for our country, the rule of law and victims of torture everywhere."

The book contains, as well as the record of the run-up to the war and attendant records, the transcripts of interviews with dozens of former prisoners, outlining what was done to them by their interrogators, only one technique of which was waterboarding.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

Don't think of waterboarding as torture. Think of it as enhanced interrogation.

And don't think Bush as a liar. Think of him as an a teller of the "enhanced truth."

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

Depends on what your definition of "is" is.

[jazzy mary]

And try to see the film "Taxi to the Dark Side". It's fantastic.

[Hudson Boy]

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

Associated Press | February 7, 2008
WASHINGTON - The White House yesterday defended the use of the interrogation technique known as waterboarding, saying it is legal - not torture as critics argue - and has saved American lives.
President Bush could authorize waterboarding for future terrorism suspects if certain criteria are met, a spokesman said...........
Waterboarding involves strapping a suspect down and pouring water over his cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning. It has been traced back hundreds of years, to the Spanish Inquisition, and is condemned by nations around the world.

Wouldn't most subjects of waterboarding know very well that it's just a technique to scare them, and that they are not going to be drowned? Aren't we underestimating the intelligence of our enemies, and their ability to cope with threats, when it comes to this? About the best argument against waterboarding that I can think of is that it does not work precisely because they are aware that they're not in danger. Now, if we filmed a few of them who were uncooperative actually being drowned, and sent copies to Al Jazeera, that might give them something to think about.

[Noj]

Why don't we just slit their throats on camera, Hudson Boy? Do you think we're going to scare the people who are lining up to be fitted with a dynamite vest?

We're better than this. We're better than those who torture and kill to terrorize others into having their way. At least we're supposed to be better.

[Hudson Boy]

Originally Posted by Noj

Why don't we just slit their throats on camera, Hudson Boy? Do you think we're going to scare the people who are lining up to be fitted with a dynamite vest?

We're better than this. We're better than those who torture and kill to terrorize others into having their way. At least we're supposed to be better.

When I suggested boycotting Arab oil, to force their governments to crack down on terrorists so that we won't have to, the resulting outcry on this board was even worse than the response to the suggestion of torturing, or killing, captured terrorists.

We've got problems, and if we're not comfortable with doing away with the threat of terrorism ourselves, then I think we should let the nations that harbor it deal with it. But, they won't do it without good reason - and money talks.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by jazzy mary

And try to see the film "Taxi to the Dark Side". It's fantastic.

I have it in my Netflix queue, but it isn't out on DVD yet.

[Dan G]

Originally Posted by Hudson Boy

Wouldn't most subjects of waterboarding know very well that it's just a technique to scare them, and that they are not going to be drowned? Aren't we underestimating the intelligence of our enemies, and their ability to cope with threats, when it comes to this? About the best argument against waterboarding that I can think of is that it does not work precisely because they are aware that they're not in danger. Now, if we filmed a few of them who were uncooperative actually being drowned, and sent copies to Al Jazeera, that might give them something to think about.

I think if I were in this situation, I'd be more inclined to think either:
a) these assholes are so fucking stupid that they don't know that what they are doing is both immoral and illegal, so how can I expect them to actually be smart enough to not drown me by mistake; or
b) these assholes are so fucking stupid that they don't know that what they are doing is both immoral and illegal, so they are just going to kill me because I'm not one of them.

[Dan G]

Originally Posted by Hudson Boy

Now, if we filmed a few of them who were uncooperative actually being drowned, and sent copies to Al Jazeera, that might give them something to think about.

Oh, yeah, that would give them something to think about alright, like which order to start blowing off small nuclear devices: should they do NYC first? or LA? or Chicago? Or does it really matter which order, because they'll all get it within an hour or so.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

A boycott of Arab oil would last about 5 seconds after the price of gas hit about 7 bucks a gallon. And it wouldn't hurt the Arabs at all because the Chinese and Indians would suck up the excess in a heart beat.

As for willy nilly torture, a bunch of non-terrorists would get tortured with the real terrorists. Don't assume that just because a cat's in Gitmo he's really a terrorist.

Of course, after being wrongly imprisoned for awhile you might want to terrorize someone once you get out.

[Hudson Boy]

Originally Posted by Dan G

Oh, yeah, that would give them something to think about alright, like which order to start blowing off small nuclear devices: should they do NYC first? or LA? or Chicago? Or does it really matter which order, because they'll all get it within an hour or so.

Don't think that they wouldn't do it today, if they had the ability. The extreme radical islamists are in favor of destroying the entire planet so that allah can start over, and put Moslems in charge of a revised world subsequent to the annihilation of all previous human life on earth.

The best way to mount an opposition it is not even violent - it's by economic persuasion focused on the countries that these fanatics are residing in.

I'm open to suggestions of better ways of dealing with it. The Iraq war was a mistake, we should get out, most of us know that, but what else should we do?

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Wozniak

If the terrorists are just shot on sight in Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever they are there would be no need for waterboarding.

...because they're all wearing signs that say "I'm a Terrorist".

btw, does that term apply to US personnel who kill innocent Iraqis or Afghans? Would local police be within their rights to waterboard them?

[Vince Kargatis]

Originally Posted by Hudson Boy

For sake of argument, the people being waterboarded are known, avowed terrorists and the people subjected to slavery are innocent victims.

Wow, that is just daft.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

...because they're all wearing signs that say "I'm a Terrorist".

btw, does that term apply to US personnel who kill innocent Iraqis or Afghans? Would local police be within their rights to waterboard them?

*Cue Jeopardy music while Wheezer frantically listens to the final hour of Rush Limbaugh for an answer to Goddamn (Ollie's) question*