Shock jock Mancow gets waterboarded and declares it torture.

[Hawkmoon]

The point I am trying to make is that you cannot legislate away the horrors of war, war sucks and leaves people messed up.  Legislating away waterboarding as torture is the same as legislating away land mines and snipers as torture.  War is torture.

War? There's a war and nobody told me? Where? When? Why? Who's fighting in it?

Reality check. Irrespective of the so-called "War on Terror," the United States of America is not at war. And the people we are torturing at Gitmo and those other formerly-secret prisons to which we had people transported are not soldiers, they are civilians. Maybe some of them are terrorists. Maybe some are NOT terrorists. Maybe some of them know something. Maybe some of them don't know anything. There is no morally and ethically possible justification for torturing civilians to extract information.

Not even if, after torturing 100 people, ONE of them tells you something that might help head off a terrorist attack. The fact ONE guy had some useful intel doesn't erase the fact we just tortured 99 people who knew nothing and many of whom were probably innocent of everything except having been in the wrong place at the wrong time, or getting the wrong Afghan warlord mad at them.

[FTA84]

War? There's a war and nobody told me? Where? When? Why? Who's fighting in it?

Reality check. Irrespective of the so-called "War on Terror," the United States of America is not at war. And the people we are torturing at Gitmo and those other formerly-secret prisons to which we had people transported are not soldiers, they are civilians. Maybe some of them are terrorists. Maybe some are NOT terrorists. Maybe some of them know something. Maybe some of them don't know anything. There is no morally and ethically possible justification for torturing civilians to extract information.

Well, I don't want to get into it, and I agree that there are serious problems with how one defines a "war on ______" versus a war on a country that has a military with uniforms.  However, you can get attacked by an organized force that doesn't wear uniforms and doesn't play by the rules (c.f. The American Revolutionary War), and the line between citizen and solider get blurred at best (c.f. The American Revolutionary War again).

I only use the word war here because the war on terror is a common place name for it now, call it "conflict with terrorism" if you'd like, or, if that is too offensive, refer to it as "baking cupcakes with Osama".

[Monkeyleg]

...we just tortured 99 people who knew nothing...

Not to pick nits, but it's my understanding that three terrorists were waterboarded.

We're free to debate the right or wrong of one method of interrogation/torture today in peace. I'm just curious what some here think would be acceptable methods if they were in charge in the months following the Trade Center attacks, when we didn't know when or where the next attack would be.

[DJJ]

Acceptable methods are whatever we would tolerate being done to our own troops.

[FTA84]

Acceptable methods are whatever we would tolerate being done to our own troops.

I just don't understand how we (as a society) are supposed to quantify this.

What does it mean to "tolerate" in a (formal) war?  If you find someone is treating your soliders in an intolerable way, what do you do? Declare war twice?  It seems like however one side treats your soliders, you have no choice but to tolerate it.  It seems to me that it is much easier to find things intolerable in peace than in war.

[RevDisk]

ZOMG war is ugly WTF LOL

Waterboarding only causes emotional damage. 

Sigh.  This is factually incorrect.

Waterboarding can cause lung damage, dry drowning, brain damage due to asphyxiation or death.  This is in addition to severe psychological damage, obviously.

Secondary damage of severe bruising and broken bones nearly always occurs due to involuntary struggling or spasms unless proper medical restraints are used to immobilize the subject. 

The entire point of waterboarding is to trigger the body's natural reaction to drowning.   Basically, to make the body think it is in the process of dying.  That process makes the brain do specific things.  If you were to waterboard an infant or person without higher level brain functions, their body would react the same as if you or a terrorist were being waterboard.  Involuntary spasming, gag reflex, pain responses, etc.   Ergo, it is not merely psychological torture.


As for the law.  Torture is specifically defined under Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C, § 2340.  (Link).  For military personnel, they are subject to the UCMJ (Article 93).  There is also the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 2441), which specifically covers Torture under § 2441 (d)(1)(A)  (Link).   

I'm not sure how folks got into the mindset that one can debate if torture is acceptable or not.  It's illegal to do so in America (or its possessions) or to be done by Americans.  Conspiring to do so is also illegal.  That's like debating whether or not grand theft auto is acceptable or not.  It is currently a crime.  It is specifically illegal and specifically defined.  One can, of course, debate whether torture should be legalized. 

Obviously any specific case of activity that may be construed as torture is up to a federal court to decide if it meets the criteria.  But, yes, waterboard is torture and therefore is illegal under Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C, § 2340 unless otherwise allowed by law (not EO).  This is not 'opinion', this is following the legal definition as specified by  Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C, § 2340

The correct question should be 'should torture be made legal' or 'should exemptions be passed into law amending § 2340 and the War Crimes Act to allow torture under specific circumstances'.   Proclaiming torture (of any kind fitting the criteria specified in §2340) is legal is proveably false.  Proclaiming waterboarding does not fit the criteria specified in §2340 is also proveably false, but each instance would obviously have to be judged on its specific circumstances in a federal court.  The whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing applies to torturers.

[KD5NRH]

Excellent points. My high school metal shop teacher used to have a saying (which I try to live by to this day), "When in doubt, don't".

Your shop teacher wasn't very creative, was he?  Mine said "when in doubt, get somebody else to do it and see if they get hurt."

Surely he could've found somebody we'd really enjoy seeing waterboarded to test it out.

[De Selby]

RevDisk hit all the right statutes.  Take a gander - there's simply no way to look at that and say "waterboarding isn't torture." 

Innocent until proven guilty most definitely applies.  My point is that if a prosecutor proves without a doubt that a defendant engaged in waterboarding another person, the only way to avoid conviction is jury nullification, ie, the jury just refuses to convict (which is rare - juries almost always enforce the law.) 

Whether any individual will even be tried is another matter, but it was reckless in the extreme for the powers that be to expose their people to this risk.  Creative lawyering is great when you're in the whitehouse and get to call the shots on who gets prosecuted, but it is meaningless once the first case hits a jury under a different executive.

And that's where the debate should have been: if waterboarding isn't torture, amend the law to reflect that.  If it is but you want to do it anyway, try to pass that law.  Giving hokey advice that gets a career soldier risking life in prison because he followed that advice is just plain criminal, and that's what happened.

[Jamisjockey]

Here's the deal.  If we went to war with country XYZistan, and captured some of their uniformed soldiers, would we waterboard them?

[DJJ]

Better question: if they captured some of ours and we learned they were being waterboarded, how would we react? Would we say, "Well, it's not torture, so it's OK. They'll get over the emotional damage."

[Scout26]

The point everyone seems to be missing here, is that a group of DOJ lawyers (not one, not the AG, not Cheney, not Bush, but several DOJ Lawyers) were asked:  "Is waterboarding, among other forms of enhanced techniques, torture as defined ( by the statute that RevDisk pointed out about) US Law ?"

Their collective answer was "No".   IIRC, no one from the DOJ resigned in protest.  None of the Congress critters that were briefed on Gitmo said "Whoa, hey there, this doesn't sound kosher."  Includes Ms. Pelosi.   In fact, IIRC, one of the members of Congress asked "Are you sure we're going far enough to get the info we need ?"  or words to that effect.

I'm wager a large sum of money that 99.9% of the members of this board would have been standing in line on 9/12 to waterboard Bin Laden, Al Zawahiri, Al Zarqawi, Muhammad Atef, Khaled Sheikh Muhammad, and Abu Hafiza, if we would have had them in custody.

No one was complaining about Gitmo, "torture", and waterboarding until it became another club used to bash Bushiraqcheneyhallibruton. 

Finally it was only used on Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim Nashiri.  It wasn't like it everyone being held there was being waterboarded twice a day and three times on Sunday, merely for sport.

Sorry, but I'd like to see what info was obtained before I pass judgement.

And I agree with Darryl Worley.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdznv9Q6o9s

[MechAg94]

Acceptable methods are whatever we would tolerate being done to our own troops.

Okay, we tolerate waterboarding some of our own troops as part of training.  I guess that settles it then.  :)

[Monkeyleg]

I'd be anxious to have Gewehr98 chime in on this. I'm sure he's reading this thread, but is probably staying out of it.

I'd respect what he has to say, and would formulate my position accordingly.

[DJJ]

Okay, we tolerate waterboarding some of our own troops as part of training.  I guess that settles it then.  :)

No, no. "Tolerate" means, what if we captured some of our peoples' captors? Would we accept waterboarding and other things they did to ours as acts of war, as we say they are, or would we charge them with crime? Would we accept their argument that what they did was legal under their law? Would we accept the "ticking bomb" argument if they used it? Would we accept their claim to the right to do what's necessary to learn where the next attack is coming?

[roo_ster]

Here's the deal.  If we went to war with country XYZistan, and captured some of their uniformed soldiers, would we waterboard them?

If they are signatories to the various Geneva Conventions we have signed or follow them close enough to call it close, we would not, as their captured uniformed personnel are lawful combatant and thus get POW status & treatment.  That is the "carrot" part of the laws of war & the worthwhile*GCs.

The "stick" part of the laws of war & GCs is that unlawful combatants could be shot out of hand by their captors.


* As opposed to a couple of the worthless GCs that elevate terrorists to the levl of lawful combatants...GCs we have not signed.

The point everyone seems to be missing here, is that a group of DOJ lawyers (not one, not the AG, not Cheney, not Bush, but several DOJ Lawyers) were asked:  "Is waterboarding, among other forms of enhanced techniques, torture as defined ( by the statute that RevDisk pointed out about) US Law ?"

Their collective answer was "No".   IIRC, no one from the DOJ resigned in protest.  None of the Congress critters that were briefed on Gitmo said "Whoa, hey there, this doesn't sound kosher."  Includes Ms. Pelosi.   In fact, IIRC, one of the members of Congress asked "Are you sure we're going far enough to get the info we need ?"  or words to that effect.

Yeah, they don't want to touch that one with a 10' keyboard.  Just too damn inconvenient when the facts are stacked up against one that way.

[roo_ster]

For those so blinded by their own self-rectitude they can not search google for the data, the following is an account of how the Japanese did it from the 1947 trial of one of the Japanese war criminals.

This is patently NOT what was described in the "torture memos."


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834

Col. Keeley: And then did he take you back to your room?

Navarro: When Yuki could not get anything out of me, he wanted the interpreter to place me down below. And I was told by Yuki to take off all my clothes, so what I did was to take off my clothes as ordered. I was ordered to lay on a bench and Yuki tied my feet, hands and neck to that bench, lying with my face upward. After I was tied to the bench, Yuki placed some cloth on my face. And then with water from the faucet, they poured on me until I became unconscious. He repeated that four or five times.

You mean he brought water and poured water down your throat?

No sir, on my face, until I became unconscious. We were lying that way, with some cloth on my face, and then Yuki poured water on my face continuously.

And you couldn't breathe?

No, I could not, and so I, for a time, lost consciousness. I found my consciousness came back again and found Yuki was sitting on my stomach. And then I vomited the water from my stomach, and the consciousness came back again for me.

Where did the water come out when he sat on your stomach?

From my mouth and all openings of my face ... and then Yuki would repeat the same treatment and the same procedure to me until I became unconscious again.

How many times did that happen?

Around four or five times, from two o'clock up to four o'clock in the afternoon. When I was not able to endure his punishment which I received, I told a lie to Yuki ... . I could not really show anything to Yuki, because I was really lying just to stop the torture.

Was it painful?

Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious — like drowning in the water.

Like you were drowning?

Drowning. You could hardly breathe.

[DJJ]

Okay, now I have read the torture memos, and the CIA claims no water enters the lungs. So? My challenge stands: get waterboarded (and I'll even give you a break, and let you have it the gentle way), not once, not for 6 seconds, but the full duration. If after that, you still feel like a tough guy, I'll accept it.

[Perd Hapley]

So, let me see if I have this straight.

Using non-lethal means to force 3 known terrorists to give up information that helped us uncover terrorist plots = bad.

Comparing our legal combatant troops to those three known terrorists, as if they deserved equal treatment = good.

This is what some of you are saying? 

[BobR]

and let you have it the gentle way

What is "the gentle way"?

but the full duration

Once again, what is "the full duration"?

get waterboarded

BTDT x 3, got the T shirt.

And how many times have you been on a waterboard?

I work with a guy who went to the Air Force Academy, and who was was waterboarded as part of his CERE training. He says it's torture. Good enough?

I have first hand knowledge and not "someone I work with" type of knowledge. I didn't think I was tortured at the time, nor do I think it is torture now.

I am not sure what the purpose of multiple times for these guys was for though. If you don't get the information within a few visits I would think it would become an ineffective tool as the receiver of the information gathering method would know he is not going to die from it. Do you think you are drowning, no doubt about it. But to think it would still be effective after 100 times is a little far fetched for me. I sometimes wonder if drugs were also used (amnesiacs) so that each session would seem to be the first time.

bob

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Using non-lethal means to force 3 known terrorists to give up information that helped us uncover terrorist plots = bad.

A lot of the arguments thus far are that waterboarding is/isn't torture. You can define it as torture and still support its use, and you can define it as non-torture and still oppose its use.

[DJJ]

I like how the reasons change:

It's not torture.

Well, OK, it is, but they're not signatory to Geneva.

Well, OK, it is, but we're not signatory to Geneva.

Well, the other guys did it to us, but that's different.

War is war, and that's just one of the horrors.

[seeker_two]

Since everyone here already knows my stance on torture, I'll not beat a dead horse.

However, I've listened to Mancow before. I admire his intrepid pursuit of knowledge that led him to experience waterboarding for himself....and I think he should be encouraged to experience others methods of information coercion in order to describe to his listening audience.....including repeated tasering....random beatings....hooking battery cables to his naughty parts....

....because listening to that man was torture to me.... 

[Gowen]

Well, if we ever wake up to an American city under a mushroom cloud, and it comes out that if we only had press this prisoner just a little harder, we might have stopped it...   I tell you that the American people would not care if we set a prisoner's crotch hair on fire to get the information. 

My question, if you were the President and you were given information that a city was going to be nuked and you had several prisoners who might know.  How far would you let the interrogators go?  Realizing that if they take to long, a city might not last to the next day.

[Perd Hapley]

I like how the reasons change:

It's not torture.

Well, OK, it is, but they're not signatory to Geneva.

Well, OK, it is, but we're not signatory to Geneva.

Well, the other guys did it to us, but that's different.

War is war, and that's just one of the horrors.

And I like how the other side shows you the multiple ways in which you are wrong, and you twist that into a positive for your side.  Now you sound just like every other anti-war zealot* who claimed that the multiple reasons for invading Iraq were actually a series of shifting justifications. 

*As distinct from those whose opposition to the Iraq War was reasonable

[Antibubba]

Waterboarding only causes emotional damage.

For the most part, rape only causes emotional and psychological damage.  Most molested children show no physical signs of abuse.  Having many ex-girlfriends who suffered either or both, I can tell you that recovery is very difficult, if it happens at all.  Most torture is psychological; cutting off a finger is painful, but it is the thought of the fate of the other nine that elicits a confession.