Earthside Comments: Incredibly, there are Bushites, radical Republicans and neocons out there that maintain who 'waterboarding' is little more that a 'harsh' interrogation technique.
But we found information (first below) that demonstrates 'waterboarding' is torture.
Is this what the nation of Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton and Franklin has become under the 'leadership' of George W. Bush, Dick "Chickenhawk" Cheney, Rummy and Condi?
Really ... Earthside sometimes can't believe that the country we feel such love for is having a debate about 'our' use of torture ... how really tragic. On top of that, we hear on the radio this morning that the Democrats in the Congress may just go ahead and vote for this 'compromise' because they don't want to be accused by KKKarl Rove of "supporting terror".
Where is honor and genune patriotism?
Link: Is Waterboarding Torture: Ask Our World War Two Vets | Law of War - Winter 2005/2006
In a recent investigative report, Brian Ross and Richard Esposito of ABC News described the CIA’s use of an interrogation technique called "waterboarding."The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.
According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.
In an editorial dated November 12, 2005 the Wall Street Journal denied that waterboarding was "... anything close to torture."
No one has yet come up with any evidence that anyone in the U.S. military or government has officially sanctioned anything close to "torture." The "stress positions" that have been allowed (such as wearing a hood, exposure to heat and cold, and the rarely authorized "waterboarding," which induces a feeling of suffocation) are all psychological techniques designed to break a detainee.
So, who’s right? Is waterboarding torture, or is it merely a stressful psychological technique?
Interestingly, the United States has long since answered that question. Following the end of the Second World War we prosecuted a number of Japanese military and civilian officials for war crimes, including the torture of captured Allied personnel. At one of those trials, United States v. Sawada, here’s how Captain Chase Nielsen, a crew member in the 1942 Doolittle Raid on Japan, described his treatment, when he was captured, (and later tried for alleged war crimes by a Japanese military commission):
Q: What other physical treatment was administered to you at that time?The prosecutor in that case was vehement in arguing that the captured Doolittle fliers had been wrongfully convicted by the Japanese tribunal, in part because they were convicted based on evidence obtained through torture. "The untrustworthiness of any admissions or confessions made under torture," he said, "would clearly vitiate a conviction based thereon."A: Well, I was given what they call the water cure.
Q: Explain to the Commission what that was.
A: Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water was poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let me up until I'd get my breath, then they'd start over again.
Q: When you regained consciousness would they keep asking you questions?
A: Yes sir they did.
Q: How long did this treatment continue?
A: About twenty minutes.
Q: What was your sensation when they were pouring water on the towel, what did you physically feel?
A: Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death.
At the end of the Tokyo War Crimes Trial, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East of which the United States was a leading member (the Tribunal was established by Douglas MacArthur) convicted former Japanese Prime Minister Tojo and numerous other generals and admirals of a panoply of war crimes. Among them was torture:
The practice of torturing prisoners of war and civilian internees prevailed at practically all places occupied by Japanese troops, both in the occupied territories and in Japan. The Japanese indulged in this practice during the entire period of the Pacific War. Methods of torture were employed in all areas so uniformly as to indicate policy both in training and execution. Among these tortures were the water treatment ...The so-called "water treatment" was commonly applied. The victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach until he lost consciousness. Pressure was then applied, sometimes by jumping upon his abdomen to force the water out. The usual practice was to revive the victim and successively repeat the process.So, is waterboarding torture? Do we have to wait to find out until an enemy again does it to captives from our armed forces? What was the Wall Street Journal thinking?
© 2005 Evan Wallach
Link: VIDEO: Commentary On the Torture 'Compromise' | Jack Cafferty/CNN/Crooks & Liars
Congress appears set to vote on legislation decriminalizing harsh CIA interrogation and authorizing military commissions for trials of Guantanamo detainees.
This bill, hailed as a compromise between President Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), is a dangerous deception. It violates international law and will weaken our ability to fight and win wars - especially the war on terrorism.
First, it's critical to understand that, despite the claims of McCain and others, the proposal is in stark conflict with the Geneva Conventions. Right on page 8 of the bill, it says detainees cannot invoke the conventions as a source of rights.
It isn't an academic disagreement when U.S. legislation flatly exempts us from one of the foundations of international human rights law. It is dangerous business indeed.
Why? Because the refusal to respect basic human rights has throughout history enraged enemies and encouraged revenge. The new National Intelligence Estimate bears this out - pointing to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay as sources of anger driving Muslims to join terrorist organizations. Now, the world also knows the CIA keeps people in secret prisons, using waterboarding, stress positions and hypothermia to get information.
Throughout history, societies that have respected the rule of law have had the most success in defeating terrorism. Germany and Italy eliminated serious challenges from radicals in their midst - from the Red Army Faction and the Red Brigades, respectively - while remaining committed to human rights.
In the early years of the troubles in Northern Ireland, the British government adopted emergency powers that led to coercive and abusive treatment of terrorism suspects. The commander of the IRA in the Maze Prison, Jim McVeigh, called those powers "the best recruiting tools the IRA ever had."
It was only after Britain ended those practices that support of the IRA waned substantially and peace became a possibility.
Those who suggest we need to play hardball with terrorists if we are going to stop them are right - but even hardball has clear rules.
Then there's the final fatal flaw of this bill: It will make our own soldiers more vulnerable to coercive interrogation and even torture. After all, why should our military men and women get to demand their Geneva Convention rights if as a nation we deny them to our enemies?
What may be most infuriating about the Bush-McCain approach is that it's totally unnecessary. Military lawyers have testified that they can hold trials of detainees while fully complying with the conventions. And military interrogators have told us that they do not need to walk the fine line toward torture to get good intelligence.
So even if abusing detainees and denying due process were lawful, we would be fools to do it. We do not need this new legislation. We need to protect our troops and our national security by respecting the Geneva Conventions.
Comments