G: CIA Waterboarded Al-Qaida Suspects 266 times

[Larry]

I keep asking this question, of the people who are 100% certain that waterboarding "isn't torture":

I seem to recall being told in High School, that one of the specific things that the Framers wanted in mind to prohibit when they wrote the 5th Amendment was the technique called "dunking", which had been used in many places, including the Salem witch trials. The technique that was used to illustrate this, in class, had the victim bound to a chair which was on the end of a long, counterbalanced pole. The chair and victim were "dunked" into a body of water, and held under water for a time, then removed from the water. Ask some questions, get some answers, wash, rinse, repeat.

(Observing that, even back then, the authorities seemed to have learned the technique of using a cute-sounding euphemism for "nearly killing someone, several times, to get them to do what you want them to do".)

In short, does anybody even want to attempt to dispute that the framers of the Constitution specifically intended to prohibit near-drowning being used by the government?

Or, can somebody point out to me some significant difference between "dunking" (which the Framers specifically prohibited the government from doing) and "waterboarding" (which many people seem to be perfectly OK with)?

[NavyDave]

Waterboarding If I could endure it, well wait a minute heck liberals can't handle the first day of hell week.

I still believe if there were landmarks on the WestCoast worth the effort by those nutjobs and the West Coast lost the 3000 lives there instead of the WTC and DC, there would be a different mindset among liberals.

But you can't get the masses out there imagining the golden gate bridge and or the Transamerica Pyramid gone and 8 years later its still not rebuild to be reminded daily.

[Ax]

This thread is useless without pics.:munchout:

PS ~ They actually did it 666 times. Because, Bush is the debil.

[The 12th Commandment]

I dunno if waterboarding a guy once it really torture. Unpleasant, maybe even a lot worse than unpleasant, but I dunno about torture.

But there's no question in my mind that continuing to do it 182 more times is torture. There's no other rational way to look at it.

I agree, and if it's such an effective technique why did they have to use it so many times on the same guys?

[JMS]

I dunno if waterboarding a guy once it really torture. Unpleasant, maybe even a lot worse than unpleasant, but I dunno about torture.

But there's no question in my mind that continuing to do it 182 more times is torture. There's no other rational way to look at it.

They reported on the news that the guy they waterboarded 180 times gave them all the useful information before they waterboarded him the first time. The Waterboarding 188 times didn't yield any new information..

Can you imagine... we've waterboarded the guy 187 times and it's yeilded nothing, I know let's go one more time!!!! 187 times over a single month.

[Ax]

I understand that the following will likely do nothing to change the OP's mind, since it doesn't support his/her agenda. Of course, I could be wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002818.html

Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles." KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. The memo explains that "information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the 'Second Wave.' " In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York.

All this confirms information that I and others have described publicly. But just as the memo begins to describe previously undisclosed details of what enhanced interrogations achieved, the page is almost entirely blacked out. The Obama administration released pages of unredacted classified information on the techniques used to question captured terrorist leaders but pulled out its black marker when it came to the details of what those interrogations achieved.

The memos refer to other classified documents -- including an "Effectiveness Memo" and an "IG Report," which explain how "the use of enhanced techniques in the interrogations of KSM, Zubaydah and others . . . has yielded critical information." Why didn't Obama officials release this information as well? Because they know that if the public could see the details of the techniques side by side with evidence that the program saved American lives, the vast majority would support continuing it.

[Popeman38]

Clearly it violates the geneva convention

The bolded portion needs clarification. the Geneva convention only applies to countries that ratified it.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

So how exactly does waterboarding nationals violate the Geneva convention?

[BigMike619]

2 things...

1, maybe he didnt learn his lesson during the first 265 times.

2, like the daily show said "after 99 times do you think he figured out they werent really going to kill him?"

[Larry]

The memos refer to other classified documents -- including an "Effectiveness Memo" and an "IG Report," which explain how "the use of enhanced techniques in the interrogations of KSM, Zubaydah and others . . . has yielded critical information." Why didn't Obama officials release this information as well? Because they know that if the public could see the details of the techniques side by side with evidence that the program saved American lives, the vast majority would support continuing it.

Or because letting the American people know how many times we've used a technique that's been public knowledge for years, anyway, doesn't hurt our country or help our enemies in any way, but revealing exactly what information Mohamed bin Bombin gave up (and which information he hasn't yet revealed) would?

[Titaw]

Hey Larry have you seen the report yet? I have and to be honest with you KSM had only 3 sessions, not 185. Here's the spin, he had water poured on his face 185 times but it was over 3 sessions. Everytime he had water poured on him it was counted, this was to ensure they did not exceed the number of times water is to be poured in a single session.

Good did come from these sessions as well, but of course since the Obama administration simply wants to slander the Bush Admin. at every turn those details remain classified.

[Larry]

Hey Larry have you seen the report yet? I have and to be honest with you KSM had only 3 sessions, not 185. Here's the spin, he had water poured on his face 185 times but it was over 3 sessions. Everytime he had water poured on him it was counted, this was to ensure they did not exceed the number of times water is to be poured.

Good did come from these sessions as well, but of course since the Obama administration simply wants to slander the Bush Admin. at every turn those details remain classified.

I asked a question a while back, of the waterboarding defenders. And got the same crickets chirping I've received on the previous occasions I've asked it:

I keep asking this question, of the people who are 100% certain that waterboarding "isn't torture":

I seem to recall being told in High School, that one of the specific things that the Framers wanted in mind to prohibit when they wrote the 5th Amendment was the technique called "dunking", which had been used in many places, including the Salem witch trials. The technique that was used to illustrate this, in class, had the victim bound to a chair which was on the end of a long, counterbalanced pole. The chair and victim were "dunked" into a body of water, and held under water for a time, then removed from the water. Ask some questions, get some answers, wash, rinse, repeat.

(Observing that, even back then, the authorities seemed to have learned the technique of using a cute-sounding euphemism for "nearly killing someone, several times, to get them to do what you want them to do".)

In short, does anybody even want to attempt to dispute that the framers of the Constitution specifically intended to prohibit near-drowning being used by the government?

Or, can somebody point out to me some significant difference between "dunking" (which the Framers specifically prohibited the government from doing) and "waterboarding" (which many people seem to be perfectly OK with)?

I'm assuming that I've got you down correctly as being in the "approve waterboarding" category.

How do you feel about "dunking"? It's morality and it's Constitutionality?

[Ax]

Here's the spin, he had water poured on his face 185 times but it was over 3 sessions. Everytime he had water poured on him it was counted, this was to ensure they did not exceed the number of times water is to be poured.

Good did come from these sessions as well, but of course since the Obama administration simply wants to slander the Bush Admin. at every turn those details remain classified.

Boy, you just popped a lot of bubbles there, Titaw.

You, obviously, work for the debil.:evilg:

And, you must be lying:silly:

[Thiebear]

Larry,

Dunking a person underwater in a chair would constitute drowning a person.

Pouring water on a person face "simulates" drowning.

There is a difference.

The timing and technique in both are needed to refine the issue.

*** My take****

Doing it to cell commanders withing ALQaeda I have NO PROBLEM WITH.

Doing it to uniformed members of an opposing force: I have a problem with.

[Ax]

How do you feel about "dunking"? It's morality and it's Constitutionality?

If I may...

The morality of it sucks. But at the time, it was probably one of the worst imaginable things.

Or Founding Fathers apparently thought it was even worse than, say, slavery.

You agree with that, too?

[The Evil Genius]

Larry,

Dunking a person underwater in a chair would constitute drowning a person.

Pouring water on a person face "simulates" drowning.

There is a difference.

The timing and technique in both are needed to refine the issue.

*** My take****

Doing it to cell commanders withing ALQaeda I have NO PROBLEM WITH.

Doing it to uniformed members of an opposing force: I have a problem with.

Is that the same as putting a gun up to someone's head and pulling the trigger. Only that the gun isn't loaded (but the suspect doesn't know that?).

[Titaw]

US Constitution - Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Doesn't really address the interrogation techniques of prisoners of war, but I do know my due process now, thanks Larry.

[Larry]

Larry,

Dunking a person underwater in a chair would constitute drowning a person.

Pouring water on a person face "simulates" drowning.

1) If it's been scientifically designed to trigger the same bodily reactions as drowning, then it isn't drowning?

If he's only held under a half inch of water, then does that not count, but if he's under three inches of water, then that counts?

2) I asked in the "insects" thread: Suppose I've invented the Klingon "agonizer". It's an electronic device that, when applied to a victim, causes the victim to feel every single sensation of being set on fire.

You OK with forcing someone to feel he's being burned alive? Over and over again? After all, it's only "simulated". Heck, in my case, the victim even knows it's only simulated. So, it's OK for me to subject him to all of the pain? Since it doesn't actually fry any of his flesh, then the pain is his problem?

Do you really want to claim that a technique which is intentionally designed to cause the victim to suffer all of the same things he would suffer if he were subject to "real" torture, isn't torture?

[zoony]

If I may...

The morality of it sucks. But at the time, it was probably one of the worst imaginable things.

Or Founding Fathers apparently thought it was even worse than, say, slavery.

You agree with that, too?

:munchout:

[Larry]

US Constitution - Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Doesn't really address the interrogation techniques of prisoners of war, but I do know my due process now, thaks Larry.

Ah, got it.

The Framers clearly intended dunking to be off limits for people who've been convicted of a crime. (They said "cruel or unusual punishment".) And they intended it to be off limits to beople who are being accused of a crime. ("bear witness against himself".)

But clearly, they intended that, if the government has no intention of granting the victim any due process whatsoever, before or after the torture, then they intended it to be OK?

Or, I know, when they said "bear witness against himself", they meant that torture is OK, as long as the victim isn't under oath during the torture. Is that it?

----------

Now, seriously. Is your argument that the framers actually intended "dunking" to be a legitimate government activity, as long as it was used under some circumstances which they didn't actually specify?

[Larry]

If I may...

The morality of it sucks. But at the time, it was probably one of the worst imaginable things.

Or Founding Fathers apparently thought it was even worse than, say, slavery.

You agree with that, too?

They were wrong.*

So?

What that has to do with this topic is?

Your argument is that yeah, the Framers clearly, specifically, intentionally prohibited dunking, but we've evolved into a better society, now, so therefore it's OK is we do it?

* Actually, make that "they were wrong to permit slavery". As to whether slavery was worse than torture? Heck, I can't say.

[Titaw]

1) If it's been scientifically designed to trigger the same bodily reactions as drowning, then it isn't drowning?

No, just because a sneeze is considered 1/10th of an orgasm doesn't mean that if you sneeze 10 times in a row you will mess your pants.

If he's only held under a half inch of water, then does that not count, but if he's under three inches of water, then that counts?

Waterboarding does not hold an individual under water, water is poured over the individual's head.

2) I asked in the "insects" thread: Suppose I've invented the Klingon "agonizer". It's an electronic device that, when applied to a victim, causes the victim to feel every single sensation of being set on fire.

:secret: That technology exists. It is used as crowd control.

You OK with forcing someone to feel he's being burned alive? Over and over again? After all, it's only "simulated". Heck, in my case, the victim even knows it's only simulated. So, it's OK for me to subject him to all of the pain? Since it doesn't actually fry any of his flesh, then the pain is his problem?

Do you really want to claim that a technique which is intentionally designed to cause the victim to suffer all of the same things he would suffer if he were subject to "real" torture, isn't torture?

Yes, yes I do. Simulated drowning is different than actual drowning. When you drown you die, when it's simulated you live.

[JMS]

US Constitution - Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Doesn't really address the interrogation techniques of prisoners of war, but I do know my due process now, thanks Larry.

You see the deal there is Bush was originally saying these guys weren't Prisoners of War, rather "enemy combatants". In Bush's veiwpoint that put the prisoners outside both the Justice system and international agreements on Prisoners of war. So Bush made the case he was legally permitted to treat these folks however he wanted. First the courts said, no their must be both indepenent red cross visits, and second some review of why they are being held. Finally the Courts have ruled regardless of what trial process you addopt, if they aren't POW's then they must be granted acess to our civilian courts of appeal, likewise if they aren't eligible for civilian courts, they must be POW's and the geneva convention applies.

[JMS]

Ah, got it.

The Framers clearly intended dunking to be off limits for people who've been convicted of a crime. (They said "cruel or unusual punishment".) And they intended it to be off limits to beople who are being accused of a crime. ("bear witness against himself".)

Larry clearly you aren't up on your justice department memo's. According to the Justice department the Geneva convention is "quaint" and no longer applicable in the 21st centry. Waterboarding might have been torture when we hung Japanese soldiers for doing it to American POW's in WWII, but it's not today, now it's agressive interogatoin technuque.

Also waterboarding, walling, sleep depravation, and being forced to sit or stand for prolonged periods of time aren't punishment because they don't leave a mark on the detainee...

Seriously those are the arguments.

[Thiebear]

Is that the same as putting a gun up to someone's head and pulling the trigger. Only that the gun isn't loaded (but the suspect doesn't know that?).

Depends: Who was it, were they caught on the battlefield?

Was it a peon or a Known infomation holder.

Was it a blank that could still hurt/kill or a click.

I'm not outraged at what we didn't actually do in most cases.

I'm not outraged at what was done to me during training in the Army.

(uncomfortable cold/heat/sleep deprivation/gassed(briefly)/Run till exhaustion, scrubbing floors, being smacked once, etc) having bugs in your cell/tent.

[JMS]

The bolded portion needs clarification. the Geneva convention only applies to countries that ratified it.

Actually not so. Japan for example didn't ratify the Geneva convention yet we were obligated to treat Japanese prisoners under that convention because WE signed it.

The geneva convention specifically says all signatories are bound to respect it's provisions even if they are fighting folks who didn't sign it. Also once an international treaty is negotiated, signed, and finally ratified by the senate; it becomes United States Law. Thus violating the geneva convention as justice and others in the government clearly knew they were doing; becomes a prosecutable crime....

The arguments written by Gonzolas justifying these acts dealt with "re-interpreting" the convention in oposition to 60 years of US precident. Gonzolas even wrote a memo detailing his defense arguments if He, Bush, Cheney and others are prosecuted, where he details ignorance as one possible defense.....

So how exactly does waterboarding nationals violate the Geneva convention?

Waterboarding is torture. It was in WWII when we executed Japanese soldiers for doing it to our troops. It still is today. And something they didn't cover in Gonzoles's lawschool class, if a law is outdated or Quaint; one doesn't get to ignore it. It's got to be repealed by congress.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/13/journal-waterboarding/

Waterboarding is a torture technique that has its history rooted in the Spanish Inquisition. In 1947, the U.S. prosecuted a Japanese military officer for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II.

Waterboarding inflicts on its victims the terror of imminent death. And as with all torture techniques, it is, therefore, an inherently flawed method for gaining reliable information. In short, it doesn't work. That blunt truth means all U.S. leaders, present and future, should be clear on the issue.

Furthermore, Armed Forces Journal leans conservative. Four out of six of its contributing editors are either conservative pundits or have positions in conservative think-tanks:

Ralph Peters -- New York Post columnist and Weekly Standard contributor

Peter Brookes -- Senior Fellow, Heritage Foundation

Christopher Griffin -- Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

Seth Cropsey -- Former Bush administration member; fellow at the Hudson Institute, Heritage Foundation, and AEI.

The other two contributing editors -- Sean Naylor and William Matthews -- are noted military journalists with no political affiliation.

And also let's not forget, every living chairman of the joint cheifs of staff not appointed by Bush Jr, came out and signed a petition objecting to the use of torture and waterboarding on prisoners because it was both ineffective, and a dangerous precident to set for our troops in the field.