Contradicting Bush Justice Dept., Angle equated waterboarding of terrorists, trainees
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Fox's Jim Angle stated that President Obama considers waterboarding "too harsh to use on terrorists," and contrasted this with its use in training some U.S. military members. However, a Bush Justice Department memo noted that individuals undergoing waterboarding for military training are "obviously in a very different situation from detainees undergoing interrogation."
On the April 20 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle asserted that "the odd thing ... is that President Obama has decided that waterboarding, which we have done, by the way, to thousands of our own people in the military -- pilots and Special Forces are often trained by being waterboarded. We've done it to thousands of our own people. He has decided it is too harsh to use on terrorists." However, according to a recently released May 2005 Office of Legal Counsel memo by Steven G. Bradbury, the Bush administration's principal deputy assistant attorney general at the time, individuals undergoing waterboarding as part of the U.S. military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) training are "obviously in a very different situation from detainees undergoing interrogation; SERE trainees know it is part of a training program, not a real-life interrogation regime, they presumably know it will last only a short time, and they presumably have assurances that they will not be significantly harmed by the training." The memo further states that the waterboard technique was used "quite sparingly" in SERE training -- "at most two times on a trainee for at most 40 seconds each time" -- whereas the CIA used the tactic at least 83 times on Abu Zubaydah in August 2002 and 183 times on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in March 2003.
From the May 30, 2005, Office of Legal Counsel memo:
From the April 20 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
BILL O'REILLY (host): Now, what -- what is the prevailing wisdom within the CIA? Not just the former directors and the big shots but among the rank and file?
ANGLE: Well, look, they -- this is a very difficult job. And President Obama went out there today to tell them that, that he understands what a predicament they are in, that they have to do some very difficult things and to sort of reassure them that releasing these memos was not an attack on them. Now, he says he released them because they were mostly public. That is not entirely true, because a lot of the details weren't public.
And there was an interesting -- another interesting development today, Bill. And that is that Vice President Cheney is upping the ante here. He is saying, "Look, if you're going to declassify all the legal documents that justify these harsh interrogation techniques while arguing that these interrogation techniques did not help, then you should also declassify a lot of the reports I saw, which showed that they did, indeed, help, that they kept us from being attacked again, that they were extremely useful. So if you're going to declassify the other thing, how about declassifying the reports I'm talking about?"
O'REILLY: And also, I think there's criticism about President Obama, you know, sending drones in and blowing up people, sometimes civilians. But then making a big deal out of this.
ANGLE: Well, you know, the odd thing about this, Bill, is that President Obama has decided that waterboarding, which we have done, by the way, to thousands of our own people in the military -- pilots and Special Forces are often trained by being waterboarded. We've done it to thousands of our own people. He has decided it is too harsh to use on terrorists.
On the other hand, days after he took office, he approved air strikes on terrorists in their homes and in Pakistan, for instance. And they're in their homes, presumably with their wives and children, so you get a lot of civilians who were killed. You certainly get the terrorists who were killed. One could argue that waterboarding isn't nearly as bad as being blown up. But that is not the position that President Obama has taken.
O'REILLY: All right. Jim, we appreciate it. Thanks very much, as always.
I tried to email foxnews but my email was rejected. I used Comments@foxnews.com;
Are they blocking me? well known to Mark Levin as a hater of the right?
Yes I have experienced the same problems. At first they were going through, now they come back access denied. The e-mails i send are about news items, basically pointing out Fox's omissions, or errors in reporting and/or asking for explanations as to why they seem to be so lax in their research since they commit sooo many factual errors. I tried blogging at their Fox Nation and was denied there also. Does anyone @MediaMatters have any suggestions?
"obviously in a very different situation from detainees undergoing interrogation"
Well, that's the whole point. Psychology makes a difference. Many of the things Navy Seals go through in their training would be considered abusive if prisoners were forced to do it.
The argument that waterboarding is "okay" because our own trainees are subjected to it pretty much defeats itself.
If trainees are waterboarded, they know, or should know, that they will not be allowed to drown. Detainees don't have that assurance. Supposedly, waterboarding makes the person think he's going to drown. Without that uncertainty, it wouldn't be effective anyway, would it?
Exactly so. The argument itself is flatly dishonest
Not only that, but I do not think our trainees were waterboarded six times a day for a month!
nerzog,
Do you think that...oh say after the 125th time, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed probably realized he wasn't going to drown?
AA,
That's like saying the american servicemen in WWII should have realized that when they were waterboarded by the Japanese. Waterboarding is drowning a person. You can die from it or it can cause complications that cause you to die later. This is why it is outlawed. The people who did this have now opened the door to our enemies to do it to our people when they are captured.
How could he. They were already torturing him. They could have killed him at any time. At least a dozen prisoners havent survived their interrogation or at least died in custody
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/31/world/reach-war-abuse-investigations-military-completed-death-certificates-for-20.html?pagewanted=all
But even now, officials say they cannot specify how many cases remain under criminal investigation, though the death certificates and an Army summary of cases obtained by The New York Times show that at least 12 cases involving homicides or unexplained deaths of prisoners remain unsolved, 8 in Iraq and 4 in Afghanistan.
Solon,
Your link is immeterial to this case. The pertinent fact is they did not kill KSM after supposedly well over a hundred times using this method.
I know you prefer to pronounce our interregators guilty of the crimes, but lets rely on the facts rather than your anti-American presumption of guilt.
You know extremely little about anything really you just like to LIE a lot. This is ABSOLUTLY relevant. Since the question YOU posed was wouldnt KSM KNOW they werent going to kill him after the first hundred times. The answer is NO. Just because they didnt let him die the FIRST hundred times is in no way proof they wouldnt let him die the one hundred and first. It isnt logical to claim it IS proof. I am not claiming anyone is GUILTY, until 12 people say so NO ONE is guilty in the US however at least 8 of these deaths were classified as homocide and the question isnt ARE they guilty but what would KSM think. I know you like to pretend no one in the military could possibly EVER be guilty of ANYTHING but really that isnt relevant either as KSM wouldnt KNOW that.
Solon,
Why the name calling? Can liberals have an honest, open debate without belittling the opposite view?
Your reference to the alleged homocides is moot. Deaths occur all over the world, so how would these deaths lead any terrorist to believe that interrogation techniques would lead to their death? Its a stretch. A fairly good one, but a stretch. At least you were honest enough to say the military is not guilty without proof.
I have two sons in the military. I believe in them. I believe in the techniques they are taught. The brave men and women putting their lives on the line for our safety deserve EVERY ounce of trust we citizens have.
Waterboarding is used on terrorists. Terrorists want to push their beliefs by terrorizing citizens like you and I. That includes harming us, our children, our families...not just our soldiers. The terrorists are not disfigured, maimed, publicly humiliated...they are made uncomfortable to break down resistances. These techniques led to critical information that helped protect American citizens.
Is it justified? Darn right. Were they terrorists? Darn right. These are not soldiers. They do not care about our rules. What part of that is not understood?
I'll try a little logic.
Waterboarding is torture. Torture is illegal. So you advocate breaking the law so you can feel safe at night? You're nothing more that a bedwetter who needs big daddy government acting all Jack Bauer against the terrurissts.
And - Bush 43 said that the U.S. does not torture.
Who's the liar here?
Nice try. Again, name calling, and made up facts.
Waterboarding was deemed NOT torture based on the criteria available at the time. Just because you think it is does not make it so. Eric Holder decided to call it torture, but that is largely based on his political views.
The fact is, it is progressives, presumably like yourself, that require "big daddy government". I am a conservative. I want small government. And, you are correct in that I condone interrogation techniques used to protect American citizens.
President Bush was 100% accurate. Torture was not condoned. Waterboarding was deemed NOT TORTURE by the attorney general. So, I would have to say that in fact, you are the liar.
Please, do not try and have honest debate with made up facts. You waste my time, and that of the moderator that has to approve my message.
Waterboarding was deemed torture when we executed Japanese prisoners during WWII for doing it to our soldiers. Waterboarding WAS considered torture before Bush's tame lawyers wrote memos redefining torture.
The fact is, the most effective interrogation techniques exclude torture.
Bush was lying, he condoned torture.
Please do not try and have an honest debate with made up facts. You waste my time and that of the moderator that has to approve my message.
I believe the difference was the Geneva Convention. During WWII, the rules were based on prisoners of war, which are clearly laid out from the 3rd convention from 1929. During WWII, Americans were officially classified as POW's, and the stricter regulations applied. The Japanese soldiers were tried in an international tribunal following the rules laid down in the treaties. If I am mistaken on this, please provide reference material, not speculation.
Terrorists are not covered by the Geneva treaties. They are not prisoners of war. No single nation declared war under a united flag. Therefore the rules that applied to Japanese soldiers would not apply to terrorists.
Because of that VERY IMPORTANT FACT, there is no formal declaration of waterboarding as torture. If there is, please share. I would be very interested.
As for your snide comment at the end...bad form. You do not have facts that indicate torture as ineffective. You do not have facts that indicate President Bush lied. That is simply your opinion. The info I provided is fact. Based on the available information, President Bush was not lying. If you factor in the new Attorney Generals fact-less claim that waterboarding is torture (which was applied years after the fact), then we'll have to wait for the trials.
Meanwhile, our country is at great risk. Kudos to our new president. Sorry...had to add sarcasm.
Why the namecalling??? Are you kidding? I am supposed to let him calling me un-American roll off my back and you want to whine about MY namecalling? Get a grip. When are you going to call AA on HIS namecalling?
Your second paragraph is frankly bizarre. So he might KNOW, since it was a news story that OTHER detainees HAVE died in custody but it WOULDNT make him thing HE might die in custody? Surely you are joking.
Your third paragraph no one I have seen is disputing much less me so lets move on the fourth is pure conjecture and you cannot establish its truth. That you believe it is no reason to think I do. However it is WITHOUT dispute that others besides terrorists HAVE been tortured as I have shown in numerous other posts. It is just convienient to CALL them terrorists for your argument. Perhaps you can show me where this has been established by a court of law? No one has shown that good information has come from them only claims there is NO DISPUTE that false information has come from them that is plain fact even if it were there is no showing any good information we got from them could not have been obtained in another way.
What part of others doing evil is NOT a justification for US doing evil is to complicated for YOU to understand also you are flat out WRONG. Maher Arar was torture for ten months. NO ONE ever even accused him of being a terrorist. We just thought he MIGHT know something useful. After 10 months of torture it was decided he didnt. Khaled el-Masri, was just flat the WRONG GUY he just happened to have a name similar to someone we wanted so you are just putting your head in the sand and denying reality by saying YES THEY WERE TERRORISTS. No sometimes we dont even BELIEVE those we are torturing are terrorists and because without a trial what we believe cannot be proven other times we make mistaks. Your support for torture is not only dispicable and makes my skin crawl it is based on flat out false assumptions
Just in case the childishness of the Bush Legacy Campaign wasn't apparent enough, Cheney's on his "prove it doesn't exist" tour to augment the "they're just as bad" issue.
Expect some "It's not fair!" whistlestops in the not-too-distant future, probably regarding how things were so much more dangerous during Bush's reign.
So then you don't feel that the arguement that these methods led to valuale info being obtained should even be explored. Wouldn't you like to expose the Bush Legacy Canpaign for all of their distortions? Obama should tell us all the facts, not just a few.
Not at all. To torture prisoners is to destory all values that America stands for and was founded on. You are trying to save lives by destroying the country. Our lives will all end one day anyway. I'd hope that day comes later but, whenever it is, AMERICA and the IDEALS IT STANDS FOR: Freedom, Liberty and the PROTECTION OF PEOPLE FROM THE EXCESSES OF GOV'T; must live on. They are bigger than your life or my life. And if I were to be killed tomorrow in an attack that could have been prevented if only we were willing to violate our principals? Then I will have died DEFEDNING THOSE PRINCIPALS, every but as much (and in some cases, much more so) than every soldier currently enlisted or deployed. And besides: WHAT ARE THEY FIGHTING FOR? American ideals? Well that DOES NOT INCLUDE GOV'T SANCTIONED TORTURE!!! Why should we sacrifice everything that makes us WORTH SAVING in our efforts to SAVE ourselves? That's just cowardice. It takes corage to live free. And I'd rather live and die free than sacrifice the values that make us great. I will never live as a coward. And that's all I hear in your position: FEAR and COWARDICE. And not ONE principal worth fighting for.
Well done, NGE
I concur completely. The only thing worse than a torturer is a apologist for torture. And it looks like a lot of the bedwetters on this site won't feel all safe and warm in their beds unless we're torturin' somebody to get some unknown high-class intel about some yet-to-be-determined plot against an unknown country.
Niceguy. I applaud your willingness to die for what you believe. However it also helps to have a little discernment.
As can be seen the methods applied by our forces were forceful interrogation. They were not torture. The difference between what we do to our prisoners and what our enemies do is like night and day. They actually do torture and they think nothing of killing innocents.
It is more dumbing down of the English language to call the tactics used by our forces "torture". It is fine for you to offer yourself up as a martyr, however at the same time you are offering the lives of others, which include among others, innocent children. Your apparent lack of discernment regarding the enemies we face and the legitimate means we use to protect our fellow countrymen is what is troubling to me.
Prisoners have died while we have held them, AA. Are you contending that waterboarding is not torture?
We prosecuted, convicted and hung Japanese for waterboarding after WWII
- The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles. According to the previously classified May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that was released by President Barack Obama last week, the thwarted attack -- which KSM called the “Second Wave”-- planned “ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.
Are you claiming moral equivilency between the Japanese torturers and our forces with the terrorists? That is where discernment comes in to play.
Forgive me if I don't take your statement at face value. First of all, who was convicted and hung for only waterboarding? Could there other methods of torture employed? Do you have the tribunal records? Secondly, in case you didn't realize it, there are different methods of waterboarding or "water cures". They vary in intensity and duration. Show me that those you say were convicted and hung did the same type of waterboarding as our forces.
Check my link and no, I am not equating us with the Japanese, but we went after the Japanese commanders for waterboarding. The Washington Post link quotes those who experienced waterboarding at the hands of the Japanese and it sounds eerily familiar. Of course I don't have the tribunal records, no one does, but those torture memos were ridiculous in their justification of waterboarding and the other techniques. How would you define torture?
As far as the waterboarding goes of KSM, I'm not convinced anyone gives good information after torture. I bet you would say a lot of things to get people to stop waterboarding you.
AA,
If you read the article (that was writen by a JAG in the National Guard), it states that the primary evidence to convice was from waterboarding. Waterboarding is torture. Are you saying that someone could lightly waterboard a person? What's next you could vary the intensity of the rack? The JAG read the transcripts and reported on it. If you believe other methods of torture may have earned a conviction it is up to you to find the testimony.
I read the article. Forgive me for being skeptical of second hand information from one source.
Yes, I am saying that there are different methods and degrees of waterboarding. I'm not the only one saying it either. It says so in the linked article.
I am not the one offering this link as my example. I don't have to prove anything in this case. I only stated the obvious. The lack of proof regarding the comparisons between the Japanese then and the U.S. now is apparent. Using one person's hearsay testimony that includes only generalities makes for a non-existant argument.
Who knows who this judge guy is? He could be as radical leftist and anti-American as most leftwingers here on MMFA. Using the NYT as the basis only heightens my suspicions. I need to see a lot more proof before I go equating the American interogators using aggressive and lawful methods with Japanese torturers 65 years ago.
How dare you call anyone on this site anti-American, AA! You're the one who hurls accusations of america hating and yet, when it was time for you to step up and serve your country, you took a pass. You might not agree with the JAG officer's opinion, but you cannot question his service to this country. If you feel he is anti-american, write your Congressperson and try to bring treason charges. Judge Wallach served during the first Gulf War in the Pentagon and advised the Pentagon about war crimes that may have been committed by the Iraqis. He was appointed to be a federal judge by Clinton.
Research the man before you disparage him.
What would you consider torture anyway?
You are as disgusting and fascist as always AA. YOU are by far the most un-American poster I have ever seen. You are an anathema to American values. Edward Murrow said once that we are NOT from timid men and he was right. Our founding fathers would be ashamed of anyone even close to like you. You would embarass them. You have made your un-American anti-American views clear and they are an embarassment to decent Americans. I am only glad you are fringe and hope that sociopaths always will be
Bunk it is torture. It was torture when used during the Spanish inquisitions, it was torture when we convicted the Japanese of doing it to OUR men. It was torture when we courtmartialed a US soldier for just BEING there while the South Vietnamese waterboarded a suspect. It was torture when we sentenced a sherrif in the US to ten years in prison for doing it to a suspect. You just SAYING it isnt torture really wont change the reality of it
And you my friend, in my opinion, are lacking discernment.
As YOU are lacking in decency. You dont even recognize the concept of hypocrisy. There are none so blind as those who are determined to never see and you prove that with about 60% of your posts.
discernment
In the words of Indigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
you say " PROTECTION OF PEOPLE FROM THE EXCESSES OF GOV'T;"
what were your comments on the Tea Parties again???
Adult education look into it
The average tea bagger couldn't even tell what he was protesting. They were idiots. 98% of them we protesting their taxes went up, when they in fact went down. PROTECTION OF PEOPLE FROM THE EXCESSES OF GOV'T means limiting the autority and actions which the government can take. It does NOT mean that they can't stimulate the economy after the "free market" collapses, or clean up every mess the Republicans made the last three years.
Just think about the absurdity of you are conflating here: 1-2% tax increase versus TORTURE. You'd fight tooth and nail to prevent one, and yet fight equally hard to support the other. That's why your lot ost,a nd will continue to do so until they stop being guided by the ignorant.
Personally, I don't think the "we got information out of them this way" aurgument carries a lot of weight. Who is to say that we couldn't have gotten the same information using "standard" interogation practices? Any actual expert on interogation techniques would state that torture (eg waterboarding, etc) is not effective at getting good information. You torture a person enough they will admit to pretty much anything, real or not, in order to get you to stop.
I bet, if someone waterboarded you, FL, and you didn't know what it was, you would admit to anything just to get that person to stop. I bet you'd even admit you loved Obama.
That being said, why did we prosecute and convict Japanese soldiers after WWII for waterboarding?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
And yes, I would love to hear about all of the results of waterboarding, not just some, but they will be taken with a grain of salt because of the methods that were used to obtain them. Who wouldn't admit to about anything if they thought they were being drowned?
The analogy ignores the obvious flaw. People CHOOSE to join the military and undergo specific training. Detainees don't CHOOSE to be detainess. Some people choose to pierce their tongue but if you were to shove a metal rod through the tongue of a detainee it would clearly be toture. Somebody on the movie "jackass" might choose to pass electricity through their balls. What's more absurd is that the method is used in training to prepare servicemen for likely torture techniques (i.e. torture them so they can know what they're in for; ERGO IT IS TORTURE BY DEFINITION!!!!)
They chose to be detainees when they were on the battlefield.
Maybe we should just cut their heads off. If you do it fast enough there is no torture involved. I wonder if Daniel Pearl was tortured. I bet he wasn't water boarded. That was very thoughtful of his captures(terrorists).
Your argument is LUDICROUS. Can you SHOW that the detainees were on the battlefield? Why no you cant because most WERENT. They were bountied. We PAID for the Warlords to give them to us and in many cases have NO INDEPENDENT evidence they have done anything wrong much LESS KILL DANIEL PEARL. Is your argument really that since SOME Muslims SOMEWHERE, killed Daniel Pearl that it gives us the right to torture any Muslim? anywhere? Really?
For example, one of the SEAL training exercises is for the men to stay warm in cold conditions by huddling together naked. Strange as it sounds, it is a valid survival technique.
Now, I wonder, would even the FOX toadies defend forcing prisoners to engage in naked spooning?
People do choose to take up arms against us , that is the obvious flaw you are neglecting to consider.
And we choose to treat prisoners in a humane manner. We choose not to torture. And that choice, that PRINCIPAL, is what makes this country great. To sacrifice it in order to save us is nothing but cowardice. You choose to betray America and American Values if you tolerate government sactioned torture. You are a traitor and a coward if you do this.
Correctamundo, fairlib.
The drone attacks in Pakistan...ordered by Pres.Obama...have reportedly killed innocents...and will gin up recruiting efforts by terrorists.
The war in Afghanistan...escalated by Pres.Obama...will gin up recruiting efforts by terrorists.
In fact, any effort we make against terrorists will gin up recruiting efforts by terrorists.
The political move by Pres.Obama to close Gitmo and stop waterboarding will have exactly zero effect on terrorist recruiting...the muslim zealots have only one goal...to exact harm and distruction on America.
For the record...I support the decisions of Pres.Obama to bomb Pakistan...just as he promised. I support the escalation in Afghanistan. But I differ with him on interrogation. I support waterboarding as defined by the CIA memo...to only be used in extreme cases and with special approval.
Wesley,
Why is waterboarding ok for us to use, but not for our enemies?
Those are your words...not mine.
But in regards to your question, it would be a welcome relief if terrorists were only 10% as ethical as we are...instead of their rampant use of beheadings, indiscrimate killings and torture of their captives.
Don't take your question to the silly end that compares the U.S. efforts on the war in terror with the disgusting tactics of our enemies...or I'll have to cede to you my pollyanna crown.
Perhaps I phrased it wrong. Why did our country pursue criminal charges and convictions of Japanese soldiers for waterboarding and then find it permissible to do in this day and age? Do you think that much has changed since WWII?
Sorry if my initial post was vague.
I support waterboarding in the context stated in the memo. The prisoner must be a senior member of al-qaeda...believed to have knowledge of an immenent threat...has had direct involvement in planning terrorist actions. It then requires special approval.
Maybe you can enlighten me on the context of the Japanese waterboarding in WW2.
Ahhh, yes. Our courts have shown they always work best when dealing with ambiguous situations. Such as "believed to have knowledge", or "senior member", or "direct involvement".
In fact, if these "senior" members are senior enough, and if their captors believe strongly enough, and their involvement is more directer than normal, maybe we should legalize genital mutilation too? Just for them, of course. We don't want to waste it on someone who we determine might not deserve it as much...
I wonder if the old doge "well some say that he is a high ranking...." would be acceptable.
Too bad that every person we've ever killed in the GWOT has been the number 2 man in alQaeda. We could of waterboarded the lot of them if the bastards had hung on a little longer.
Funny how they never seem to run out of number 2 guys.
You'd think that the Al Qaeda "Number 2 Man" would be a hard job to fill, since they have such a short life expectancy. Seems that we killed at least twenty or thirty during the Iraq War.
I think that the Al Qaeda "Number 2 Man is the only job harder to fill than finding a keyboard player for The Grateful Dead.
Sure 'nuff...why should gentiles get to have all the fun.
Actually, I think you've got it backwards. But good observation just the same.
A combination of Judaism and Catholicism, where bris and confession unite for the good of the country, under the discerning eye of a mohel licensed by DHS?
Happy to, Wesley, here is the above link I posted in response to FL:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
From the same:
"After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."
Yeah, I've read your article before. It talks about "what" happened but provides zero context about the actual convictions.
Here's McCain's take:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/29/politics/main3554687.shtml
"There should be little doubt from American history that we consider that as torture otherwise we wouldn't have tried and convicted Japanese for doing that same thing to Americans," McCain said during a news conference.
Ray McGovern says they were hung for just waterboarding:
http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern02112008.html
I can post more if you want.
There's no need to...you haven't posted anything yet explaining the convictions of the Japanese during WW2.
All you've done is post info that says it happened...you needn't have wasted your time...we knew that already.
So far, your contention that we're as bad as the Japanese during world war 2 is unsupported...but if you want to make that claim...it's ok with me.
His contention was not that we were as bad as the Japanese during WW2 which would be irrelevant to this point. THEY waterboarded. WE tried and convicted them for it. That is ALL that is relevant to the fact it is NOW rank hypocrisy to say its ok for us to waterboard.
Suit yourself...it matters little to me if you and bergboy want to claim we're as bad as the Japanese who were convicted during WWII.
You could have a leg to stand on if you provided the context of both actions...lay them side by side. Who did the Japanese waterboarding...why did they do it. Was it for sport? Was it for tactical info?
Context dear boy...context...which neither of you have provided. Don't fall for the simplistic approach because one size truly doesn't fit all.
And now back to the present...I support the limited use as stated in the memo...regardless of what the Japanese did.
Could you provide me some links that show that the Japanese that were convicted were engaging in other forms of torture other than waterboarding?
I could...but I'm not interested. Why? Because it's your claim about the U.S. being as guilty as the Japanese in WWII.
It's your baby...you can spank it yourself...if you care to back up your claim...que sera sera.
If you can, do it. I provided you with links with our prisoners from WWII describing a procedure we call waterboarding. I said we used the same techniques, but like you said, we didn't use them as many times. If you are going to accuse me of putting words in your mouth, I would appreciate it if you don't do the same to me.
I think what wesley's saying is that the difference is that the Japanese WANTONLY waterboarded American soldiers because they believed that the American soldiers were directly responsible for attacks on Japanese military assets, and were high-ranking enough to have information useful to prevent future attacks. And that's why they were convicted in the courts.
We, on the other hand, ONLY waterboarded Arabs because we believed that the Arabs were directly responsible for attacks on American military assets, and were high-ranking enough to have information useful to prevent future attacks.
Not that I'd put words in wesley's mouth...
Well done. How anyone could justify this is beyond belief.
NO ONE MADE THAT CLAIM. Why are you being so dishonest. Is your manichean black white thinking THAT disabling of your cognitive processes?
Where did I say we were as bad as the Japanese? I am just saying we used the same techniques that we prosecuted them for. We, as far as I know, have not waterboarded nearly the same amounts of prisoners.
Keep twisting my words so dishonestly. Keep dodging the obvious point. Keep pretending that this isnt a complete refutation of your weak attempt at a point. No one will be fooled who doesnt WANT to be fooled
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.
In this case from the tribunal's records, the victim was a prisoner in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies:
A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.
Here's the testimony of two Americans imprisoned by the Japanese:
They would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness.
And from the second prisoner: They laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air. . . . They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water.
There can be NO QUESTION this is waterboarding.
You can keep dancing but you arent fooling anyone
Nothing new here...it's the same old link that bergboy ran out.
It does nothing more than re-state the obvious and provides zero context of the trials, evidence and circumstances of the Japanese waterboarding.
It's a nice effort but everyone already knows that the Japanese used waterboarding...that's not the issue...so it appears you're having a dialog with yourself.
No it is ALL that is necessary to make the point. That it WAS waterboarding that
The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.
They WERE convicted of warcrimes the principle proof of which was they were waterboarded and NOW we are saying its OK when WE do it. There is nothing else necessary to show rank hypocrisy on the issue.
It is now known that we used waterboarding too, isn't it?
Wes,
There is one problem with your argument. Torture is illegal. Period. We have signed the treaties. So it doesn't matter who approves it. We signed a treaty saying we would not torture ANY enemy we capture. Sure the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is evil. No one is saying otherwise. But you cannot break the law to defend our country. There is NO defense to waterboarding.
WHEN were they convicted of Terrorism?Oh you mean terrorist SUSPECTS. Except not all of those tortured WERE suspected of terrorism and that is where it all falls apart you see. It would still be wrong if they were but they WERENT. Basically your argument is that we have joined the evil doers club but we arent as bad as they are. A loser argument. I expect more out of our country and if we want to remain a decent people and country WE will expect more out of our country.
We MUST hold ourselves, our friends and our enemies all to the same standard or we arent even PRETENDING to a moral policy and WE put Japanese officers in PRISON for waterboarding OUR soldiers so it is RANK HYPOCRISY for us to NOW say it is ok because WE are doing it.
Here's another one where we sentenced the Japanese to hard labor:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html
Another one for hard labor:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834
More hard labor:
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/22/Columns/We_sentenced_Japanese.shtml
Point is, those executed, I may have been wrong, engaged in other forms of torture in addition to waterboarding, but the United States thought waterboarding was a war crime after WWII.
-- those executed, I may have been wrong, engaged in other forms of torture in addition to waterboarding -- bergboy
Nicely done...now you're getting somewhere with the context of your accusation.
Ok, but why is it ok for us to waterboard anyone? For clarification, I didn't say we were as bad as the Japanese.
Ok Wes,
Now that you've seen that waterboarding has been punished time and time again it should be obvious that the legal memos were wrong and prosecutions must start. Time for you to get somewhere.
How come when a Republican was in the White House, drone attacks and actions in Afghanistan were not terrorist recruiting actions? I also find it amazing that you and you alone are able to insert yourself into the mind of a terrorist and know exactly what their goals are. If I am reading you correctly, you want to continue torturing people simply because it is no worse than attacking Pakistan with a drone and having collateral damage.
Nope...you've whiffed big time.
I won't waste the time to repost my thoughts...they're all above.
Maybe so, FairandbalancedLiberal, but they still don't choose to be detainees. Criminals choose to be criminals, but how many of them choose to be caught and jailed? Close to zero, I would guess.
Wow by that logic you can justify torturing anyone. German POWs, someone who runs a red light, those are all choices. They don't pick up arms knowing that torture is the result AND most importantly, they can't choose not to be tortured at the time they are BEING tortured!!!!!!! AND, most importantlt, the NAVY CALLS IT TORTURE in the manner in which they use it to train people to resist torture. How dumb are you?
If you want to justify torture that is fine BUT call it what it is. Don't say it isn't torture but something else.