Thread: Does it violate the ethics of war to waterboard captured American Soldiers? (title Edit)

The whole regimen, the waterboarding, the sleep deprivation, the stress positions, is copied from what the North Koreans did to captured US servicemen during the Korean conflict, back then we called it torture, and we also made the assessment that it had produced no useful intelligence for the North Koreans, just "confessions" that were pure fabrications.

Bush didn't need real intelligence, he needed fabricated "intelligence" to justify the war Karl Rove wanted for the 2004 campaign, so he could do a little blood for votes thing, no problem, no one of his class was injured, and he saved the tax cuts for the wealthy, well worth the price paid by the common clay, who's only purpose is to serve their betters...

Originally Posted by Criminal Rock

Does waterboarding cause agony or pain, is it intended to wound, to punish, or to coerce someone into a confession? If not, then please explain why the US and the rest of the international community condemned and executed Japanese soldiers for acts of waterboarding and the resulting deaths of American POW's.

What not permitted to be done to legal soldiers openly engaged in active overt warfare is one thing. What we do to those who are not legal members of a nation's military engaged in overt warfare is another.

Personally, I don't care if we pull out every trick in the book with those who seek to harm the US through terror attacks. Really - don't give a shit. Nope - no amount of emotional psychobabble bullshit is going to change my mind. At the end of the day, I really do not care how the bad guys feel.

Originally Posted by Criminal Rock

Does waterboarding cause agony or pain, is it intended to wound, to punish, or to coerce someone into a confession? If not, then please explain why the US and the rest of the international community condemned and executed Japanese soldiers for acts of waterboarding and the resulting deaths of American POW's.

If definition 1 applied, then colleges would not be allowed to administer final exams. Definition 2 is the applicable one here, but waterboarding does not cause intense pain of the type inflicted by the stated examples of "burning, crushing, or wounding".

Your comparison of Japanese soldiers doesn't apply here for at least two reasons. First, the methods approved by the Bush Administration were completely different than those used by the Japanese. Second, the Japanese committed these atrocities on legal soldiers who are protected by international treaties, while the Bush Administration used enhanced interrogation on illegal combatants.

Originally Posted by goober

The whole regimen, the waterboarding, the sleep deprivation, the stress positions, is copied from what the North Koreans did to captured US servicemen during the Korean conflict, back then we called it torture, and we also made the assessment that it had produced no useful intelligence for the North Koreans, just "confessions" that were pure fabrications.

Bush didn't need real intelligence, he needed fabricated "intelligence" to justify the war Karl Rove wanted for the 2004 campaign, so he could do a little blood for votes thing, no problem, no one of his class was injured, and he saved the tax cuts for the wealthy, well worth the price paid by the common clay, who's only purpose is to serve their betters...

I should just start repeating this because you liberals just can't seem to understand logic and facts:

1. You have re-defined a term in the English language to suit your political view.
2. You ignore the fact that soldiers must be treated differently than terrorists.

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

I should just start repeating this because you liberals just can't seem to understand logic and facts:

1. You have re-defined a term in the English language to suit your political view.
2. You ignore the fact that soldiers must be treated differently than terrorists.

Honorable soldiers, at that. I like to think we are transitioning into every more civilized behavior even though the facts do not always support that. Anyway, one way we have gotten more civilized is having civilized countries agree to rules of engagement. An enemy of this kind still is civilized and thier soldier have honor in acting in defense of their country just as our honorable soldier act in our defense.

None of this applies to terrorists.

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

If definition 1 applied, then colleges would not be allowed to administer final exams. Definition 2 is the applicable one here, but waterboarding does not cause intense pain of the type inflicted by the stated examples of "burning, crushing, or wounding".

Your comparison of Japanese soldiers doesn't apply here for at least two reasons. First, the methods approved by the Bush Administration were completely different than those used by the Japanese. Second, the Japanese committed these atrocities on legal soldiers who are protected by international treaties, while the Bush Administration used enhanced interrogation on illegal combatants.

Japan was not a signatory to the Geneva Convention.
Water boarding was considered torture, which is a crime against humanity.
Bush used water boarding, but in the end it produced no useful intelligence, Cheney lied about that, you might believe him, but Cheney is on the record telling so many out right lies that he has no credibility.
The FBI agent who actually extracted the actionable intelligence, used the tea and cookie approach, that was his testimony under oath before congress, I am inclined to believe sworn testimony over the public blathering of a known liar like Cheney any day. Some people say it produced useful information, but no one says that under oath.

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

I should just start repeating this because you liberals just can't seem to understand logic and facts:

1. You have re-defined a term in the English language to suit your political view.
2. You ignore the fact that soldiers must be treated differently than terrorists.

Waterboarding was called torture when the inquisition used it to extract confessions from witches.
It was called torture when a US Army captain was convicted and sentenced to hard labor for using it on Filipino insurgents(not uniformed soldiers).
It was called torture when the Japanese used it.
It was called torture when the Gestapo used it, although they referred to it as Verschärfte Vernehmung or Sharpened Interrogation.

It's torture, and you are trying to redefine the word, not me.

Originally Posted by EricOKC

Personally, I don't care if we pull out every trick in the book with those who seek to harm the US through terror attacks. Really - don't give a shit. Nope - no amount of emotional psychobabble bullshit is going to change my mind. At the end of the day, I really do not care how the bad guys feel.

Do you feel the same way about US and Israeli officials who condone and even support terrorism? Should they be waterboarded to reveal their crimes as well?

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

Do you feel the same way about US and Israeli officials who condone and even support terrorism? Should they be waterboarded to reveal their crimes as well?

White people getting waterboared? That is just crazy talk.

Originally Posted by goober

Waterboarding was called torture when the inquisition used it to extract confessions from witches.
It was called torture when a US Army captain was convicted and sentenced to hard labor for using it on Filipino insurgents(not uniformed soldiers).
It was called torture when the Japanese used it.
It was called torture when the Gestapo used it, although they referred to it as Verschärfte Vernehmung or Sharpened Interrogation.

It's torture, and you are trying to redefine the word, not me.

Do you consider the methods used by the Bush Administration to be the same as these other folks used?

Originally Posted by Korimir

Yes. We hanged the Japanese for this after WW2, and rightfully so.

edit: Thread title and poll question do not agree.

Did we first pull out their finger nails first? Did we take glee in the torture of em, before we gave em a quick death?

Torture is immoral. Water boarding is torture, in the same way as making a prisoner watch the rape of his kids or wife is torture. All torture is immoral. Only immoral people want it, or indulge in it. Yes dear gertrude, there really is RIGHT AND WRONG, MORAL AND IMMORAL. Whether your brain is capable of understanding this or not.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

Do you feel the same way about US and Israeli officials who condone and even support terrorism? Should they be waterboarded to reveal their crimes as well?

There are US officials who are actively committing terrorist acts? Really? Names please?

Israeli? Well, if we catch them in the act, they aren't US citizens and we are not officially at war with Israel, so sure, no problem.

By the way - I never said it should be done to force them to reveal their crimes, as you put it. Don't put words in my mouth. If you are unable to address the actual words which have been said, then don't bother to respond.

Originally Posted by EricOKC

There are US officials who are actively committing terrorist acts? Really? Names please?

You mean like advocating the torture and murder of completely innocent civilians? Or condoning and even supporting the MEK and other similar terrorist organizations?

Originally Posted by EricOKC

Israeli? Well, if we catch them in the act, they aren't US citizens and we are not officially at war with Israel, so sure, no problem.

They are just one of our "allies" who regularly commit terrorist acts.

"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." -- George W. Bush, 9/20/01

We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network." -- George W. Bush, 9/20/01

"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." -- George W. Bush, 9/20/01

Originally Posted by EricOKC

By the way - I never said it should be done to force them to reveal their crimes, as you put it. Don't put words in my mouth. If you are unable to address the actual words which have been said, then don't bother to respond.

No, that's the question I asked. If you can't see the difference, don't bother to respond.