How far do we go to keep America safe?...

[pariann]

Oh, was it like "one of these things doesn't belong"?

[Exterminator]

The more I think about the fact that you keep bringing this up to Henry like he would feel any differently if he had served in the military the more I wonder what makes you think that would make a difference in how he feels about waterboarding.

It makes a difference in two ways.  First, had he served in the military he would have had the Geneva Convention drilled into him time and time again during training and he would know that there are absolutely no circumstances under which it is ok for a United States soldier (or anyone else at the service of the government) to torture or otherwise abuse a prisoner of war.  It goes against everything for which our country stands; we simply don't do it.

Secondly, he would recognize that anyone who breaks those principles brings shame on everyone who does or has worn a uniform in his/her country's defense.  He wouldn't be so quick to condone it if it were his reputation being besmirched.

I was also wondering which branch, for how long, and where did you serve?

United States Army Military Police, 3rd Armored Division.

[Exterminator]

But waterboarding is not torture.  Congress, including Nancy Pelosi, ok'ed it.  The whole fuss about it is diversion plain and simple.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

[me]

What would your opinion be of someone who retired after 40yrs as a commissioned officer of the Air Force, someone who retired after 20yrs as the highest non-com officer who was in the Navy amphib assault who was in Beirut, someone who served 10yrs as a medic and was in Nam on the front lines, not thinking of waterboarding as torture?   

[pariann]

Water boarding has been around for centuries. It was a common interrogation technique during the Italian Inquisition of the 1500s and was used perhaps most famously in Cambodian prisons during the reign of the Khmer Rouge regime during the 1970s. As late as November 2005, water boarding was on the CIA's list of approved "enhanced interrogation techniques" intended for use against high-value terror suspects. And according to memos released by the U.S. Department of Justice in April 2009, water boarding was among 10 torture techniques authorized for the interrogation of an al-Qaida operative. In a nutshell, water boarding makes a person feel like he is drowning.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/water-boarding.htm

Hmmm......thought I would look it up, since I didn't start reading this at the beginning of the thread, and i didn't know exactly what waterboarding is.  According to the USDoJ....it's  a torture technique.  Because it's 'approved' doesn't mean it's not torture.

[Exterminator]

What would your opinion be of someone who retired after 40yrs as a commissioned officer of the Air Force, someone who retired after 20yrs as the highest non-com officer who was in the Navy amphib assault who was in Beirut, someone who served 10yrs as a medic and was in Nam on the front lines, not thinking of waterboarding as torture?

I would say that I don't believe you and that I think you are tarnishing those people's service reords by putting words into their mouths.  That notwithstanding, my older brother who retired as an officer after 30 years as a Military Police investigator and Criiminal Investigation Division (CID) chief and who is now a regional chief investigator for the Department of Defense says that is it absolutely torture and is illegal and I would submit that he is in a better position to understand the law than the people you've mentioned.

[LOsborne]

Great source link, Pariann.

I particularly enjoyed this paragraph:

In September 2006, the Bush administration faced widespread criticism regarding its refusal to sign a Congressional bill outlawing the use of torture techniques against all U.S. prisoners. That same month, the U.S. Department of Defense made it illegal for any member of the U.S. military to use the water-boarding technique. The CIA and its interrogators were unaffected by that new policy, as the CIA is not a branch of the U.S. military.

That pretty well answers the "it's legal" argument, doesn't it.

[Exterminator]

That pretty well answers the "it's legal" argument, doesn't it.

Both the "it's legal" and "it's not torture" arguments pretty much.

[LOsborne]

This excerpt is interesting too:

...Khalid Sheik Mohammed, he reportedly lasted more than two minutes before confessing to everything of which he was accused. ...

Many CIA officials see water boarding as a poor interrogation method because it scares the prisoner so much you can't trust anything he tells you.

So we can add " it obtains valuable information" to the list of fairy tales.

[pariann]

Also, people should note that just because it's approved, doesn't make it legal either.

That's just saying you get permission from someone higher in authority than you to break the law.

[Exterminator]

So we've established that it's inhumane, illegal and unreliable; how does it help keep America safe again?

[Exterminator]

Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post, today:  "When to Torture":

Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. . . . The second exception to the no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. . . .

Some people, however, believe you never torture. Ever. They are akin to conscientious objectors who will never fight in any war under any circumstances, and for whom we correctly show respect by exempting them from war duty. But we would never make one of them Centcom commander. Private principles are fine, but you don't entrust such a person with the military decisions upon which hinges the safety of the nation. It is similarly imprudent to have a person who would abjure torture in all circumstances making national security decisions upon which depends the protection of 300 million countrymen.

Ronald Reagan, May 20, 1988, transmitting the Convention Against Torture to the Senate for ratification:

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention.  It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

Convention Against Torture, signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law.

I guess that according to Krauthammer, Reagan was unfit to be the POTUS.

[awol]

good god!  how far can we take the "would you abort one baby to cure cancer" debate?

[awol]

note: we have abortions, and it's doing as much to cure cancer as waterboarding is doing to eliminate terrorism.

:p