US called Waterboarding a War Crime in 1947!

[Ganymede]

In 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.

"Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. "We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100402005.html

So the moral of the story is. Do as the US says, not as the US does.

[spidergoat]

Exactly.

[Challenger78]

Whatever suits your fancy, USA, Australia will be right behind you, well, At least the government, You might not get a welcome reception at APEC(OPEC) here. thats right..you didn't.

[Exhumed]

It'd be nice to hear that in the media. Torture hasn't been condemned enough.

[sandy]

Neither has terrorism.

[shichimenshyo]

Yes the damn media all they do is promote terrorism

[Buffalo Roam]

In 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.

"Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. "We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100402005.html

So the moral of the story is. Do as the US says, not as the US does.

You conviently forget that in WWII POW's were soldiers, and as such were covered under the 1929 Geneva Convention, and the International Laws of War.

The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 accords POW status only to enemy forces who follow certain rules: wear uniforms; do not deliberately target civilians; and otherwise fight in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Al Qaida and the Taliban militia did not follow these rules because, as groups, they systematically and deliberately have attacked innocent civilians and they do not wear clothing that distinguishes them from civilians. Additionally al Qaida is not a party to the Geneva Convention and has no right under international law to wage war

Even if detainees were POWs, they would not have the right to lawyers, access to the courts to challenge their detention, or the right to release prior to the end of hostilities.

Nothing in the Geneva Convention provides POWs such rights and POWs in past wars have not generally been given these rights.

[spidergoat]

You are entitled to your opinion, but it is contrary to the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, which ruled, in a 5-3 decision, in favor of Hamdan in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case.

The Court's complex 73-page opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter, holds that (among other things):

"Enemy combatants" are protected by the Geneva Conventions.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld

[otheadp]

You conviently forget that in WWII POW's were soldiers, and as such were covered under the 1929 Geneva Convention, and the International Laws of War.

The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 accords POW status only to enemy forces who follow certain rules: wear uniforms; do not deliberately target civilians; and otherwise fight in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Al Qaida and the Taliban militia did not follow these rules because, as groups, they systematically and deliberately have attacked innocent civilians and they do not wear clothing that distinguishes them from civilians. Additionally al Qaida is not a party to the Geneva Convention and has no right under international law to wage war

Even if detainees were POWs, they would not have the right to lawyers, access to the courts to challenge their detention, or the right to release prior to the end of hostilities.

Nothing in the Geneva Convention provides POWs such rights and POWs in past wars have not generally been given these rights.

excellent points.
to add to that: the Japanese water boarding is different than the American version.

when the guy hangs upside down like the Japanese did the water actually gets into his nose, which is pretty painful and can lead to death by drowning. the American version is entirely safe and only gives the illusion of drowning.

[Mr. G]

You are entitled to your opinion, but it is contrary to the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, which ruled, in a 5-3 decision, in favor of Hamdan in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case.

The Court's complex 73-page opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter, holds that (among other things):

"Enemy combatants" are protected by the Geneva Conventions.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

On June 5, 2007, Hamdan and Canadian youth Omar Khadr, had all charges against them dismissed.[38][39][40] The judges presiding over their military commissions ruled that the Military Commissions Act did not give them the jurisdiction to try Hamdan and Khadr, because it only authorized the trial of "unlawful enemy combatants". Hamdan and Khadr's Combatant Status Review Tribunals, like those of all the other Guantanamo captives, had confirmed that they were only "enemy combatants".

The Military Commissions Act need only be amended by Congress to better--more specifically--define "unlawful enemy combatants" as such for the purposes of future tribunals.

It otherwise says nothing about the situational innocence of the guests at Hotel Guantanamo Bay.

And it says nothing about Hamdan and Khadar not being brought up on refreshed charges prosecutable under the redefined statutes.

Are Hamdan and Khadar both out on bail?

Thank you.

[pjdude1219]

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.


The Military Commissions Act need only be amended by Congress to better--more specifically--define "unlawful enemy combatants" as such for the purposes of future tribunals.

It otherwise says nothing about the situational innocence of the guests at Hotel Guantanamo Bay.

And it says nothing about Hamdan and Khadar not being brought up on refreshed charges prosecutable under the redefined statutes.

Are Hamdan and Khadar both out on bail?

Thank you.

it supports what he has to say your just nit picking to find something to latch on to

[S.A.M.]

The technique:

The waterboarding technique was characterized in 2005 by former CIA director Porter J. Goss as a "professional interrogation technique."[17] According to press accounts, a cloth or plastic wrap is placed over or in the person's mouth, and water is poured on to the person's head. As far as the details of this technique, press accounts differ - one article describes "dripping water into a wet cloth over a suspect's face" [18], another states that "cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him"[19].

Two televised segments, one from Fox News and one from Current TV, demonstrate a waterboarding technique that may be the subject of these press descriptions. [20][21] In the videos, each correspondent is held against a board by the interrogators. In the Current TV segment, a rag is then forced into the correspondent's mouth, and several pitchers of water are poured onto the rag. The interrogators periodically remove the rag, and the correspondent is seen to gasp for breath.

The Fox News segment mentions five "phases," of which the first three are shown. In the first phase, water is simply poured onto the correspondent's face. The second phase is similar to the Current TV episode. In phase three, plastic wrap is placed over the correspondent's face, and a hole is poked into it over his mouth. Water is poured into his mouth through the hole, causing him to gag. He mentions that it really does cause him to gag; that it could lead to asphyxiation; and that he could stand it for only a few seconds.

CIA officers who subject themselves to the technique last an average of 14 seconds before caving in.[22]

Poorly executed waterboarding can cause extreme pain and damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by == oxygen deprivation, and sometimes broken bones because of the restraints applied to the struggling victim. The psychological effects can last long after waterboarding ends. Prolonged waterboarding can also cause death.

So, how many people waterboarded? What happened to them? Were they charged with anything? Where are they now?

[Mr. G]

it supports what he has to say your just nit picking to find something to latch on to

LOL

[pjdude1219]

LOL

while i'll admit it is good to be able to laugh at yourself why are you doing so?

[otheadp]

The technique:



So, how many people waterboarded? What happened to them? Were they charged with anything? Where are they now?

and why on earth would the government reveal this sort of stat? just be happy that this technique exists cause it protects your dissentin' truth-to-power-speakin ass

[spidergoat]

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.


The Military Commissions Act need only be amended by Congress to better--more specifically--define "unlawful enemy combatants" as such for the purposes of future tribunals.

It otherwise says nothing about the situational innocence of the guests at Hotel Guantanamo Bay.

And it says nothing about Hamdan and Khadar not being brought up on refreshed charges prosecutable under the redefined statutes.

Are Hamdan and Khadar both out on bail?

Thank you.

Nevertheless, the Geneva Conventions apply, contrary to Baron's claims.

[Buffalo Roam]

it supports what he has to say your just nit picking to find something to latch on to

But it you, who have nothing to latch on to, the decision made it clear that the remedy to the situation was for Congress to enact enabling legislation.

Congress passed that legislation, and the Tribunals were authorized.

The Court didn't vacate the detention, or the fact that these individuals could be held and tried.

[Buffalo Roam]

Nevertheless, the Geneva Conventions apply, contrary to Baron's claims.

Only until a regualarly constituted Tribunal (with the enabling legeslation by congress the "competent tribunal" was met) determins that these individuals are not POW's, or Legal Combatants.

Geneva Convention III Article 5

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

If there is any doubt as to whether the person benefits from "combatant" status, they must be held as a POW until they have faced a "competent tribunal" (GCIII Art 5) to decide the issue. Combatants who may be deemed not to benefit from such protection accorded by the Third Geneva Convention include spies, mercenaries, members of militias not under the command of the armed forces who do not fit into the categories specified above, and those who have breached other laws or customs of war

[GeoffP]

The technique:

"The Fox News segment mentions five "phases," of which the first three are shown. In the first phase, water is simply poured onto the correspondent's face. The second phase is similar to the Current TV episode. In phase three, plastic wrap is placed over the correspondent's face, and a hole is poked into it over his mouth. Water is poured into his mouth through the hole, causing him to gag. He mentions that it really does cause him to gag; that it could lead to asphyxiation; and that he could stand it for only a few seconds.

CIA officers who subject themselves to the technique last an average of 14 seconds before caving in.[22]

Poorly executed waterboarding can cause extreme pain and damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by == oxygen deprivation, and sometimes broken bones because of the restraints applied to the struggling victim. The psychological effects can last long after waterboarding ends. Prolonged waterboarding can also cause death. "

Dear Sam,

I agree that this is terrible. I feel for those poor people.

But you must remember that waterboarding is a technique not just used by the CIA. Why, it's used by lots of people - agents of the WWII Japanese military, for example. You cannot associate waterboarding with the CIA, or with Americans, just because some CIA agents who happen to be Americans use it. Do all CIA agents use waterboarding? Of course not. Only a tiny minority use waterboarding. The vast majority of CIA agents live in complete peace with the population of people being imprisoned for radicalism. Do you honestly think all CIA agents run around waterboarding people? Please. This is so naive. These agents have merely been radicalized by terrorists that blow up civilians. There needs to be less terrorism, and more job training and education and social programs for these CIA agents.

So to sum up: this is not a "CIA" technique specifically. And criticizing its use is only likely to produce more CIA agents who waterboard. The best thing to do would be to engage in a dialogue with them, so you can avoid hurting their feelings and further radicalizing them.

[superstring01]

Maybe the US should just waterboard all those who peskily protest waterboarding.

That would teach 'em.

~String