Waterboarding, Just water boarding

[Bullmoose Bailey]

Personal value judgment. Let the U.S. Congress (a) define waterboarding (b) determine if it is illegal under international and/or U.S. law and (c) act accordingly.

Actually, I live in the Mid East off and on, and speak Arabic. Having mingled with Arabs from all walks of life, waterboarding, Abu Ghraib, etc. is only an issue among Western liberals. Arabs think of us a far too genteel and naive in many aspects. The greatest grievance among many Arabs towards my dear Uncle Sam is that they cannot get visas to America.

True points that our eastern establishment media will not address. Perhaps a pure example of western arrogancy, not being able to see past our own collective nose as relates to being offended by the realities of war.

I have come more and more to see this cultural divide as symptomatic of the dysfunctions attendant to the dolorous "nation that separates its warriors from its scholars."

Perhaps you are aware of a dangerous trend I've noticed emerging from the "seminar caller" sector online and on-the-air. Prosecutions of previous war crimes, i.e. severe water torture via-a-vis stomach flooding followed by stick beating to rupture, are being semantically conflated with present water-boarding techniques.

The result is that "seminar callers" are able to make the "point" that the US approves the same thing they claimed was torture when others did it, which is, of course, untrue. What saddens me is that most journalists, radio hosts and others are unlearned of the actual history and let the argument go on unchallenged.

[Polarbear1605]

True points that our eastern establishment media will not address. Perhaps a pure example of western arrogancy, not being able to see past our own collective nose as relates to being offended by the realities of war.

Something to think about:
This country (the US) has a long history of torture. In fact, we torture each and every day. Just ask any inmate sitting on death row if they are under “severe mental pain or suffering”. In order to establish a gauge in this discussion, while you are talking with that death row inmate, ask which event they would prefer to occur to them today; a waterboarding or an execution. The only reason we don’t call that torture is because it is sanctioned by our Rule of Law. I think a lot of folks commenting on this thread have jumped up on their high horses and are confusing dogma vs doctrine. For example, dogma is an opinion and doctrine is a written instruction.

The debate over torture since 9/11 has been centered on its definition and what “severe physical and mental pain and suffering” really means. The definition of torture in the Geneva Conventions is very nebulous. One reason it is nebulous is because whenever we sit down with those folks to discuss the definition of torture, for example, we are usually sitting across the table from a set of international reps from states that not only have a nebulous definition of torture but also employ that definition more as general guidelines vs laws. Of course, these general guideline folks are there to ensure we don’t put their state on report with the international court of public opinion.

After 9/11, the then elected administration had to make a fundamental decision on how they were going to set the strategic tapestry to fight international terrorist. They could use the US Constitutional Rule of Law or they use the Laws of War. Neither is a really good fit, US Constitutional Law stops at the boundaries of the US and affords a set of rights to the accused that can easily be used to make a mockery of the legal process. The Laws of War are not a good fit either because, comparatively speaking, they are general, vague and open for wide interpretations. Of course, the advantage of the Laws of War is they do have a certain amount of global acceptance. In any event, the 9/11 administration decided to set the strategic tapestry with the Laws of War and hence, the call for a “Global War on Terrorism”.

The other issue when defining torture is the legal issue of “intent”. I feel that because the current administration could not prove intent is the primary reason a certain X-VP is not cooling his heels in a Federal prison. Is the intent of waterboarding really to inflict severe pain and suffering, especially when it is used as a military training technique on our own pilots?

In 2007, or so, the national media starts to report that the CIA is using waterboarding (enhanced interrogation techniques) and the Department of Justice authorized it. This is interesting since it seems the presidential administration seems to not only define the legal definition of torture but also place in under Title 50 …covert ops? What else was happening in 2007? You had a majority opposition congress pushing to get there political party elected to the White House and the more issues the better. Consequently, the definition of torture has nothing to do with what is legal or what is right or wrong, it is just another example of strategic legalism used as a political tool that plays nicely into our enemy’s hands.

[tequila]

So ... do you think torture exists at all? Or just that the United States cannot be guilty of it? Or that we are guilty of it all the time, since we incarcerate people, and we should just go ahead and make it policy, like Syria?

[Polarbear1605]

So ... do you think torture exists at all? Or just that the United States cannot be guilty of it? Or that we are guilty of it all the time, since we incarcerate people, and we should just go ahead and make it policy, like Syria?

Based on your first two questions I feel you are missing the point. The word torture now automatically has it own political dogma that is usually expressed as “we (the US) have no tolerance for torture”. The definition, however, is wide open and vague for both the Rule of Law and the Laws of War. In addition, the ROL and the LOW are very different things. “Does torture exist?” Sure it exists! Ask any Viet Nam US POW. We could probably say the same about Iraq and Afghanistan War if the bad guys took US soldiers and Marines as prisoners but they don’t. Instead, they execute them and desecrate their bodies and not necessarily in that order. Just so you understand the difference between the ROL and the LOW, our surviving POWs cannot sue North Viet Nam under our Constitution because it has no jurisdiction in Viet Nam. If they try to go the Laws of War route they bang into a definition that can be interpreted anyway the bad guys want and therefore the bad guys get away with torture.

Politicians, theirs and now ours, change the definition not for the good of mankind but they change it for political advantage. The 9/11 National Command Authority changed the definition for a strategic advantage in the war on terrorism; the next administration changed it for their own political advantage and gain. Another way to say that is I have problems with definition manipulation that only applies to our side and does not work against our enemies.

You are asking the right questions but you are focused on the word torture defined by political sound bits.