Many redefine definitions, and readjust known words to fit one's politics. It's been done before, and is being done now. Definitions of marriage, movie ratings, euthanasia, adultery, and torture have all been changed and modified to fit what many say they should mean.
If one takes the word "torture", the Thorndike-Barnhart dictionary defines the word as "the act of inflicting very severe pain; a very severe pain or sufferingagony". That definition was published in 1979.
That definition includes eye gouging, electrical shock, cutting out of tongues, cutting off appendages, putting live bodies into shredders, etc., etcare normally employed by your average terrorist. Now, many roll a number of other items into that definition called "enhanced interrogation methods".
They include "walling" (people pay' to have rougher things done to them at Cedar Point Amusement Park), the "attention grasp", the "facial slap", "dietary manipulation", "sleep deprivation", a "stinging insect" (harmless caterpillar), and worst of all"water boarding" (simulated drowning).The CIA briefed top Democrats and Republicans (including Pelosi and Rockefeller) more than 30 times between 2002 and 2006, who "each got complete, benchmark briefings on the programs". This source continued to speak on a condition of anonymity: "If Congress wanted to kill this program, all it had to do was withhold funding." Some Democrats have called for prosecutions of the Bush administration officials for allowing enhanced techniques to be used. One of the full interrogation memos is available at GOPUSA.
Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R) stated that any Democrats who raise concerns now are being disingenuous at best. It seems they signed off on such techniques in 2002, but now they're raising doubts. Pelosi knew that water boarding was in the planning stages, but her source admitted she did not object. Pelosi's reply: Yes, the Bush Office of Legal Counsel said the techniques "could be used", she explained, "but not that they would."
Porter Goss who became the CIA Director, specifically wrote in the Washington Post, he, the Senate Intelligence Committee members, and Pelosi herself, were comprehensively briefed, "understood what the CIA was doing," and "gave the CIA our bipartisan support" [[link edited for length]]. Bottom line: if the definition of torture is to be changed, you add another dictionary entry. You don't just add on to a previous definition.
In actuality, a Democrat Congress refused to ban water boarding twice in the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The CIA has a pointed memo that water boarding could only be used under very strict limitations: 1) only if the CIA has credible evidence that a terrorist attack is imminent, and knowing this information can prevent, disrupt, or delay this attack, and 2) othermethods have failed to illicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing this attack.Kalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) was one of only three terrorists water boarded in 2003 by the CIA. No more have been done. Before they were water boarded, Abu Zubaydah and KSM had "expressed their belief the general US population was weak' and lacked resilience and would be unable to do what is necessary' to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals." Before water boarding, KSM simply said, "Soon you will know."
CNS News: CIA Confirms That Enhanced Interrogations Foiled L.A. ...As a result of those techniques, it was learned that KSM (mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks) revealed his plot of the Second Wave. That involved the Garuba Cell, containing a 17-member Jemaah Islamiyah cell tasked with crashing a hijacked airliner into a building in Los Angeles. If, or when, this would've happened, how many hundreds or thousands of Americans would have died in this attack? Per a CBS/New York Times poll [4/29/09], 62% of Americans opposed the idea of conducting hearings of the Bush Administration.
Fortunately, the information was obtained, the Second Wave never happened, and Americans' lives were saved all because of water boarding three terrorists. None of the terrorists were injured, and all three are still walking around unhurt. Even though water boarding was exceedingly rare in interrogations of al-Qaeda terrorists, certain members of our armed services go through Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape training (SERE) per their own intentions.One who has watched certain sci-fi epics realizes that there are a number of other methods that can be used to obtain desired information without harm. Certain drugs are used today with the desired result. A mind wipe, or alternative reality could also be used in the near future. These techniques are coming, but it would be difficult to define them as torture.
One probably figures his family's life is worth someone being water boarded to get the necessary information to continue their life. It would be difficult to answer them in their afterlife as to why you didn't believe water boarding was worth saving their life.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net©2009 Kevin Roeten, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Friday, May 8, 2009
Last modified: Friday, May 8, 2009
The views expressed in this article are those of Kevin Roeten only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Kevin Roeten is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Kevin Roeten of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Kevin Roeten |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Danny Middleton
Date: 2009-05-09 04:53:33
Question 1: If waterboarding isn't torture,then why was it when American soldiers were waterboarded by Japanese soldiers in World War Two,said Japanese soldiers were tried for war crimes and executed? Question 2: How can a terrorist plot be foiled by waterboarding ANYONE months after the plot was supposed to take place? Question 3: Can a confession obtained by waterboarding be reliable or could it be a false confession just to get said waterboarding to stop? Question 4: If the Obama Regime declares any political enemies to be "domestic terrorists",will you still be okay with waterboarding and enhanced interrogation? Question 5: Did you know that the term "enhanced interrogation" originated in NAZI GERMANY?
Posted By: Kevin
Date: 2009-05-09 06:26:30
Danny,
#1) waterboarding is NOT torture; Japanese soldiers were tried for torture crimes far worse than waterboarding, #2) a terrorist plot was foiled by waterboarding before the Second Wave was supposed to take place; you knew that right? #3) a confession by waterboarding could not be reliable, but it was found to be over 95% accurate; that it was confirmed by other sources more than once in all cases; you knew that too, didn't you?, #4) waterboarding was stopped after waterboarding 3 terrorists in 2003; didn't you read all of the column?, #5) do you know what the Nazi's meant when they said 'enhanced interrogation'?, oh, I'm sorry, you probably don't have any info on that.
It's always good to know past history before you comment on it.
I hope you have a good day!
Posted By: Jake, the Champion of the Constitution
Date: 2009-05-09 11:45:03
Dear Kevin -
I respect your opinion, but I was wondering if you would like to reply to the following.
A) From Merriam-Webster, originally published in 1841:
1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/torture
You've skipped over the mental part. I will allow its a bit subjective. Note that in definition 2, it states "to coerce" which is also missing from your definition. So, what is your thoughts on mental torture? Does it exist?
B) On your claim that waterboarding is close to 100% effective, from what I gather this was done on Navy personnel for testing... not on religious fanatic/terrorists-types. I believe its nonsense to make this claim, just my opinion, although perhaps I shouldn't knock it if I havent tried it :)
C) Follow-up to B. Wasn't information taken from KSM's waterboarding interview then used to hold American citizen Jose Padilla in solitary confinement for 43 months for the infamous "dirty bomb" plot? Wasn't Jose Padilla never charged with this?
http://www.nolanchart.com/article2992.html
D) Sorry - what caught my attention was your claim that "only" 3 people were waterboarded, where is this proof? I may have missed it if its in your links. Not to be too skeptic, but how do you know that suspects under extraordinary rendition (shipped to cells in other countries) were not waterboarded as well?
FYI here are the other "torture memos" http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/28/despite-reports-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-waterboarded-times/
Side question for you - does having over 5000 of our troops killed in the GWOT make up for having lost 3000 in 9/11?
Posted By: gene
Date: 2009-05-09 13:43:44
Hi Kevin,
The question I would have would be, what would make this form of whatever, waterboarding, so effective? Does it trick or kid these hardened "terrorists" into instant talk?
These guys who would kill civilians or anyone over ideology, who lived in caves and crawled around shooting and being shot at in some of the roughest terrain in the world, all of sudden give it all up for a technique that does not "inflict very severe pain"?
Posted By: Kevin
Date: 2009-05-09 14:29:23
Dear Jake,
Thanks for your reasoned questions to my column.
a) the infliction of intense pain "to coerce" means exactly what it says---to cause enough pain by whatever means to 'coerce' an individual to do something he would ordinarily not do; enough pain can coerce even the most stout-hearted; mental torture undoubtedly exists but is not as effective as physical torture because people can be trained to withstand mental torture many times
b) from what I understand, waterboarding is still done on Navy personel at their request; the claim as to the effectiveness of waterboarding has been made several times, but I have to say I am not privy to this data by firsthand experience
c) as far as I know, waterboarding was not used to gain any info on Jose Padilla; he was not one of the 3 that was waterboarded
d) I don't know for a fact that no one else was waterboarded in foreign locations; even though this could be true, I have no information to verify it
e) side comment--the number of people lost during 9/11 has nothing to do with the total lost during the Iraqi conflict; that conflict kept America safe and had all the terrorist fighting over there instead of over here; Hussein was found to have acquired 550 tons of yellowcake in 2003; if he had continued to manufacture a nuclear weapon to its inevitable conclusion, many, many more would have died
Posted By: Kevin
Date: 2009-05-09 15:21:09
Gene,
To answer your question, waterboarding has probably been so effective because it tricks the mind into thinking that you will die by drowning.
No matter how hardened a terrorist might be, he eventually succumbs if he really believes his life is in mortal danger. Even though there is NO pain inflicted, some of the prep work done immediately before waterboarding can put one in the frame of mind to believe he really WILL drown somehow, even though it never happens.
Posted By: Danny Middleton
Date: 2009-05-10 07:07:10
FACT: Waterboarding is NOT "simulated drowning"! Waterboarding is real drowning that simulates death! Drowning doesn't mean death,it is suffocation by water. A drowning victim can be revived. Therefore,waterboarding IS TORTURE! FACT: When POWs were waterboarded by Japanese war criminals,said criminals were tried and sentenced to death by hanging at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, aka the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. FACT: Enhanced Interrogation, or Verscharfte Vernehmung was used by the Gestapo to attempt to extract information. They used beatings that didn't leave permanent marks,among other methods. In other words, torture! And they labeled political enemies as "terrorists"! FACT: Situation ethics contains the concept that "The ends justifies the means." That includes lying,deception,manipulation,staging "false flag" terrorist attacks,torture,genocidal wars,making excuses for same,things governments do! FACT: History books lie,war criminals lie,torturers lie, governments lie,statistics lie and the establishment media lies! FACT: You didn't answer the question,what if the Obama Regime labels political enemies as "domestic terrorists" and rounds them up? Would you still accept waterboardng and "enhanced interrogation" as acceptable? FACT: You said I should "learn past history". I suggest you do some serious research and learn REAL HISTORY,real news,etc.as opposed to the official propaganda and disinformation!
Posted By: Kevin
Date: 2009-05-10 11:22:03
Danny,
Where did you get all your incorrect information? I see you listed no resources at all.
How do you know the waterboarding that the Japanese did is the same as the waterboarding we did those 3 times? No resources for that either.
I answered the question, but then you changed it up on me. Do you do this all of the time?
Nevertheless, have a good day!
Posted By: Jake, the Champion of the Constitution
Date: 2009-05-11 07:46:35
Dear Kevin -
Thanks for your reply. On this topic, we don't agree but I respect your right to say and write it, and even any detractors will at least recognize you are attempting a logical approach. Perhaps if one of us gets waterboarded in the future and experiences it, we might change our minds or be able to convince the other :)
" c) as far as I know, waterboarding was not used to gain any info on Jose Padilla; he was not one of the 3 that was waterboarded"
Correct, but my claim is that KSM's waterboarding resulted in his arrest and (unlawful) detention. This would at least indicate waterboarding isnt 100% accurate :)
"e) side comment--the number of people lost during 9/11 has nothing to do with the total lost during the Iraqi conflict; that conflict kept America safe and had all the terrorist fighting over there instead of over here; Hussein was found to have acquired 550 tons of yellowcake in 2003; if he had continued to manufacture a nuclear weapon to its inevitable conclusion, many, many more would have died "
Yes, this was a side question but I was curious to find out what you think. On the yellowcake, could you please send me your source and proof that it would be used for unlawful purposes? As you are probably aware, Hussein allowed IAEA inspectors access (you could argue it wasnt full) to his country.
Not that this will change your mind, but here are a couple interesting sources. I would be highly interested in intelligent rebuttals of the Velvel essays.
Ron Paul's What If speech http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqAF-Alc7CM
Velvel, Lawrence. 2006. "Are Our Highest Officials Guilty of Torture?" Essay collection.
Posted By: Jake, the Champion of the Constitution
Date: 2009-05-11 07:54:53
Kevin -
one last comment. While the Constitution says nothing about "torture", the 8th Amendment in the Bill of Rights reads, verbatim, "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Is waterboarding both cruel and unusual?
And yes, those tortured - sorry waterboarded :) - are not citizens of the USA, but shouldn't we treat others as we do ourselves? When we commit these acts, are we not - to a degree - partially abandoning the moral high ground to Al-Qaeda...
it's sad that our country was attacked by a very limited organization, and now faces insurgency from many thousands of Iraqis, Afghanis, and Pakistanis seeking revenge whose parents, friends, and neighbors were killed (and many were innocent)
Another side topic if you choose to discuss it - what do you think of the letters of marque and reprisal / aka bounty hunter strategy in hindsight?
Posted By: Steven McDuffie
Date: 2009-05-11 08:57:08
Kevin, I could arrange to have you waterboarded, then you could tell us if it was torture or not.
Posted By: Kevin
Date: 2009-05-12 07:18:33
Jake,
I appreciate your reasoned and logical responses. For that, I will send whatever you need.
We may not agree, but I seriously worry you have not been privy to all of the info on waterboarding.
Please remember that I stated that waterboarding is not considered '100%' reliable. In the high 90's, yes, but still not 100%.
Also, wasn't Jose Padilla the shoe bomber? Even though he wasn't the subject of my column, I don't believe I heard any information that his detention was 'unlawful'.
As you can see from my included article, Hussein had stored the yellowcake about 17 miles out of Baghdad. There's only 2-3 things you can do with yellowcake--and none of them are very good. With Hussein, his unlawful intentions with yellowcake were likely in the 98.9% area.
Hussein allowed inspectors access initially, and then kicked them out summarily. The inspectors will even tell you there were places they were not allowed into.
I did read some of your sources, and disagree highly. They evidently did not read my column because they seem to be changing the definition of torture again.
What it boils down to is, would you allow waterboarding to be used if it would not cause any damage to the individual, but it would give information that would/could stop one of your family from being killed?
How you answer that question will be very telling.
Have a good day.
Posted By: Kevin
Date: 2009-05-12 07:43:32
Jake,
One more response. You are correct about what the 8th says. You need to answer your own question. Is waterboarding cruel and unusual?
Well, we know it's not cruel because there is no physical damage done. We know it's not unusual, because it's been done for years according to various sources.
It seems like you accidentally(?) stepped into mis-defining the word 'torture', but fortunately corrected yourself. You were correct about the terrorists not being citizens, but I agree that we should treat everyone the same.
But the question about killing your family you haven't answered yet. Waterboarding should obviously not be done to every prisoner, but when it could save someone's life, it's a necessity.
You need to understand that al-Qaeda is not a limited organization. They have cells in virtually every country of the world. There is NO 'insurgency'. Only rebellion by those directly affiliated with al-Qaeda. You can't have 'insurgency' from someone(al-Qaeda) coming in from another country. Most agree that this was what happened. Even if the Iraqi attackers were all from Iraq, that would mean the size of al-Qaeda was much larger in Iraq than we thought.
If that is the case, then Iraq was indeed the mother-load of terrorism in the middle east. It was, in fact, good that we stopped terrorism's tracks in Iraq.
Posted By: Kevin
Date: 2009-05-12 07:49:50
Steven,
You speak from a source of authority. You must have been waterboarded before. Maybe you've talked to some of our servicemen who have volunteered to be waterboarded.
Please get back to me when you have some good info. I look forward to your comments.
Posted By: Steven McDuffie
Date: 2009-05-12 08:33:26
No, I don't speak from any authority. I am curious. I would like to find out if it is torture or not. You say it isn't (as if speaking from authority) so I guessed that maybe you would volunteer and then report back to us.
Posted By: Steven
Date: 2009-05-12 10:29:40
Steven,
I'm glad you admitted that you don't speak from any authority.
What did do not understand about the definition of 'torture' I gave? Some items that would fall into that category were also listed in paragraph #3.
Some items that would not are 1) tickle to "death", 2) listen to rap music, 3) forcing to eat beans, 4) sleep deprivation, and 5) waterboarding to name a few. None of those involve physical pain exerted by various torture methods.
Are you one that wants to change the definition of 'torture' as well?
Posted By: Randy
Date: 2009-05-12 13:01:09
This is a grey subject for me. Whether waterboarding is torture or not is subjective. The treatment of POW's on a foreign land is not defined in the constitution and rules of captures is listed as one of Congress' powers.
One must realize when time is of the essense in stopping casualities during war, standing on one leg or listening to rap music probably isn't going to make the suspect very talkative. Simulating death on the other hand gets the point across quick. There are questions regarding the credibility of information elicited and we its hard to know how many lives this technique has saved, but we also can't be tied down to any international laws (geneva convention) that questions our soveiregnty.
Alot of people are bringing up Japanese waterboarding, but from what I understand we are not beating them while it happens or jumping up and down on their stomachs when they can't intake any more water (inside their rice filled stomachs without a doubt). I can see both sides of the argument, but in the end war is a different animal and must be treated as such.
Posted By: Kevin
Date: 2009-05-12 14:48:16
Randy,
Waterboarding is not subjective. It is simply somebody trying to redefine the word 'torture'. If you want to discuss items that may not be liked by someone, that may convince him of info that is not true, that is uncomfortable, waterboarding may fit.
Physical pain is something entirely different, and should be defined as such. The questions of credibility of information are worthwhile. That's why during the 3 instances of waterboarding there had to be corroborative info from different sources.
It's probably true that waterboarding kept the Second Wave from happening while saving 2000 lives. Actually saving only one life would have been worth it. Think about it...
Posted By: Servando Gonzalez
Date: 2009-05-12 19:47:44
So, Cubans have been denouncing for decades Castro's use of torture in Cuba's prisons. What they describe as torture is very similar to what now is sold to us as "enhanced interrogation methods." Ergo, Castro is a nice guy I we Cubans are a bunch of stupid morons. SHEEAT!
Posted By: Jake, the Champion of the Constitution
Date: 2009-05-13 03:35:57
Dear Kevin -
Sorry I didn't get back to any earlier, I'm not sure if you'e seen but I am running for US Congress.
"What it boils down to is, would you allow waterboarding to be used if it would not cause any damage to the individual, but it would give information that would/could stop one of your family from being killed?"
My answer is: Based on everything I know now, as an administrator or commander in charge, my answer would be an empathic NO. It's immoral, cruel, unusual, and - sorry, I havent been convinced - torture and attempted murder - until I see some actual statistics. Try reading one of the Velvel essay on what is called "The Ticking Time Bomb" scenario, ala 24. I would have no right to ask others to perform this for me!!
Now, from my earlier questions, can you link to the yellowcake proof? Thanks I am curious about that.
Padilla wasn't the shoe bomber. Read the article I linked earlier. (Richard Reid or Reed was the shoe guy) He was unlawfully detained and denied habeus corpus and a speedy trial
Posted By: Kevin
Date: 2009-05-13 11:39:40
It seems as though Servando just loves to make huge leaps in logic when it fits. Why am I not surprised?
Posted By: Kevin
Date: 2009-05-13 12:05:32
Dear Jake,
I have not seen where you're running for Congress. From what state?
Let me get this straight. If the questioners were going to kill him for sure, and you had the power to possibly deter that action, and it would not kill the terrorist nor physically harm him, ytou would let him die???
I'm sorry, but if you were in my voting district, I would NOT vote for you. For killing other people, you consider waterboarding cruel, unusual, and immoral. For the above reasons, millions would disagree with that assessment. Death of your brother GIVES you the right to have this procedure done to a non-citizen. You know that.
You seem to forget that terrorists actually laugh at that kind of reasoning. Have you ever asked what your brother (if you have one) would think about your actions?
It is certainly no 'attempted murder'. No one from any waterboarding done on the terrorists here in the states have ever claimed that. No one of those terrorists were harmed by those actions.
The Velvel essay is something I have large disagreements with. Have you read any essays from people who have actually witnessed a waterboarding? Better yet, how about anything from anyone who's actually been through the procedure? Many of our servicemen have elected for it to be done to them.
The yellowcake proof is right there as a link in my column on "Obama Did Not Inherit Anything From Bush".
No matter what Padilla was, was he guilty of a crime or not? You never mentioned the outcome.
Posted By: Darren
Date: 2009-05-14 09:11:00
Kevin,
According to many waterboarding is torture. This from Wikipedia:
Waterboarding is a form of torture[1][2] that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences drowning and is caused to believe they are about to die.[3] It is considered a form of torture by legal experts,[4][5] politicians, war veterans,[6][7],medical experts in the treatment of torture victims[8][9] , intelligence officials,[10] military judges,[11] and human rights organizations.[12][13] As early as the Spanish Inquisition it was used for interrogation purposes, to punish and intimidate, and to force confessions.[14]
(snip)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
Bottom line is that attempts to justify inflicting pain or distress on people to gain info (real or fabricated) are just sophistry. Torture only helps the enemy by angering & outraging people against us. If you really want to protect the country stop aggressing overseas, then they won't want to strike back.
Posted By: Steven McDuffie
Date: 2009-05-14 09:26:37
I notice you didn't take me up on my offer. Fuck definitions. Just get waterboarded and report back to us.
Posted By: Kevin
Date: 2009-05-14 09:54:53
Darren,
Didn't anyone ever tell you that Wikipedia cannot be trusted, because items can be added to, revised, or changed completely by the reading public? My own kid told me that, and was right!
If you're smart enough to read dates, you'll notice that definition was fairly recent--that is if it hasn't been changed. They've changed the definition in the past 10-15 years. What did I say about changing definitions of known words?
Read the definition again. There's no punishment, pain inflicted, or phyical harm that results from waterboarding. Have you ever been waterboarded that you would want to change that definition?
You forget again, these specific people are not just enemies, they're terrorists. It doesn't matter how much you anger a terrorist. He/she will do anything it takes to get any info out of you. And then leave you to die---that is, if you're not dead already.
I don't recall ever knowing a terrorist that didn't want to strike. If you really want a country that will be terrorist appeasers, wait till they get to your front door.
Who did you vote for anyway in the recent presidential election?
Posted By: Kevin
Date: 2009-05-14 09:59:30
Steven,
I don't recall any offer that you have made. Are you one that enjoys changing definitions as well? Did you even vote in the last election?
Posted By: Darren
Date: 2009-05-14 17:57:36
Kevin,
I guess this now applies to "conservatives":
***The enemy is not refuted: enough to unmask him as a bourgeois.[7] Marxism criticizes the achievements of all those who think otherwise by representing them as the venal servants of the bourgeoisie. Marx and Engels never tried to refute their opponents with argument. They insulted, ridiculed, derided, slandered, and traduced them, and in the use of these methods their followers are not less expert. Their polemic is directed never against the argument of the opponent, but always against his person. Few have been able to withstand such tactics. Few indeed have been courageous enough to oppose Socialism with that remorseless criticism which it is the duty of the scientific thinker to apply to every subject of inquiry.
--Ludwig von Mises***
I'm not sure why it matters, but I wrote in Ron Paul last November.
Kevin wrote: "I don't recall ever knowing a terrorist that didn't want to strike. If you really want a country that will be terrorist appeasers, wait till they get to your front door."
Perhaps a former terrorist or someone who never became a torrorist in the first place won't strike.What I don't want is for the country to be a terrorist provoker.They strike at us because the US is striking at them overseas. End the provocation, end the terrorist problem. Better to live at peace with the world.
You keep up this fantasy that the govt will wage & win their Global War on Terror. Just like they've won the war on drugs & the war on poverty. Sad joke. Well, no, I have to give them credit where it's due they've won the war on our rights. Thanks to the GWOT & the war on drugs, of course.
Posted By: Kevin
Date: 2009-05-15 13:07:36
Darren,
How'd you ever come to that conclusion? I don't believe I've ever talked about you personally, but I guess I could have.
Do you know any terrorists or former terrorists? What gave you the impression that they will never strike? Terrorists don't need anyone to provoke them. If they don't like something they strike. And it'll be quite ugly.
Are you telling me how a terrorist thinks? Are you a possible terrorist yourself? It's best to live at peace with everyone, but terrorists won't allow that.
It seens like drugs and poverty are courtailed for the most part. Please don't tell me you're making sure it isn't. The only one I've seen who has a war on our rights is Obama. He's done a real fine job so far!
I'll bet you've been elected to represent someone. Care to tell me who?
Posted By: Darren
Date: 2009-05-15 18:08:01
Kevin,
Thank for making my reply easy. You've posted nothing but paranoid raving. Not much I need to say, you discredit yourself.
Since you're wondering who I am see:
Darren Wolfe
Column Name: The International Libertarian
Perspective: libertarianViews of the world from an Objectivist who has come to embrace Anarcho-capitalismhttp://www.nolanchart.com/author777.html
Posted By: Steven McDuffie
Date: 2009-05-15 19:23:14
1. I made an offer: I said I could arrange to have you waterboarded.
2. I haven't changed any definition of anything.
3. No, I didn't vote in the last election.
Posted By: Kevin
Date: 2009-05-16 07:32:02
Darren,
Sorry, but I wasn't wondering who you were. Just another person believing that if you leave terrorists alone, they will leave you alone.
I guess you haven't been elected to some position. That's encouraging. I think it's interesting that you seem to 'label' information you don't like to hear as 'paranoid raving'.
Wow, just how many followers did you say you had? I wish you the best, because anything has got to be better than what's already happened.
Have a good day!
Posted By: Kevin
Date: 2009-05-16 07:45:15
Steven,
1) Tell you what. Even though you made no 'offer', if you can be waterboarded first and describe what pain you felt, what torture you went through, and what you might have to say now after the waterboarding was finished, it may be worth being waterboarded or even talking to you about your life-threatening experience.
2) Are you even old enough to know how torture was defined 20-30 years ago? Look it up, and then tell me if the definition of 'torture' has not been changed.
3) Wait, wait a second. You didn't vote in the last election , but you think you have a say in what happens politically in this country???
Posted By: Jason Gregory
Date: 2009-05-16 09:12:49
Mr. Roeten,
I appreciate you taking the time to write this article. However it seems that the argument you are making is that waterboarding is effective, perhaps necessary, and that Congress knew about it. I don't see any reasoning as to how it doesn't constitute torture.
Also, earlier in the comments section you wrote, "It seens like drugs and poverty are courtailed for the most part." Seriously?
Thanks if you take the time to read this and/or reply.
Posted By: Kevin
Date: 2009-05-16 09:56:20
Mr. Gregory,
Thanks for your comments. We've discussed numerous times how the definition of 'torture' has changed over the last 20-30 years.
Drugs and poverty are courtailed. There is relatively few drugs in schools, hiring, jobs, driving, etc...
Poverty numbers have been blown out of proportion in America. Most people living below the poverty 'line' in America would be middle class or rich in another country.
I'm speaking from middle-class America. Maybe you can speak from another perspective.
Posted By: Steven McDuffie
Date: 2009-05-17 09:00:58
1. I made an offer. Scroll up. Why should I get waterboarded? You are the one claiming that it isn't torture. Get fucking waterboarded and fucking tell us.
2. Yes, I am old enough, and I am a 10 military vet.
3. Yes, I do have the right to say anything I want about the government and the politicians. Not only is it my natural, human right, but it is my legal right as well. Moreover, as a 10 year military war veteran, I believe I have more than earned it, whether or not I voted for Tweedledum or Tweedledee.
Posted By: Kevin
Date: 2009-05-17 10:37:06
Steven,
I'll tell you when you make an offer. It never happened.
You're the one claiming that waterboarding is torture, so it's up to you to find out if it is. Game for it?
You might be old enough, but did you ever look up the definition of torture back then?
You have the right to do what? Is it correct? Who told you you earned anything being in the military for 10 years? Maybe it's time to get a life...
Posted By: rewinn
Date: 2009-05-17 13:33:31
"it's not cruel because there is no physical damage done"
Neither is a cattle prod to the genitals.
---------
And to quote something signed by President Ronald Wilson Reagan:
"No
exceptional circumstances
whatsoever,
whether
a state of war
or a threat of war,
internal political instability
or
any
other
public emergency,
may be invoked
as a justification of
torture."
==================
Article 2, Section 2
Convention Against Torture
Signed by President Ronald Wilson Reagan
MAY 20, 1988http://lawpoem.blogspot.com/2009/04/reagan-said-just-say-no-to-torture.html
Posted By: rewinn
Date: 2009-05-17 13:39:40
"You're the one claiming that waterboarding is torture, so it's up to you to find out if it is."
Uhm, no.
That's not logical at all.
Besides, plenty of people who have experienced waterboarding, and all agree that it is torture. For example: [link edited for length]
Frankly, if we are at the point at which waterboarding enthusiasts are arguing that it is not torture because its critics will not undergo it, the waterboarding enthusiasts have got to be kidding.
Posted By: Steven McDuffie
Date: 2009-05-18 10:37:42
I made an offer. I tell you when I do something, you don\'t tell me.
Secondly, read every word I have posted here. Not once did I make any statement that can be construed as "waterboarding is torture".
You might try a course in reading comprehension. It might help you write less shitty articles.
Posted By: Randy
Date: 2009-05-18 12:17:40
Every America should watch this video carefully...This brave reported was scared and wet for sure..But by his own words he was fine 2 minutes after the fact.
[link edited for length]
If making a terrorist scared and wet will save an American city then in my mind there is no debate...These are people who follow NO rules of war..They cut childrens heads off with dull knives in front of their parents...They blow school buses up filled with children...The poor acid on young girls faces for not keeping their faces covered...The blow up thousands of people every years in markets shopping or a cafe playing a game of backgammon and having a coffee with a friend..The horror that they inflict is beyond the comprehension of the average american, for they have not had to pick body parts off themselves at the local mall after a suicide bomber has detonated a vest with explosives...
Posted By: Kevin
Date: 2009-05-18 13:53:52
Rewinn,
A cattle prod to the genitals is something a terrorist might try.
I guess you never picked up the redefinition of 'torture'. Too bad.
Posted By: Kevin
Date: 2009-05-18 14:11:26
Rewinn,
"All" do not agree that waterboarding is torture. Hitchens is one recipient who wasn't even trained for the rigors of waterboarding. Was serious pain inflicted? Did he have an extremity amputated? Was there any possibility of death for him? Was he threatened to be put thru a shredder?
And the clincher--was he involved in a plot to kill people that his waterboarding would likely have saved?
If somone claims it IS torture, he will have to prove that. If someone claims it is torture, it's up to him to prove that it is.
Uhmm, yes.
Anyone claiming someone is a waterboarding 'enthusiast' doesn't seem to have a sense of reality. I don't think you were around 20-30 years ago either. Correct?
Posted By: Kevin
Date: 2009-05-18 14:17:55
Steven,
Again, you made NO offer. I'll let you know when you decide to give me an offer other than just 'arranging' a session.
If you really don't believe 'waterboarding is torture', just what DO you believe?
You might try cleaner articles yourself. Maybe that's why you're published so often...
Posted By: Kevin
Date: 2009-05-18 14:20:28
Randy,
Truer words have rarely been spoken. Right on!
Posted By: chantelle:D
Date: 2009-05-23 10:12:04
OMG waterboarding so is torture...if it's not then why don't you try it for yourself, and see how it feels. Cops are tasered so that they can experience the cruel sensation and prevent themselves form over-tasing others, so why not make the waterboarding administrators feel for themselves what waterboarding feels like.
What if someone has a heart condition or anxiety issues and dies?
The UN has said that the US should be tried for their waterboarding practices, but what can they do, remove the from the Securities Council or take away their veto power???To Kevin and Randy:Just because it's effective doesn't mean it's not torture; in fact, although I've never experienced it, it should be considered more torturous merely because it works; why else would the terrorists comply if not for its haunting effects??
Ehanced interrogation= torture, just admit it.
To the Japanese thing, I'm happy that they were tried for their war crimes, and not so happy that they committed far worse crimes. However, I live in America, not Japan, and I don't think that another nation's more manevolent ways should justify our manevolet ways.
Japanese and Germans were tried for their horrendous war crimes after WWII, but we did not even admit that the internment of Japanese Americans in those filthy war camps was unjustified until years later. Point blank, after any war, the victors never suffer for their war crimes.
Posted By: Kevin
Date: 2009-05-23 13:28:38
Chantelle,
There are hundreds of things I would never want to do to myself, but they don't constitute torture. I would never want to shave my legs, but it wouldn't be torture. I'd never want to taser myself, but it wouldn't be torture. If tasering was torture, cops would never be able to use it on anyone. I would never eat something I hated, but it wouldn't be torture.
Some people have a heart condition and die all of a sudden all the time. No torture though. Just because somthing is effective, doesn't mean it's torture by any means. Mind altering drugs can be effective. Not torture though.
Do you like changing definitions? Saying one thing equals another means you just did it.
It's probably good if you know what war crimes really are, and exactly who commits them. Please read and comprehend the whole column next time.
Posted By: Bharath Krishnamurthy
Date: 2009-05-24 01:02:07
Hi Kevin
You have brought up a very interesting and completely valid point to this issue that is now making me see things the other way: People are not defining torture. In a matter of legality regarding this issue this is very important! You're absolutely right. But anyway, I am not very good at debating and legal stuff, so I wont even bother trying to figure out what the definition of torture is...and let me just say, I think it would be in Cheney's best interest to hire you for a lawyer if he does get prosecuted! You'd be great.
Now, IF this "enhanced interrogation" (i didn't say torture!) is correct, and it prevented an attack, and it does so without permanent damage or death to the person being interrogated, then yea I'm on board.
But then, why hide it? Why deny it and then all of a sudden come out and say "oh wait yea this is torture"? Thats where I'm confused. See, I THOUGHT it was torture too but then you explained it so well, and if everything you say is true, then I can understand that, it in fact, isn't torture. Why didn't they do what you did and explain the facts outright FROM THE START? The fact that they hid this makes it more sinister to me than it seems.
Also, I disagree with the source you provided regarding this supposed attack that these interrogations prevented. It mentions that the information led to the capture of some MORE people for them to interrogate. Thats wonderful--they got more people that were on their hit list. Can you provide a source that shows that they found ,in writing, a plan? Or some weapons? Or something?! I mean if this second wave is really a valid threat, then I'm sure they MUST have some form of physical evidence; a blueprint, or a huge stockpile of weapons, or even just a voice recording of what their plan was..I mean these guys weren't just planning on winging it were they??
In addition, I dont think the source you cite should be using the CIA's statements as its reference material. Your using an article that's using statements from the CIA and Cheney themselves, to support their own arguments. I don't believe that is a very objective way to support the argument. Aren't they the one under investigation? Aren't they one that initially hid all this from us? So isn't it wrong to just use their statements to support their own argument? I mean of course they're going to say that their interrogation works and that these guys confessed and now they stopped the Second Wave. They're the ones that are being grilled right now! If their information is really true, then surely there must be some other outside party that can verify that they stopped this plot or some type of physical evidence.
Furthermore, and you mentioned this before, there is no guarantee that this technique actually provides 100% accurate information. So you said, high 90s. The CIA says they caught X and Y terrorists (Zubair and al hadi, I dont feel like typing their names) and they prevented the Second Wave. Where do you draw the line there? Well its fact that they did catch X and Y, dangerous listed criminals right? We can go and see them right? I mean they said they caught them so they must be there. Okay fine, but then what's the legitimacy in stating that the CIA actually thwarted this second wave? I mean, if I was being waterboarded, you could get me to confess that I actually murdered lincoln if you wanted to. Who's to say that this information obtained by the CIA isn't just a way to justify their actions? I thought in court, a confession obtained from a defendant who was proven to be under duress is not considered valid. So then what other evidence does the CIA have?
Finally, putting aside whether this is actually torture or not, or whether it actually prevented danger or not...dont you think that just the act of doing waterboarding is in itself wrong? Just wrong. You say that by doing this we are defending ourselves and protecting our freedoms. I, however, believe that we are actually shooting ourselves in the foot. By allowing this, we lower our morality REGARDLESS of whether you classify this as torture or not. I dont care if these guys are left unharmed, we are giving the other side fuel and resolve from this act in order to unite their feelings of hatred towards the united states more. We are simple propelling the wheels of war, hate, and terrorism by allowing this and its not enough to escape from the consequences of doing this by simply saying "we were just trying to defend ourselves".
I support the fact that this nation must defend itself but in a manner that upholds the beliefs and values of the great people of this country.
God Bless Kevin
P.S. I just found this and would like to hear your response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkj9pjx3H0
Thanks and I do apologize for the lengthy post!! =P
Posted By: Darren,
Date: 2009-05-24 12:13:04
Bharath,
Great video you found. Thanks for posting the link.
You just settled the debate. If the guy that just got waterboarded (& they were going easy on him) says it's torture, then it must be torture.
Posted By: Kevin
Date: 2009-05-24 14:33:31
Hi Bharath,
You need to read up on what happened more. Before and during the time of the 3 waterboardings, the administration provided "30" updates and summations of what was to be done to the Intelligence Committees going back to 2002. There was not outcry then of "torture", or no statement by the Democrat party that this should not be done. Why all the furor now? Why do they not discuss all the lives saved?
There was all kinds of evidence that the Second Wave had been prevented by water boarding 3 terrorists. You didn't hear any of it? You probably also know that they got confirmation from multiple sources this was going to happen.
The other side now knows we might have a method of keeping a few thousand people from getting killed. That's a real problem--it's even generating terrorists as we speak------------RIGHT!
Darren--It looks as if you are definitely one to alter definitions on a whim when it pleases you. How unfortunate!
The other day there was a guy who said his mom making him eat food he didn't like was torture! If you liked that one, I have a hundred more of those that will make you look great!
I won't dare pass these posts onto families who could've had family members die in the Second Wave. It just wouldn't be right.
Posted By: Darren
Date: 2009-05-24 19:32:47
Sir Kevin,
For thy shucking & jiving I annoint thee master propagandist of the order of the torturing knights. On with your Crusade, sir knight!
Posted By: Kevin
Date: 2009-05-25 07:07:05
Darren,
It's unfortunate you refuse to listen to reasoning. Maybe one day you'll come around. But make it soon!
Remember to have a good week!