Felix wrote:look, they can dress it up and call it "enhanced interrogation", but the fact remains that the United States prosecuted and hung Japanese soldiers for waterboarding our soldiers in WW2....you seem to be implying that by calling it something other than what it is makes it okay
You ca continue to misrepresent that instance all you want, but it doesn't make your version of it accurate. You're a good little doggy, though, as you can very nearly repeat the standard lefty talking point on this.
All waterboarding is not the same. How the Commie Chinese have used it, how the Japs used it during WWII varies substantially from how US interrogators used it. In those instances, the intent was to seriously harm those who were waterboarded, as it was referred to then as "water torture." On the other hand, you have interrogators using waterboarding not with the intent to cause serious harm, but to solicit life-saving information. As well, what you and the rest of the liberal tards ignore regarding the prosecutions of Jap soldiers is that they were ot prosecuted for onyl water torture, but also for sveral other acts of brutality, e.g., beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; … burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward, etc. over sustained periods of time with the only intent being to harm the prisoners.
and right on cue, the rightwinger starts accusing me of things I never said.....I'm not sure how Bush's AG came to the conclusion that something we previously prosecuted people for is okey dokey for us to employ simply because they label it something other than what it is.....
That's the implication I drew from your comments. My apologies.
Bush's AG did not conclude that something we prosecuted people for long ago was now okey-dokey. You're totally misrepresenting the Jap prosecution for war crimes. You're also ignoring the plain language of the torture statutes which defines torture as a specific intent crime. In other words, for treatment to be torture there must be specific intent to cause serious harm. The interrogators were not specifically intending to cause harm. Even Obama's AG clearly recognizes that torture is a specific intent crime and that's why, for example, he declined to label waterboarding used in training as torture. Don;t argue with me...argue with the law.
he's gone through it....his opinion is perfectly relevant...and if Holder in fact doesn't believe it's torture, then he's out of his fucking mind....
Jesse may feel that it's torture. You may feel that it's torture. But the law is clear. And that law wasn't made during the Bush administration.
yeah, torture is against the law....
No shit, dummy. The question is whether certain interrogation techniques satisfy that legal definition. You won't argue that. Why not?
why do you keep referring to Holder? I could give a shit whether he thinks it's not torture or not..you accuse me of "appealing to authority" then pull Holders name out like a gun...if he doesn't think it's torture, then he is seriously fucking deluded...again, WE FUCKING EXECUTED Japanese soldiers for exactly the same thing....what's changed since then?
Again, no we did not prosecute Jap soldiers for the very same thing.
Second, I raise Holder because he's just the most recent AG to conclude that torture is a specific intent crime. Lets look at the DoJ's recent brief to the 6th Cicruit Court of Appeals back in March:
Torture is defined as “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. . . . ” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). Moreover, as has been explained by the Third Circuit, CAT requires “a showing of specific intent before the Court can make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured.” Pierre v. Attorney General, 528 F.3d 180, 189 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (requiring that the act “be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”); Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 139 (3d Cir. 2005) (“This is a ‘specific intent’ requirement and not a ‘general intent’ requirement” [citations omitted.] An applicant for CAT protection therefore must establish that “his prospective torturer will have the motive or purpose” to torture him. Pierre, 528 F.3d at 189; Auguste, 395 F.3d at 153-54 (“The mere fact that the Haitian authorities have knowledge that severe pain and suffering may result by placing detainees in these conditions does not support a finding that the Haitian authorities intend to inflict severe pain and suffering. The difference goes to the heart of the distinction between general and specific intent.”) [my bold italics and brackets]. .
So what's this mean? The torturer must specifically intend to cause serious harm for the treatment to be torture. That pain and suffering may result is not sufficient to classify the treatment as torture.
This ain't my analysis. This is John Yoo's analysis that the Obama administration, despite their previous condemnation of it, are presenting as legal principal to the federal courts.
"appeal to authority"...every time you say "Holder says it's not" I'm going to remind you that we executed Japanese soldiers for doing the same exact thing to our soldiers in WW2
Uh, moron, US interrogators did not do exactly the same as Jap soldiers. You are lying either out of intentional ignorance or explicit misleading.
The waterboarding as practiced by the Japs was materially different that how US interrogators waterboarded the prisoners they were interrogating. The Japs poured water directly into the mouths and noses of POWs. US interrogators covered the mouth and nose with cellophane or cloth material explicitly to avoid drowning their prisoners.
Yukio Asano, a Japanese soldier convicted of war crimes and Teddy Kennedy's poster child in this debate was sentenced to 15 years hard labor not for waterboarding but for:
Docket Date: 53/ May 1 - 28, 1947, Yokohama, Japan
Charge: Violation of the Laws and Customs of War: 1. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture PWs. 2. Did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for PWs.
Specifications: beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~warcrime/ ... _Asano.htm
But wait, there's more. Asano practiced a much more severe form of waterboarding, according to the Washington Post:
Twenty-one years earlier, 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.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02005.html
So, first, our interrogators were not doing exactly the same thing as they were not pouring water directly into the mouth of prisoners nor were they beating, clubbing, kicking, or burning them.
Second, as they practices waterboarding, it was substantially different than how US interrogators used the technique. As cited by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (
http://www.ibiblio.net/hyperwar/PTO/IMTFE/IMTFE-8.html )
The so-called "water treatment" was commonly applied. The victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach until he lost consciousness. Pressure was then applied, sometimes by jumping upon his abdomen to force the water out. The usual practice was to revive the victim and successively repeat the process.
Again, not the same as practices by US interrogators.
Third, US interrogators did not specifically intend to cause serious harm, hence their covering the mouths and noses of prisoners, hence, the technique doesn't satisfy the statutory legal definition/standard for it to be torture.
