VP admits knowledge of Waterboarding

[backpasture]

[SIZE=2]You are aware that the United States waterboards its own personnel during SERES training for pilots and special forces guys, right?

And you're aware the SERES training was intended for preparing our troops for what might happen to them if they fell into enemy hands, and those enemies refused to follow the Geneva Convention? It's very clear that the methods outlined in SERES are considered to be violations of the Convention.

You're also aware that being waterboarded by your own team in a controlled environment is a wee bit different from being waterboarded by the enemy, right?

[Hoosier]

It's water not acid. You realize their not actually drowning them right.

[Hew]

This report (a truly bi-partisan effort) is laying the groundwork for bringing the perpetrators to justice. (And, by 'perpetrators' we are talking about the people who set these policies in motion, not the flunkies like Lyndiee England who carried out these policies and subsequently took the fall for it).

That presents a sticky wicket for the four Congressional Democrats who knew about everything that was going on and didn't say one word in protest. I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that you're not onboard with bringing "perpetrators" like Pelosi, Jane Harmon, Jay Rockefeller and Bob Graham to justice are you? That's odd that Levin/McCain don't mention their colleagues' aquiescence in all of this in their little book report.

If you really think that any of the "perpetrators" in the Bush Admin (and Congress) will be "brought to justice" then you've been wrapped around the moveon.org hooka a little too long and its time to step outside for some fresh air. The Soviet-style political cleansing that you people are all giddy about; the pursuit of a past administration by attempting to criminalize their policies after-the-fact, isn't going to play so well with Obama's message of Hope and Change or with the American people.

You're also aware that being waterboarded by your own team in a controlled environment is a wee bit different from being waterboarded by the enemy, right?

Let's hear all about your firsthand account of when you were waterboarded during your SERE training and how it didn't bother you a bit because you knew you were in a controlled environment. It would be interesting to read your personal perspective because your experience is 180 degrees different than every other first-person account I've heard/read in the past.

[Patrick Johndrow]

And you're aware the SERES training was intended for preparing our troops for what might happen to them if they fell into enemy hands, and those enemies refused to follow the Geneva Convention? It's very clear that the methods outlined in SERES are considered to be violations of the Convention.

And do you really think these muslim extremist thugs follow the Geneva Convention? Last time I heard they chopped heads off and videoed the event and sent the tapes to Ajazeere.
I think there should have been more battlefield trials for these goofballs and we wouldn’t be debating the issue.

[subroc]

Interesting.

Would any one on this board or reading this post that has directly experienced waterboarding in either a training or real-world environment please step forward and detail the facts and specifics of your experience.

Regards,

Joe S.

So lets see, when it is over, a guy coughs a few times, spits out some water, we give him a towel and a comb and he gives us the information we want. Then we feed him whatever he wants to eat and he can even continue to hate us.

Sounds like a pretty good deal for him.

Joe, I really don't care what example you get someone to dig up. If they aren't having a bolt cutter taken to their hands or being forced to eat glass or having a leg broken with a 3 pounder or something similar, I could never describe it as torture. Is it comfortable? Well no. Coerced interrogation isn’t meant to be comfortable. It is a method of extracting information from someone that doesn't want to give it up. If you believe that any coercion falls into the realm of torture then you have a view of what torture is that differs appreciably from mine.

[K.Bullock]

It's not surprising that the usual suspects have voiced their enthusiastic support for torture.

The rest of us can take comfort in the fact that the recently released McCain Levin report is a scathing indictment of the policy of torture that came straight from the White House.

The money quote, from John McCain, which is contained in the summary:
"The Committee’s report details the inexcusable link between abusive interrogation techniques used by our enemies who ignored the Geneva Conventions and interrogation policy for detainees in U.S. custody. These policies are wrong and must never be repeated."

http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=305735

This report (a truly bi-partisan effort) is laying the groundwork for bringing the perpetrators to justice. (And, by 'perpetrators' we are talking about the people who set these policies in motion, not the flunkies like Lyndiee England who carried out these policies and subsequently took the fall for it).

Who is this 'John McCain' anyway? Must be a librul!

The Geneva convention seems to make a strong case for terrorist not being able to be classified as "Prisoners of War" and subject to it's protections. I guess maybe the people who keep screaming about the U.S. violating the Geneva convention are also hoping no one ever reads it.

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

[Hoosier]

Well I guess that settles it.

[cotts135]

The Geneva convention seems to make a strong case for terrorist not being able to be classified as "Prisoners of War" and subject to it's protections. I guess maybe the people who keep screaming about the U.S. violating the Geneva convention are also hoping no one ever reads it.

In the decision the detainess were not granted POW status however the court said that they were entitled to the Third Geneva convention protections along with Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva convention which deals with humane treatment.

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

The Bush administration has reluctantly agreed to apply the Conventions to the detainees.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071100094.html

[Shane Olean]

Arguing on the internet is like taking first in the special olympics - even though you win you're still a retard....


Waterboarding's effects can be a little more than spit out the water and you're done - with ingestion to the lungs and the actual 'start' of drowning it gets real painful and the side effects can last several weeks - but I saw no one suffer lifelong injuries.

All of this GC talk is out the window for the other side - putting POW's on TV is illegal - beheading them is illegal - they don't give 2 $h!t$ about the GC - only the US and those under the blue hats attempt to abide by it so don't start on the *legality*. No portion of the GC is more important than another - break one break them all.

Boardings effectiveness is called into question because (as stated) - many will confess to anything so accuracy is questioned.

As for 'real life' experience - several operators on this board would volunteer for a show and tell mission for non believers

[K.Bullock]

In the decision the detainess were not granted POW status however the court said that they were entitled to the Third Geneva convention protections along with Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva convention which deals with humane treatment.

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

The Bush administration has reluctantly agreed to apply the Conventions to the detainees.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071100094.html

Could they be tried under the Geneva convention? No, they have agreed to abide by it in spite of the detainee's not being qualified for POW status.

There is no illegal activity to try them for as has been suggested. How can someone be in legal jeopardy for something that is not illegal, you may think it should be, that doesn't change anything though.
Morally and practically, Jeff provided some food for thought.

I saw the bill accusing the Bush administration of war crimes. It was purely political and was dropped almost as soon as it was written, It was out there long enough for the media to get a whiff of it and spread it all over the tabloid news outlets like cnn, msnbc and the like.

Democrats were more direct and critical. "I find it hard to fathom that this administration is so incompetent that it needs kangaroo-court procedures to convince a tribunal of United States military officers that the 'worst of the worst' imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay should be held accountable" for crimes, said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the committee's ranking Democrat. "We need to know why we're being asked to deviate from rules for courts-martial." Leahy described Bush's record on detainees as "five years, no trials, no convictions."

No surprises here, It wouldn't be the first time politicians tried to tank a war for political ambition.

If you really want to provide aid and comfort to someone may I suggest this site. http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/Am...You/index.aspx

There not as cool and don't provide as much controversy, but at least they have earned honor and respect.