Lib Waterboarding Is Faked

Quick update, as some are claiming it's a sponge - that's BS. It's a circular-type shield, probably plastic - watch how and where they pour the water inthe video, being careful to not pour it up over the edge where it would get under it. At one point there are even hands there covering it to prevent that. It's bogus.

Take a look at the screencap below I made from a video from John via the Code Pinko's demonstrations - he asked me what I thought. Look at the left hand, it's holding a shaped object under the towel - a towel that never loses its shape despite being soaking wet. See the top edge by the other hand for proof of that. The video is obviously bogus - check the acting job out in the full video. Moonbats ... geesh.

Comments

[Worst President Ever]

"Waterboarding just happens to be one of many tools in a suite of solutions" AKA Torture

The Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation

The form of the interrogation is built around active persuasion by moral justification. The interrogator presents a monologue and discourages the suspect from denials or explanations. The interrogator progresses the suspect towards an admission by the use of alternative or contrasting questions, offering the suspect two choices, one of which is less morally challenging than the other. If the suspect acknowledges a choice the interrogation moves to non-leading questions to draw out the full confession. A critical part of the process is the development of information that will corroborate and substantiate the subject’s admission of guilt.

The identification of deceptive behaviors or symptoms in speech or body language are part of the Reid Technique. The use of lies, threats, leading questions or inducements by the interrogator is reported to be widely used as part of the Reid Technique. (see CBC link below)

* Step 1 - Direct Confrontation. Lead the suspect to understand that the evidence has led the police to the individual as a suspect. Offer the person an early opportunity to explain why the offence took place.

* Step 2 - Try to shift the blame away from the suspect to some other person or set of circumstances that prompted the suspect to commit the crime. That is, develop themes containing reasons that will justify or excuse the crime. Themes may be developed or changed to find one to which the accused is most responsive.

* Step 3 - Never allow the suspect to deny guilt. Reid training video: "If you’ve let him talk and say the words ‘I didn’t do it’, and the more often a person says ‘I didn’t do it’, the more difficult it is to get a confession."

* Step 4 - At this point, the accused will often give a reason why he or she did not or could not commit the crime. Try to use this to move towards the confession.

* Step 5 - Reinforce sincerity to ensure that the suspect is receptive.

* Step 6 - The suspect will become quieter and listen. Move the theme discussion towards offering alternatives. If the suspect cries at this point, infer guilt.

* Step 7 - Pose the “alternative question”, giving two choices for what happened; one more socially acceptable than the other. The suspect is expected to choose the easier option but whichever alternative the suspect chooses, guilt is admitted.

* Step 8 - Lead the suspect to repeat the admission of guilt in front of witnesses.

* Step 9 - Document the suspect's admission and have them sign as a confession.

[Wahoo Willie Sez:]

Whew; that sure took you a while. In fairness I had it googled before I asked the question. I made it short n simple by referring to the "making friends" thing. I'm a big fan of "Criminal Minds". You are aware that "we" do use these techniques in MOST cases, that for "us" torture/coercion is rarely used. Not that that makes it moot, it does not.

Let's go back to my other question and rephrase. There's a rumor but fairly good intell that a 757 is going to be flown into the Sears Tower. Your spouse and children are at O'Hare about to board that very aircraft.Are you willing to wait for CIA to make friends with AliPoobah? I mean, today may or may not be the day.

[seekeronos]

WPE:

Those rules are fine and dandy when dealing with US citizens who are in custody of Federal and/or local law enforcement authorities.

But when dealing with enemy combatants whose aim is to inflict the maximum damage to American lives and interests... such a person no longer comes under the purview and protection of our constitution and bill of rights; and in many cases, these folks are not protected by Geneva or other portions of LOAC (law of Armed Conflict). They are *francs-tireurs* and may be dealt with as the occupying or governing forces see fit.

[Worst President Ever]

I don't feel like climbing onto the hypothetical slippery slope of the Worst Possible Imaginable Scenario means it's OK to do it to your next door neighbor with the funny accent.

Torture isn't an effective interrogation technique. You inflict mega-pain on someone, they'll tell you ANYTHING to get it to stop. Truth is going to be their last concern.

But it works great in 24.

[Wahoo Willie Sez:]

WPE: You're a decent cat when your opinions are based on something other than BDS. Good discussion, thanks for the grown up tack.

[uikert tupo]

test test test test
name name anme

[rwilymz]

"AKA Torture"

Incorrect.

Torture is defined as the deliberate infliction of permanent and debilitating pain or disfigurement. "Feelings of drowning" while not actually doing so isn't permanent [whereas **actually** drowning would be]; nor is it debilitating.

So it meets neither half of the relevant definition, just in case you were to try some loyyerly dodge and say the "and" is really an "or".

"Torture isn't an effective interrogation technique"

This is true.

But the ***threat*** of torture is VERY effective.

Hey, uh, Dan ... your posting mechanism keeps barfing on the URL.

[Fred Beloit]

Worst writes: "Fred uses Pol Pot as an argument to support US torture. Kindof boggles the mind." I never used Pol Pot to defend waterboarding. I used him against the idea that it never elicits the truth. Your mind is easily bogged it seems. Is that a reading comprehension problem perhaps?

[Fred Beloit]

Reid Nine Steps. OK, all we need now, Worst, is evidence that the Reid system works better and faster than waterboarding for those hardest most important individuals. Any objective data around?

[Worst President Ever]

Webster's definition of torture would clearly include waterboarding:

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

3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/torture

[Wahoo Willie Sez:]

"3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument "

So according to Webster, you're torturing us.

[Worst President Ever]

Just cry for mercy, I'll stop.

[Wahoo Willie Sez:]

Give it up, agree to disagree for once, will ya?

[rwilymz]

"Webster's definition of torture would clearly include...."

It doesn't matter what Websters says, nor what American Collegiate says, nor what any other dictionary of popular usage says.

"Torture", insofar as it is a legal term carrying legal meaning, is defined by a lawful authority authorized to define it.

That doesn't include Websters.

Nor does it include the International Red Cross, nor Amnesty International, nor the UN, nor Students for a Democratic Society.

Wanna dispute me?

Wanna believe that folks with a really and truly ***sincere*** belief in a thing have the moral authority to impose their definitions upon the rest of us?

Great; then abortion is murder.

Because scads of folks who have a really, truly sincere belief in this philosophy have the same right you do: to impose extra-legal definitions upon the legal world.

...or does it work that way just for **you**?

[Fred Beloit]

"the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure" Definition provided through Worst.

Please answer one question, Worst, so I will know you are not nowinker. If you had, I say HAD, to choose one of the above or waterboarding to be used on you, which would it be? Burning? Crushing? Wounding, lets say by sword or dagger, you know like the terrorists use? Or waterboarding?

[Worst President Ever]

Sorry Wahoo.

First, you're the one that referenced "definition" with no qualifier. You wnat to argue about legal definitions, then post what niche you're pulling your definition from.

Lawful Authority? Like a treaty? Say the Geneva Conventions?

People have a common-sense understanding of what torture is which is closer to Websters than the Bush Administration's attempt to define torture down to organ failure, and then only if it was intentional. The voting public starts to wonder what kindof nation we're turning into.

Again, I'm not getting into hypothetical slippery slope arguments. Waterboarding is torture. Period.

[Wahoo Willie Sez:]

"Sorry Wahoo."

No need to apologize to me. I think we parted amicibly, agreeing to disagree. It's the goat farmer you're arguing with now. I'm "done wid it".

[Fred Beloit]

Guess I'll have to answer since nowinker/Worst won't. Nowinker chooses ... waterboarding. Why? Does no lasting harm, leaves no scars, damages no organs, no need for transfusions, stitches nor hospital stays. nowinker can go right back to her cell and dry off, no worse for the ware and feeling peaceful (confession is good for the soul).

[rwilymz]

"First, you're the one that referenced "definition" with no qualifier"

Right. Pardon me for presuming that when talking about what is presumed ilLEGAL the discussion would be centered around a LEGAL definition.

I forgot who I was responding to.

"Lawful Authority? Like a treaty? Say the Geneva Conventions?"

The GenCons prohibits torture, but does not define it.

"People have a common-sense understanding of what torture is which is closer to Websters"

I'd go so far as to say "the people" have a defition that is not merely "closer" to Websters, but identical to it.

But "the people's" "common sense understandings" of a great many things do not, and will not, pass legal muster.

"The voting public starts to wonder what kindof nation we're turning into."

And that voting public has a franchise right to insinuate itself into these discussions ... if it chooses to do so. We **are** a democratic republic, after all. We are not, on the other hand, a dictatorship, and so your "Waterboarding is torture. Period." is returned to sender as an apparent attempt to assert that Rule of Law is subordinate to your opinion.

If "We The People" wish to compel a review of the legal definition of torture we use in this country to include non-permanent injury and deprivations, or even hurting a captive's feelings, then so be it. But there are appropriate means of doing so.

I find it very ironic that someone spending as much time, effort and energy as you to claim the current administration to be tyrannical resorts to the same methods in countering it.

**Very** ironic.

[Worst President Ever]

Me saying water boarding is torture - check your history - is the equivalent of the tyrannical acts of the Bush Administration. Lacking a bit in perspective but none the less hilarious. ROTFLMAO!

The Bush Administration won't tell us whether they've tortured or not, or even what they think is legal or illegal. I guess fear of lawsuit or jail can do that.

The US made water-boarding illegal in the late 1800's. We tried and convicted at least one Japanese soldier for using water boarding on captured US soldiers.

These clauses of the Geneva Convention serve as an umbrella definition of conduct and torture. They many not explicitly say 'water boarding', but anyone reading them should know it's an outlawed technique:

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

And article 32 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:

The High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.

[rwilymz]

"The Bush Administration won't tell us whether they've tortured or not, or even what they think is legal or illegal. I guess fear of lawsuit or jail can do that."

As government officials, they are immune from civil liability and there's damned little they could do pursuant to the official duties which would land them in jail.

Being rude to foreign captives obtained in a military action would likely be the least plausible means of criminal prosecution.

"The US made water-boarding illegal in the late 1800's."

The US made the sale, possession and distribution of alcohol illegal in 1920.

"We tried and convicted at least one Japanese soldier for using water boarding on captured US soldiers."

No doubt. The winners in wars always have a pound of flesh to extract.

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever."

Great. No physical or mental torture.

What is "torture"?

Like I said: the GenCons prohibit it, but do not define it.

Why do just not stop when you are merely behind? Why do you insist on becoming behinder?

[Worst President Ever]

"Becoming behinder". You give yourself too much credit. Perhaps you've been listening to the Decider too much.

No one actually knows what the law on torture under Bush was, whether it was used, what the definition of torture was, etc. They're the ones that have cloaked it in secrecy.

Read it again, the Geneva Convention doesn't need to define torture - it's clear in outlawing any abuse of prisoners. But you'd prefer to argue over the meaning of what "is" is when it doesn't even apply.

"Becoming behinder". That's hilarious.

[Worst President Ever]

You need to let President Bush know he doesn't have to worry about prosecution, becuase Sept. 6, 2006 he seemed to have some concern:

"The problem is that these and other provisions of Common Article 3 are vague and undefined.

And each could be interpreted in different ways by American or foreign judges. And some believe our military and intelligence personnel involved in capturing terrorists and questioning terrorists could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act"

And:

A landmark report released today by two leading human rights groups concludes that U.S. officials who authorize or use "enhanced" interrogation techniques risk violating U.S. law and could face criminal prosecution. The CIA had suspended its interrogation program in 2005 out of reported concern about its legality. On July 20, President Bush issued an Executive Order that he claimed would allow that program to resume.

[rwilymz]

"You give yourself too much credit."

What can I say? I'm honest. And accurate.

While you are idealistic and naive.

"No one actually knows what the law on torture under Bush was"

Of course, Agent Mulder; of course.

"Read it again, the Geneva Convention doesn't need to define torture - it's clear in outlawing any abuse of prisoners"

This is priceless. That which you wish to assert as the superceding law on the matter doesn't need to define its terms.

You're now back to making the anti-abortionists' argument against abortion: it's murder. Why? Because "read it again: the law is clear."

If you're a Red Sox fan living in the tri-state area, you're going to be abused pretty heavily. Think that's covered here, too? If you're a Cubs fan living in the St Louis area, ditto. GenCons cover that? What is "abuse"?

You can't simply have terms hanging out with no definition; no what that leads to? It leads to superficial dinks like you coming in with a brand-spanking-new definition of "abuse" and peeing his pants all over about it.

"each could be interpreted in different ways by American or foreign judges"

Correct. For example: it has only been in the last year and a half that anyone anywhere would have considered nonuniformed combatants from third-party nations captured in hostile action to be "prisoners of war". It was universally accepted by everyone everywhere that these were mercenaries -- at a minumum -- and they were not uncommonly considered "saboteurs" [the pre-"terrorist-era" term for "terrorist"]. In either event, it was universally accepted that not one of the international conventions applied to them.

Why not?

Because if you'll read more of those international conventions than it takes to put up your academically dishonest front, you'll find out that the definitions these conventions **do** have specifically define who they apply to and, by exclusion, who they do not apply to.

And non-uniformed combatants from third-party nations are not included. Whereas in other international treaties dealing specifically with mercenaries, the definition of "mercinary" reads veryVeryVERY much like a who's who of the Taliban/al Qaida, and quite close to the various factions now fighting western hegemony in Iraq.

The US is a signatory party to these treaties. Know what we're allowed to do with mercenaries?

Ans: pretty much anything we want. In short: they have no rights worth getting misty-eyed over, let alone wetting your panties.

But, like I say, that was up until about a year and a half ago. What happened then?

Hamdan happened.

Hamdan flew in the face of GenCon history and completely rewrote US interpretation of it. And the US is obliged to follow its own interpretation, just like Iran is obliged to follow Iranian interpretation. ...these international treaties do not have superceding bodies with the authority to enforce and/or interpret international pacts.

The US is now THE ONLY NATION ON THE PLANET to consider a non-uniformed combatant from third-party nation captured in hostile action to be a "prisoner of war", and to give those POWs not merely the rights accorded them by the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, but also a handful of US CIVIL RIGHTS, which no aspect of international or domestic law has everEverEVER granted foreign combatants of any kind. POWs do not get loyyers, yet ours do.

"A landmark report released today by two leading human rights groups concludes that..."

And by what legal authority do they propose their conclusion be enforced?

As I said -- and as you would do yourself a great favor by paying attention to -- there is no supra-national enforcement/interpretive authority for international law. International law is, by definition, left up to local interpretation and voluntary enforcement.

Which is why the "allies" held German and Japanese soldiers accountable for doing things that soldiers always do in war: follow orders. Oh, sure, when the officer giving those orders was found, he was the one hung, but if the officer was dead, the "vengeance is mine, sayeth the victors" theory swung into full force and extracted the pound of flesh from whomever was available. What's the fun of fighting wars if you can't be the heavy-handed pseudo-moral victors,eh?

If you want any US administration individuals to be prosecuted for leading a war you don't like, then -- frankly -- you're going to have to ensure that the US loses the war, that the US is occupied by the forces we are fighting, and thus making us subject to **their** interpretation of these conventions.

I don't see that happening.

As for violating US laws, ... we've already got soldiers convicted for "mistreatment". And that's about all you're going to get.

Go change your knickers.

[Fred Beloit]

Worst choses two kinds of harsh treatment. (1) Waterboarding. (2)Arguing with rwily.

[Worst President Ever]

I write: "No one actually knows what the law on torture under Bush was"

TW write: "Of course, Agent Mulder; of course."

OK, please educate me. How does Bush define torture?

[rwilymz]

Here is a lesson in logic for you, free of charge.

The denial of a categorical imperative does not imply that the denier holds the proof.

More to the point, if you wish to know the exact wording of the relevant Acts or Orders, then contact your Congresscritter. It would be helpful, if said Critter were Democrat, to word your request in terms critical of the policies or, if Republican, in terms supportive.

When in Rome, as it were.

If, though, you would be satisfied with the Reader's Digest Condensed version, then you only need to go back up the page to where I previously gave it. It is my understanding that modifications to the policies the DoD is obliged to follow made in the early portion of Bush the Younger's term[s] were down in the details rather than sweeping changes in philosophy.

On the other hand, if you are attempting a wholly personalized quibble for the sake of insinuating on the Prez-dude instead of US Policy, "what does *Bush* consider 'torture', as opposed to what the US policy is on the matter", then take it elsewhere. There's undoubtedly many places where you'd be able to render your axiomatic beefs without the likes of me interfering with your fun.

[Worst President Ever]

Your "logical" dodge of rejecting my statements then refusing to say why is amusing. Not convincing, but amusing. The equivalent of a three year old's answer to why? "Cause". No appeal to facts or data. I'm wrong, why? Just "cause" So enlightening.

President Bush through John Yoo - known as Bush's Dr. Yes at the OLC - essentially got torture defined as he wanted it.

And reading your last paragraph, all I could think was, and he called me naive. But more likely you're just being disingenuous. I'm sure you're familiar with Bush's belief in the "unitary executive".

[rwilymz]

"Your "logical" dodge of rejecting my statements then refusing to say why is amusing."

And this description of my response is amusing in itself, due to its sheer dishonesty.

I did not "dodge" your question.

If you'd have read the whole response -- and understood what it said -- then you'd have read, essentially, the loyyerly response to an argumentative opposing counsel, to wit: "Asked and answered".

In short, dinkus, that question was answered lo-o-ong ago.

Now if you're done playing dishonest word games...?