Ronald Reagan, an idol to many conservatives, was opposed to torture. In fact, here’s what he said in his signing statement ratifying the UN Convention on Torture from 1984 (emphasis mine):
“The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.
The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called ‘universal jurisdiction.’ Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.”
That’s a pretty unambiguous statement.
Now I know many conservatives will say waterboarding isn’t torture, so let’s take a look at what waterboarding is and how the United Nations Convention Against Torture defines torture. Waterboarding is a technique that induces panic and suffering by forcing a person to inhale water into the sinuses, pharynx, larynx, and trachea. Now here’s the definition of torture, as defined by the UN Convention Against Torture (emphasis mine):
The term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession
So let’s recap…waterboarding is a technique that induces panic and suffering in recipients, and the UN Convention Against Torture defines torture as any act in which pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is inflicted on a person. It seems pretty unambiguous to me that waterboarding is torture, and as such is illegal.
H/T to Victor Ponelis of Lake Country Liberal.
“You have your hunch…” Not a hunch. It’s a fact that many many thousands of us endured it. That makes it common. Just a FACT, not a hunch.
“Well, I did it so I know, it’s not torture.” That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that it’s common, so it does not rise to the level of cruel, nor unusual, nor severe.
Calling facts…hunches is spin. Misrepresenting my stance…..is spin.
Man, you must get dizzy. (Just kidding)
The fact is, it is a war crime to waterboard, because it is torture in our nation.
Spin that however you want, it is a fact.
(As an aside, it would help to be sure that we are understanding one another. When I referred to “your hunch,” I was speaking about your hunch that waterboarding is not “serious.” I was NOT talking about whether you did or didn’t undergo waterboarding. You cant tell that this is what I meant by looking at what I said:
“You have your hunch about whether or not waterboarding is serious and I have mine.”
I’m sorry you didn’t understand my point. We’ll all do better if we stick to what the other person has actually stated instead of debating points no one has made, yes?)
I’m saying that it’s common, so it does not rise to the level of cruel, nor unusual, nor severe.
Something being common is not a test as to whether or not it’s severe. New York commonly has severe winters. Kentucky commonly has severe spring storms with severe tornadoes. I’m sure we can agree on this point.
So the question was not whether or not waterboarding is “common.” The definition of torture in question is:
“any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person”
And you questioned whether or not waterboarding rose to the level of “severe pain or suffering.” We think it does and, as I’ve stated repeatedly, the law of the US says it is.
If you wish to try to change the law, you may, but you’ll have to do a better job of presenting your case.
“The fact is, it is a war crime to waterboard, because it is torture in our nation.” Would you please be so kind to support that with a link to a document? I’ll read it, see for myself, then if what you claim is true, then I’ll help you spread the truth around.
“I was speaking about your hunch that waterboarding is not “serious.” ” Again, not a hunch. It’s a fact that it is common, because many many thousands of us endured it. That makes it common. Just a FACT, not a hunch.
John McCain on November 29, 2007:
” … following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding.”
politifact.com
At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: “I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure.” He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. “Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning,” he replied, “just gasping between life and death…
As a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were not the only defendants convicted in such cases. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the “water cure” to question Filipino guerrillas.”
washington post
Rich said:
Again, not a hunch. It’s a fact that it is common, because many many thousands of us endured it. That makes it common. Just a FACT, not a hunch.
Again, Rich, I’d ask you to please look at what I actually said. I didn’t say it wasn’t common, okay? I have not said, “waterboarding is not common,” no where have I said those words or suggested anything of the sort. This was not my comment. Okay?
My comment was that it is your hunch that it is not SERIOUS. “Serious” is not a synonym for “common,” right? You do, in fact, have a hunch, an opinion. That hunch is that waterboarding is not serious. My hunch/opinion is that it IS serious (which is why we’ve prosecuted people for it), rising to the level of torture.
But your hunch or my hunch about whether or not waterboarding is SERIOUS (not “common,” but “serious”) are besides the point, since our gov’t has already recognized waterboarding as torture. That is the fact with which you will need to deal.
And now that you have the source, you can help spread the word that waterboarding is already recognized as a war crime and we can’t do it unless and until we change our laws.
Thanks!
“You do, in fact, have a hunch, an opinion. That hunch is that waterboarding is not serious.” No I do not. It is indeed serious. But as I understand it, seriousness is not a criterion for it being illegal. Heck, voting is serious.
“The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding.”
What the Japanese did was different. i.e. not the same as the SERE/CIA technique. To say otherwise is petty stinky spin.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834
“Yuki placed some cloth on my face. And then with water from the FAUCET, they poured on me until I became UNCONSCIOUS.”
Please would you be so kind to show me where the SERE/CIA techniques use a faucet and go to the point of unconsciousness. Show me that and I’ll back you 100%.
From the NPR source:
Details are hard to come by, since no government will openly acknowledge using the interrogation method. Over the years, the technique has been modified slightly. The Japanese, for instance, used teapots to hold the water, and cellophane is sometimes used instead of a cloth. But waterboarding has changed very little in the past 500 years. It still relies on the innate fear of drowning and suffocating to coerce confessions.
Is this incorrect? Does it give you the sensation of drowning?
for most of us, I suspect, that reaches the criteria of “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person”
And I apologize. I mistakenly used the word “serious,” instead of “severe,” which is where this conversation began. “Severe Pain or Suffering,” the legal description goes. You questioned whether or not it was “severe” when you said:
Please would you please be so kind as to define “severe”?
Let me help you if I may. Since we do it to our own troops it can not be severe. So, therefore it does NOT rise to the level of torture. And it is NOT illegal.
I’ve been trying to say that it is your hunch/opinion that it is not “SEVERE pain or suffering,” and it is my hunch/opinion that waterboarding DOES cause “SEVERE pain or suffering.” You are welcome to your hunch. I believe the law is settled on this point.
Rich said:
What the Japanese did was different. i.e. not the same as the SERE/CIA technique. To say otherwise is petty stinky spin…
“Yuki placed some cloth on my face. And then with water from the FAUCET, they poured on me until I became UNCONSCIOUS.”
Please would you be so kind to show me where the SERE/CIA techniques use a faucet and go to the point of unconsciousness.
Are you seriously saying that it makes a difference between using a faucet or some other source of water? I’m sure we could agree that it wouldn’t matter what the source of water was.
Here’s a ABC report on what happened:
Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.
According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda’s toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.
I’m not sure that it’s critical to the torture whether or not the victim passes out from the process. Is that your position? If one passes out from waterboarding, it’s torture and if one does not pass out, it’s okay?
I would still disagree and believe our laws will hold this to be true.
You are still welcome to your hunch, though.
“I’m not sure that it’s critical to the torture whether or not the victim passes out from the process.” I’m not sure either. But what I do know for a fact is that what the Japanese did is different! That’s just plain and simple truth. There’s no opinion necessary. Why not admit to the truth? (OBTW you left out the steady stream from a faucet.)
“Since we do it to our own troops it can not be severe.” Call that a hunch if you’d like. Heck, I’ll help ya: It is most definitely, no doubt about it, it’s a hunchy fo funchy. Call it Fred Finklestein. By any name it’s sound logic, easily understood, and only someone engaged in petty politics deny that. At least according to another ‘hunch’. And I (and my hunches) could be very wrong. I often am.
Even if my hunch is trumped by your hunch. Isn’t that trumping a policy decision?
I don’t consider the prosecution of war crimes to be petty politics.
Peace.
I never claimed that the “prosecution of war crimes” was petty. Far from it. It’s not only merely significant; it’s really most sincerely significant.
I only accused those that DENY “…that since we do it to our own troops it can not be severe…” of being petty. It’s that DENIAL that’s petty. Why deny easliy understood sound logic?
If it’s wrong, please show us all how it’s wrong. (OBTW, calling it names like a “hunch” doesn’t work. It can take it. It’s not only sound logic. It’s tough too.)
Thanks for blowing up my Blackberry today, guys.
:p
To the morons claiming waterboarding is not torture: Japanese soldiers were tried and finally put to death for waterboarding American soldiers. Case closed. I think the same trials and punishment are in order for those who ordered it and those who justified it and those who followed the orders.
Rick, sorry that your comment didn’t get posted until today; you got caught in my spam filter for some strange reason. I agree with your point regarding waterboarding. It is torture, and we’re hypocrites for prosecuting others for the same practices we’re now utilizing.
I heard the reason why the Japanese soldiers were tried for torture when they waterboarded was because of the *way* they did it.
Zach…ALL people are hypocrites.
Anon, while the Japanese may have used different methods, the result is the same: simulated drowning. The whole intent of waterboarding is to make the person who’s being waterboarded feel as if they’re drowning.