Conservative radio hosts gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before saying its torture

reply to post by WhatTheory


EXACTLY!!! Thank you for your post.......the people that feel so high and mighty have not seen the results of torture on an American citizen serving his country as I have......The idiotic "high road" completely ignores and devalues the simple fact that the group that perpetrated a killing of over 3000 Americans is very willing to do it again.....To reiterate, waterboarding is not torture because it is not intending to do bodily harm (per USC).....

If your son or daughter were about to be beheaded, would your "values" enable you to not waterboard to find out where?

Originally posted by CityIndian
Ah so we can expect your YouTube video any time now?

Juts to help you get the technique right...

I have been waterboarded and while it is very unpleasant, it sure in the hell is NOT torture.

You probably also believe that putting the terrorists in a cold cell naked without sleep is torture also right?

You have no idea what real torture is.

reply to post by WhatTheory

Waterboarding is NOT torture. Bamboo under fingernails IS torture. Cutting off heads IS torture. Burning flesh and hanging from a bridge IS torture. Hammer to toes and fingers IS torture. Waterboarding is NOT torture. Waterboarding is mental and not physical.

Bamboo under fingernails is torture. TRUE
Cutting off heads is torture. FALSE That is death..instant death at that.
Burning flesh is torture. TRUE
Hanging from a bridge. False...unless they are kept from dying...then it's true.
Waterboarding is not torture. FALSE Whether it's mental or phsyical..to feel as though you are drowning..with no intent to actually kill you...IS TORTURE.

Torture is not death...torture is pain and suffering to extract information.
You cannot get information WHEN YOU ARE DEAD.

Put bamboo under my nails and burn my flesh and i'll shout out sweet nothing and anything else that i think will stop the pain.

Look at my former post on what the definition of TORTURE is.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by its bologna
reply to post by WhatTheory

 

If its not torture, then why did we help prosecute the Japanese for it after WW2?

You do realize that the Japanese version of waterboarding is not the same as what we currently think of waterboarding right? Their method was deadly.

If it is torture, then I guess our military tortures it's own soldiers since it is part of their training.

No, there were those who lived to tell the tale.. so it must not have been deadly...and you can't be tortured if you are dead...

Here is an account from the War Crimes trials:

The most detailed descriptions come from eyewitness accounts and court records from wars past. The following is a transcript of the 1947 court proceedings in the trial of a World War II Japanese war criminal: Chinsaku Yuki. He was accused of the torture and murder of Philippine civilians, and ultimately convicted and sentenced to life in prison. This exchange is between the American prosecutor, Col. Keeley, and Filipino lawyer Ramon Navarro, who was subjected to waterboarding.

Col. Keeley: And then did he take you back to your room?

Navarro: When Yuki could not get anything out of me, he wanted the interpreter to place me down below. And I was told by Yuki to take off all my clothes, so what I did was to take off my clothes as ordered. I was ordered to lay on a bench and Yuki tied my feet, hands and neck to that bench, lying with my face upward. After I was tied to the bench, Yuki placed some cloth on my face. And then with water from the faucet, they poured on me until I became unconscious. He repeated that four or five times.

You mean he brought water and poured water down your throat?

No sir, on my face, until I became unconscious. We were lying that way, with some cloth on my face, and then Yuki poured water on my face continuously.

And you couldn't breathe?

No, I could not, and so I, for a time, lost consciousness. I found my consciousness came back again and found Yuki was sitting on my stomach. And then I vomited the water from my stomach, and the consciousness came back again for me.

Where did the water come out when he sat on your stomach?

From my mouth and all openings of my face ... and then Yuki would repeat the same treatment and the same procedure to me until I became unconscious again.

How many times did that happen?

Around four or five times, from two o'clock up to four o'clock in the afternoon. When I was not able to endure his punishment which I received, I told a lie to Yuki ... . I could not really show anything to Yuki, because I was really lying just to stop the torture.

Was it painful?

Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious — like drowning in the water.

Like you were drowning?

Drowning. You could hardly breathe.

Source: Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 2007

Here is the article..

It sounds like the same exact deal to me.


[edit on 22-5-2009 by its bologna]

Originally posted by sos37
How can someone who has actually served their country in a military capacity, possibly even seen the enemy face to face, have such a cavalier attitude about your own countrymen as opposed to foreigners who would see us either converted to Islam or destroyed? I don't know how old you are, but is it because you weren't supported by America upon your return from Vietnam that you have such hate for your fellow Americans?

Dude you've to stop believing what the MSM is telling you.

Muslims don't want you dead, they want you out of their affairs.

I remember in history the Christians did just what people claim the Muslims are doing. In fact spreading christianity was used as an excuse to infiltrate many third world countries for anything but christianity.

The MSM are experts at demonizing groups of people to perpetuate whatever agenda.

Originally posted by mikerussellus


I also served, but as far as I knew, we weren't signators to the Geneva Convention. While we agree to it, we didn't sign it. I'll follow up to make sure that I'm right, but I distictly remember our USAF briefings about the subject.

Yeah, we not only signed it we ratified it as well. Source

Its also worth noting that there are 4 distinct Geneva Conventions, and we signed and ratified all 4 of them. The third one protects Uniformed Soldiers, and the fourth one protects non-uniformed combatants and civilians. Therefore any torturing the United States does (no matter if the subject is uniformed or not), is considered a violation of international law.

Originally posted by David9176
Cutting off heads is torture. FALSE That is death..instant death at that.

WRONG!
I guess you did not see the Pearl video. The knife the terrorists used was not sharp. Pearl was yelling and making unimaginable sounds while they were slowly sawing through his neck.

Sorry, but that was not an instant death.

Look at my former post on what the definition of TORTURE is.

I don't care what your definition of torture is. I can decide for myself. I don't need others telling me how and what to think.

I need to reply to a previous post I made, concerning the US being signers of the Geneva Convention.
We are.
My bad.

But we did so with 'provisions' and did not ratify specific points to the Geneva Convention.

see below. . .

In 1882, U.S. President Chester Arthur signed the treaty, making the U.S. the 32nd nation to do so. The U.S. Senate ratified it shortly thereafter. At the same time, the American Association of the Red Cross was formed (many nations had begun to create their own Red Cross organizations in concert with the first Geneva Convention).

The second Geneva Convention in 1907 extended protection to wounded armed forces at sea and to shipwreck victims. The third convention in 1929 detailed the humane treatment of prisoners of war. The fourth convention in 1949 revised the previous conventions and addressed the rights of civilians in times of war. This convention is said to be the cornerstone of modern humanitarian law. It was amended in 1977 with two protocols that further protect civilians during wartime and address armed conflicts within a nation.

According to the Red Cross/Red Crescent, the U.S. has signed each of these international agreements. However, a signature does not bind a nation to the treaty unless the document has also been ratified by that nation (in the U.S., Congress ratifies such treaties). Generally, these treaties are open for signature for a limited time period after they're written. The U.S. ratified all the Geneva Conventions with the exception of the two protocols of 1977.


I found this on a yahoo search, there were too many inputs from a google search. Don't know who to attribute this to though, sorry.

I have to agree that it is an effective technique and not torture. Torture in my mind is something that leaves you maimed or anything that involves the mutilation of living things, like people or animals. Water boarding causes someone to experience a drowning sensation, but it's not like someone is chopping off their fingers. Chopping off body parts like they do in the middle-east is torture. It's a safe bet to say that just about anyone could fully recover after being water-boarded.

Originally posted by its bologna
No, there were those who lived to tell the tale.. so it must not have been deadly...and you can't be tortured if you are dead...

Oh good grief!
I did not say that it was 100% fatal. Of course some would live. It depends on how extreme and intense the session was.

Yeah, and you can be tortured right up to the point when you do die.

reply to post by drwizardphd


Its been 35 years since I went through basic but I knew we had ratified the Geneva conventions... and yes they are like all international treaties that we sign and ratify are the law of the land... and the Geneva convention defines water boarding torture so the administration broke international law by doing so.

Some people only get their news from faux news and mush loosebowels and you can tell them by their cookie cutter arguments and poor logic in them.

Originally posted by laiguana
I have to agree that it is an effective technique and not torture. Torture in my mind is something that leaves you maimed or anything that involves the mutilation of living things, like people or animals. Water boarding causes someone to experience a drowning sensation, but it's not like someone is chopping off their fingers. Chopping off body parts like they do in the middle-east is torture. It's a safe bet to say that just about anyone could fully recover after being water-boarded.

Someone could fully recover after losing fingers too..

US law defines includes torture as a "threat of imminent death". Waterboarding is that. Those who undergo it feel like they are going to die.

Its not just Geneva conventions that makes this illegal, its also US law.

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by WhatTheory

 

Waterboarding is NOT torture. Bamboo under fingernails IS torture. Cutting off heads IS torture. Burning flesh and hanging from a bridge IS torture. Hammer to toes and fingers IS torture. Waterboarding is NOT torture. Waterboarding is mental and not physical.

Bamboo under fingernails is torture. TRUE
Cutting off heads is torture. FALSE That is death..instant death at that.
Burning flesh is torture. TRUE
Hanging from a bridge. False...unless they are kept from dying...then it's true.
Waterboarding is not torture. FALSE Whether it's mental or phsyical..to feel as though you are drowning..with no intent to actually kill you...IS TORTURE.

Torture is not death...torture is pain and suffering to extract information.
You cannot get information WHEN YOU ARE DEAD.

Put bamboo under my nails and burn my flesh and i'll shout out sweet nothing and anything else that i think will stop the pain.

Look at my former post on what the definition of TORTURE is.

The way they behead someone is not instantaneous. Therefore, the one beheaded dies a very painful death.

Originally posted by WhatTheory
I have been waterboarded and while it is very unpleasant, it sure in the hell is NOT torture.

Prove it! And I'll be waiting for that also, otherwise it's just empty words from an anonymous nobody.

Edit; Oh yeah I just had a thought, so if it's only unpleasant then you wouldn't mind doing it again? Just, you know, put your money, or water, where your mouth is?

You probably also believe that putting the terrorists in a cold cell naked without sleep is torture also right?

You have no idea what real torture is.

Oh OK, so now you want to stereotype me? You've probably already labeled me liberal, so I'm not going to waste my time answering your loaded off topic question.

Real torture? Who get's to define what is 'real' torture? It ain't you mate...

[edit on 22-5-2009 by CityIndian]

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by its bologna
No, there were those who lived to tell the tale.. so it must not have been deadly...and you can't be tortured if you are dead...

Oh good grief!

I did not say that it was 100% fatal. Of course some would live. It depends on how extreme and intense the session was.

Yeah, and you can be tortured right up to the point when you do die.

So by my account, its the same as what we were doing..No?

It sounds identical to me.

reply to post by WhatTheory

I don't care what your definition of torture is. I can decide for myself. I don't need others telling me how and what to think.

It's not MY definition of what torture is.

It's dictionary.com's definition of torture.

But then again...you make up meanings for words yourself so why bother right?

I think everyone in this thread ranting about how waterboarding is not torture should have the guts to try this guy's little experiment for themselves

I've never understood how it is that the first ones to wave the flag in your face are always the first to drag the flag and everything its supposed to stand for through the mud.

Originally posted by its bologna

Someone could fully recover after losing fingers too..

Um...no because you would be missing fingers. Fingers are essential in doing just about any task.


Water-boarding is not torture....just because it causes an undesired drowning sensation, after all this is an interrogation technique and isn't meant to be pleasant. I don't see how it could be regarded in the same manner as other forms of torture where people are severely injured or maimed after just one session.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

I don't care what your definition of torture is. I can decide for myself. I don't need others telling me how and what to think.

Yeah but its not up to you to determine what the definition of torture is. I'm pretty sure the people who wrote international law 60 years ago had a better idea of what torture was than some armchair-general who seems to think anything we do to get information is justified because 'the enemy did it, so can we'.

It's their definition of torture that matters, not yours.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by drwizardphd]

The Price Of Freedom

The arguments in favor of torture in this thread and elsewhere illustrate quite clearly how easy it is for otherwise good people to condone unethical and immoral conduct when it satisfies their prejudices.

Perhaps more than any other single thing, I think it exemplifies why limited government, accountable to the people is so essential for the maintenance of a free society.

I deplore and reject the argument that abuse or maltreatment of prisoners of any country -- especially the United States -- is somehow justified by the perceived necessities of the moment.

It's not. It never is.

Here in the twenty-first century, if this is what the United States of America is relying on to obtain intelligence, we need either more competent methods or more competent people pursuing it.

This is wrong. We're better than this.

Suggestions to the contrary are a grave insult to the United States and its people.




(Just my personal opinion, nothing more.)