Welcome to PatsFans.com

Waterboarding used to be a crime..

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by DarrylS, Apr 22, 2008.

  1. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,851
    Likes Received:
    90
    Ratings:
    +151 / 3 / -19

    Have seen several links to this recently, and low and behold after WWII we prosecuted japanese for waterboarding our soldiers.. the US has also imprisoned law enforcement people for the same, why is it different now??

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../11/02/AR2007110201170.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

    The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

    After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. 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."

    Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

    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.
    \
    In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."

    The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
  2. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    36
    Ratings:
    +89 / 31 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    The Genova Convention protects UNIFORMED SOILDERS from waterboarding, not terrorists. I know that the left doesn't think so, but there is a big difference between the two.
  3. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    37,713
    Likes Received:
    258
    Ratings:
    +478 / 2 / -10

    #87 Jersey


    It's rather mind boggling how the left equates these as similar. I guess in their 1 dimensional brain killing is killing?
  4. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,881
    Likes Received:
    120
    Ratings:
    +303 / 1 / -9

    IS IT AGAINST THE LAW TO CUT SOMEBODYS HEAD OFF

    IS IT AGAINST THE LAW FOR A SMELLY TATTOOED PERSON TO "DRIVE BY" BY A HOUSE AND SHOOT A LITTLE OLD LADY IN A ROCKING CHAIR.

    :bricks:
    _________________________________________________
    American Bastards
  5. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Were the Japanese convicted of torture?
  6. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,851
    Likes Received:
    90
    Ratings:
    +151 / 3 / -19

    If a terrorists wears a uniform that terrorist cannot be waterboarded??? There is a lot of room for interpretation here... a terrorist can run around naked with a cross around his neck, and after arrest say he is in the uniform of the lord or something stupid..

    Bottom line is that we prosecuted a sheriff for doing this, we prosecuted japanese for doing this it is wrong pure and simple.
  7. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Because an op-ed in the WaPo said it was?
  8. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Way to assign a strawman position to an entire group of people, and then insult them all in one felled swoop.

    This is about principle, not some convenient loophole in the Geneva that chickenhawks love to hide behind... That Afghanie taxi driver our interrogators killed was neither a uniformed soldier OR a terrorist. Unfortunately, it's torture supporters who "equate them all as similar." :rolleyes:
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2008
  9. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Speaking of the strawman position...blah blah...insulting...blah blah. :rolleyes:
    If you were more intelligent, I'd think you were being bitterly ironic. However, you're not, so I imagine you're simply being stupid, as usual.
  10. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,881
    Likes Received:
    120
    Ratings:
    +303 / 1 / -9

    In the Middle East water boarding is for Sissy's, "tongue removal" or "disemboweling" is more manly.
    _________________________________________________________
    American Bastards
  11. Turk

    Turk Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0


    FBN,

    The point here is that there is an accepted, lawful way to interrogate and that we are playing with the rules and not by the rules.
    Some do not find that shocking by the way, and that ends up defeating our purpose.

    The CIA torture centers around the world did not exactly do wonders for our cause and any self respecting American should be ashamed of our participation in such activity.

    The left does take a stand against such activity and does hold those who take part in it responsible, because it is simply the right thing to do.

    We as Americans have a higher standard that we hold ourselves to, therefore it is not only our right but our responsibility to hold our elected officials to the same.

    You do not become respectable because you say that you are, you become respectable because of your standards and your actions being the same. You do what you say and you say what you do.

    What seperates us from them, is our commitment to those standards that we live by.
    That's what makes us human, not to mention morally superior.

    We do not get to choose whom we are going to apply the rules to and who we are going to hold exempt. That would make us no different than the very animals that we are fighting.

    And frankly, I am suprised at the cheap shot that you took at a whole bunch of your fellow Americans, as well, with that Rovian comment. You know in your heart of hearts that comments is just not true.

    Turk
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2008
  12. Turk

    Turk Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0



    Are you Qui-Gon, posting under a new name?
  13. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,731
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2

    ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I love you Harry! :eat2:
  14. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I was posting here when Obi-Wan (and Luke) were posting. So the answer to that is "no".
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2008
  15. Turk

    Turk Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    You two should move in together.

    And since you seem to love their ways so much...
    How about a lovely one room dirt shack in S. Baghdad?
  16. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Everybody loves Harry. Except for Pressy, who broke his heart.
  17. Turk

    Turk Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Originally Posted by Turk
    Are you Qui-Gon, posting under a new name?


    Ok, But...

    I asked about Qui-Gon, not Obi-Wan?

    How did you know they were the same person?
  18. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,731
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2

    Terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Convention. Terrorism, while it's existed for quite a long time, is a relatively new global risk, or should I say, is a more prominent global concern, than ever before. The reason for this is obvious, 9/11. Clearly terrorism's risk involves more than a bombed cafe, or a plane hijacking, like it had in the past. It's enablers have shown the magnitude with which they are willing to kill the innocent. The question with respect to terrorists, versus uniformed, is the extent to which we're willing to protect each. A soldier is bound by the Geneva Convention, whereas a terrorist is not. Therefore, should a terrorist be afforded it's protections? What the government was trying to do last year, was answer that question, by laying out what's acceptable practice, and what's not. Personally I find this to be a difficult question. Should I afford savages who will kill babies in cold blood the same protections that civilized people receive? Is it a flat yes, and straight no, or somewhere in between?
  19. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,731
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2

    Nah, I kinda like my pad in East Chels-LA. ;)

    Don't take offense Turk. I thought what he said was funny. It's called a sense of humor.
  20. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0


    Because lots of people talk about it, both in posts and in PM's. I actually chatted a bit via PM with Obi before that name got banned too.

    Plus, if you're really smart and creative, you could go up to the sticky thread "Rules" and read a few pages of discussion about it.

    Or you could just keep trying to insinuate I'm someone else. I mean hell, NEM did it for a while before he got sh!t canned.


    Specifically, the "Rules" thread starting on page 7. Just to help you out.

    Any time you feel like apologizing, you'll find I'm very gracious about accepting them.

    :D
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2008

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>