George W Bush claims UK lives 'saved by waterboarding'

BecMacFeegle wrote:War is not, however, an excuse to abandon all pretence of civilisation, nor does it give any side carte blanche to ignore basic human rights.

True but the militant Islamists aren't civilized. They aren't going to play by the rules. They never have and they never will. They aren't going to "negotiate' and talk nice about anything. What do you do?

True but the militant Islamists aren't civilized. They aren't going to play by the rules. They never have and they never will. They aren't going to "negotiate' and talk nice about anything. What do you do?

So when your enemy is barbaric, you should be barbaric too? You appear to be advocating fighting fire with fire. Sometimes, rules are the only things that keep us civilised.

And what are you proposing torture is the answer to?

Resisting the dehumanisation of people and objecting to the justification of torture is what I do. If you treat people like animals, they will act like animals. And if you act like an animal, then they will then they will treat you as such.

BecMacFeegle wrote:So when your enemy is barbaric, you should be barbaric too? You appear to be advocating fighting fire with fire. Sometimes, rules are the only things that keep us civilised.

And what are you proposing torture is the answer to?

Resisting the dehumanisation of people and objecting to the justification of torture is what I do. If you treat people like animals, they will act like animals. And if you act like an animal, then they will then they will treat you as such.

You fight the war (as Dbl said) to win. I can't help but agree with a statement he made yesterday that as we keep pussy-footing around with this war, it'll drag on for a generation.

I don't advocate pulling fingernails out and all the other shit the Japanese did during WWII... at all. To me personally, waterboarding isn't torture. But that's just me.

As for your solution.... that's what we are currently doing and we have no end in sight fighting with these animals.

BecMacFeegle wrote:There is no justification for torturing other human beings. None. Nor is there any reason to suppose that there are any tangible benefits from carrying out such an activity.

First of all, as I've said before, I do not consider waterboarding torture. Second, we can most certainly say that we gained some very tangible benefits from the 3 terrorists that were waterboarded, as the article that kicked this thread off notes. It thwarted many planned attacks here and abroad, including in the UK. Many people were saved from gruesome deaths or maiming, and no terrorists died, or were maimed or crippled or even so much as scratched to get that information.

BecMacFeegle wrote:

War is hell. It is supposed to be on purpose and a discouragement against so readily waging it.

War is hell in its very nature - not by design to stop people from engaging in it. War is not, however, an excuse to abandon all pretence of civilisation, nor does it give any side carte blanche to ignore basic human rights.

Once you begin to consider morality an acceptable casualty of war, as collateral damage - then there's nothing left worth fighting for.

Fight fire with fire? You end up with nothing but scorched earth and burnt flesh.

You are right, war is hell by its very nature, if one is actually waging war. What we are currently waging is some defective hybrid of war that is more than hell, it is a prolonged and agonizing hell.

And I have never suggested that we abandon all pretense of civilization. Hell, look at how unbelievably well we treat those illegal enemy combatants (the ones that violated about every international law) we have at Gitmo. We didn't have to, even under international law, but we provided them with their own copies of the Qur'an, prayer rugs, religiously appropriate attire, and 3 meals a day that are in compliance with their religion. Many of these prisoners are eating better than they ever have in their lives. I would submit that this is highly civilized, above and beyond what the law requires.

Out of the hundreds if not thousands of illegal enemy combatants that we have captured, only 3 were waterboarded. To equate this with the complete abandonment of civilized behavior is just ludicrous.

As for the "fight fire with fire" comment, I am not suggesting any such thing. What I AM suggesting is that we take a look at our ROE which are even more restrictive than international law requires, all in the name of political correctness. Political correctness has no legitimate place on the battlefield. If the enemy is waging their war from a mosque, then that mosque now becomes fair game as a battlefield target - period! Our ROE even prevent us from being the first to fire on the enemy... we must wait, even if we KNOW for certain that they are the enemy, for them to fire at us! It is insanity! This is NOT how to fight a war!

I'm not saying we wage a scorched earth war or carpet bomb the whole country, I'm just saying we need to introduce some sanity and common sense into this conflict and get the political correctness the hell out of the battlefield. We have to realize that innocent people are going to die because of the nature of the enemies tactics. We try our very best to minimize that, but where the enemy leaves us no choice, then we do what we have to do. War is hell. Let's try to make that hell not last so damn long.

"Political correctness"? There have been rules of engagement ever since there was such a thing as organised warfare; it can hardly be called political correctness. You need to stop seeing liberal conspiracies everywhere.

Further, the Judge in the Ghailani case saw fit to dismiss all evidence obtained through his torture so that was a complete waste of time.

TexasBlue wrote:

BecMacFeegle wrote:So when your enemy is barbaric, you should be barbaric too? You appear to be advocating fighting fire with fire. Sometimes, rules are the only things that keep us civilised.

And what are you proposing torture is the answer to?

Resisting the dehumanisation of people and objecting to the justification of torture is what I do. If you treat people like animals, they will act like animals. And if you act like an animal, then they will then they will treat you as such.

You fight the war (as Dbl said) to win. I can't help but agree with a statement he made yesterday that as we keep pussy-footing around with this war, it'll drag on for a generation.

I don't advocate pulling fingernails out and all the other shit the Japanese did during WWII... at all. To me personally, waterboarding isn't torture. But that's just me.

As for your solution.... that's what we are currently doing and we have no end in sight fighting with these animals.

Water boarding isn't torture? You don't consider something which creates the gag reflex of drowning, which can cause serious lung damage, intense pain, and long term psychological trauma - not to mention death - torture? In that case, your definition of torture is so restrictive as to be meaningless.

A war which will drag on for a generation? Then it drags on for a generation. War takes as long as it takes - it's not something you get to place a time limit on. That's no justification for torture - nor any reason to suppose that torture would help to end it any quicker.

And which 'animals' are you referring to?

dblboggie wrote:

BecMacFeegle wrote:There is no justification for torturing other human beings. None. Nor is there any reason to suppose that there are any tangible benefits from carrying out such an activity.

First of all, as I've said before, I do not consider waterboarding torture. Second, we can most certainly say that we gained some very tangible benefits from the 3 terrorists that were waterboarded, as the article that kicked this thread off notes. It thwarted many planned attacks here and abroad, including in the UK. Many people were saved from gruesome deaths or maiming, and no terrorists died, or were maimed or crippled or even so much as scratched to get that information.

First of all, as I said to Tex, if you don't consider something which causes the gag reflex of drowning, which can cause intense pain, permanent lung damage, psychological trauma and even death - then your definition of torture is so removed from what it actually means as to be totally meaningless.

That article claims to have thwarted many planned attacks using water boarding. It offers no evidence. The position of the British government of the time, as far as that article states, is that they doubt information gained through water boarding prevented any attacks. And how do you know no terrorists were maimed or crippled? Are you aware of the reports coming out of Guantanamo Bay? So don't give me any nonsense about suspected terrorists not being tortured or abused.

dblboggie wrote:

BecMacFeegle wrote:

War is hell. It is supposed to be on purpose and a discouragement against so readily waging it.

War is hell in its very nature - not by design to stop people from engaging in it. War is not, however, an excuse to abandon all pretence of civilisation, nor does it give any side carte blanche to ignore basic human rights.

Once you begin to consider morality an acceptable casualty of war, as collateral damage - then there's nothing left worth fighting for.

Fight fire with fire? You end up with nothing but scorched earth and burnt flesh.

You are right, war is hell by its very nature, if one is actually waging war. What we are currently waging is some defective hybrid of war that is more than hell, it is a prolonged and agonizing hell.

It's also our fault however you look at it - and we've stuffed it up to such an extent that abandoning our standards and morality at this point - and treating our enemies as they animals they view us to be - with good reason, at times - then we have lost all hope. We are in this for the long haul. Trying to rush to the finish by sacrificing our own standards is not the answer - it will do nothing but create more enemies.

And I have never suggested that we abandon all pretense of civilization. Hell, look at how unbelievably well we treat those illegal enemy combatants (the ones that violated about every international law) we have at Gitmo. We didn't have to, even under international law, but we provided them with their own copies of the Qur'an, prayer rugs, religiously appropriate attire, and 3 meals a day that are in compliance with their religion. Many of these prisoners are eating better than they ever have in their lives. I would submit that this is highly civilized, above and beyond what the law requires.

Seriously? You're going to offer Guantanamo as an example of 'civility'? Because you give them as few prayer mats? To treat them well does not mean to treat them 'comparatively well compared to what they're used to'. It means giving them the same treatment you would give to criminals in your own country or any other prisoner of war. And the abuse and torture carried out at Guantanamo totally destroys any claim that it in any way offers an example of 'civilised' behaviour.

As for attempting to create a false distinction between uniformed soldiers and 'illegal combatants' - it is a nonsensical, immoral and dangerous attempt to side-step international law.

Out of the hundreds if not thousands of illegal enemy combatants that we have captured, only 3 were waterboarded. To equate this with the complete abandonment of civilized behavior is just ludicrous.

As for the "fight fire with fire" comment, I am not suggesting any such thing. What I AM suggesting is that we take a look at our ROE which are even more restrictive than international law requires, all in the name of political correctness. Political correctness has no legitimate place on the battlefield. If the enemy is waging their war from a mosque, then that mosque now becomes fair game as a battlefield target - period! Our ROE even prevent us from being the first to fire on the enemy... we must wait, even if we KNOW for certain that they are the enemy, for them to fire at us! It is insanity! This is NOT how to fight a war!

Political correctness? We're talking about torture. And THAT is what the 'fight fire with fire' comment was clearly about. Please don't attempt to blur the issue. I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that the only reason torture is not allowed is because it would be seen as politically incorrect. I know nothing of your ROE, but if your soldiers really can't or don't fire until someone else fires on you - why is friendly fire such as issue for your military?

I'm not saying we wage a scorched earth war or carpet bomb the whole country, I'm just saying we need to introduce some sanity and common sense into this conflict and get the political correctness the hell out of the battlefield. We have to realize that innocent people are going to die because of the nature of the enemies tactics. We try our very best to minimize that, but where the enemy leaves us no choice, then we do what we have to do. War is hell. Let's try to make that hell not last so damn long.

I think you've taken the 'fight fire with fire' comment completely out of context - it was related to the moral issues associated with torture. If you descend to the behaviour of your enemy - especially when you have waged a war in no small part under the pretext of removing a tyrannical regime which has committed countless human rights abuses - to go in and behave in the same manner utterly defeats the point and creates far more enemies than allies.

War is hell - but in this instance it is a hell we took no small part in creating. If doing it right means taking a long time - then so be it. Innocent people will die - it's true - but if we make innocent people despise us then there will be another generation of angry people waiting to take this generation's place. Political correctness has no place on the battlefield - but humanity does. No one ever said war was easy - or quick. You're very quick to sacrifice humanity in the name of expediency. Our soldiers will die - and that is a terrible thing - but they knew what they were signing up for. They can leave the army. Their are many civilians who cannot leave the war zone.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:"Political correctness"? There have been rules of engagement ever since there was such a thing as organised warfare; it can hardly be called political correctness. You need to stop seeing liberal conspiracies everywhere.

No, there have not been such a thing as "rules of engagement" since organized warfare, unless you consider killing as many of the enemy as you can a "rule of engagement" because that was the rule of engagement for MUCH of the history of war, which did not spare innocents, woman or children.

Our current ROE are so insanely restrictive that they actually put our troops lives in grave danger every time they come in contact with the enemy. This insanity has to stop! This is no way to fight a war!

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Further, the Judge in the Ghailani case saw fit to dismiss all evidence obtained through his torture so that was a complete waste of time.

The only evidence dismissed by the judge was ONE witnesses testimony that he had sold Ghailani explosives, a witness that the CIA had learned of from Ghailani during "enhanced interrogation."

As Ghailani is an ILLEGAL enemy combatant, had Obama simply allowed Ghailani's military tribunal to go forward, instead of experimenting with our well founded law on how to deal with such people, we would not be in this mess in the first place. It had jack-shit to do with "torture" and everything to do with Obama screwing around where he shouldn't be! Terrorists, particularly illegal combatant terrorist have no business being tried as though they were citizens of the US in our civilian court system!!! PERIOD!

BecMacFeegle wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

BecMacFeegle wrote:There is no justification for torturing other human beings. None. Nor is there any reason to suppose that there are any tangible benefits from carrying out such an activity.

First of all, as I've said before, I do not consider waterboarding torture. Second, we can most certainly say that we gained some very tangible benefits from the 3 terrorists that were waterboarded, as the article that kicked this thread off notes. It thwarted many planned attacks here and abroad, including in the UK. Many people were saved from gruesome deaths or maiming, and no terrorists died, or were maimed or crippled or even so much as scratched to get that information.

First of all, as I said to Tex, if you don't consider something which causes the gag reflex of drowning, which can cause intense pain, permanent lung damage, psychological trauma and even death - then your definition of torture is so removed from what it actually means as to be totally meaningless.

Fighting as an illegal combatant in a war can cause intense pain, permanent lung damage and psychological trauma and even death!

Hell, taking a prescription drug can cause all of these things! Let us take a look at the known side effects of a popular rheumatoid arthritis drug:

• Risk of infection. ENBREL can lower the ability
  of your immune system to fight infections. Some people have serious
  infections while taking ENBREL. These infections include tuberculosis
  (TB), and infections caused by viruses, fungi or bacteria that spread
  throughout their body. Some people have died from these infections.
  
• Risk of cancer.
  
  
  
  • There have been cases of unusual cancers in
    children and teenage patients who started using TNF-blocking agents at
    less than 18 years of age.
    
  • For children, teenagers, and adults taking
    TNF-blocker medicines, including ENBREL, the chances of getting lymphoma
    or other cancers may increase.
    
  • People with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriasis,
    especially those with very active disease, may be more likely to get
    lymphoma.
    
  
  
• Hepatitis B infection in people who carry the
  virus in their blood. If you are a carrier of the hepatitis B virus (a
  virus that affects the liver), the virus can become active while you use
  ENBREL.
  
• Nervous system problems. Rarely, people who use
  TNF blocker medicines have developed nervous system problems such as
  multiple sclerosis, seizures, or inflammation of the nerves of the eyes.
  
• Blood problems. Low blood counts have been seen
  with other TNF blocker medicines. Your body may not make enough of the
  blood cells that help fight infections or help stop bleeding. Symptoms
  include fever, bruising or bleeding very easily, or looking pale.
  
• Heart failure including new heart failure or
  worsening of heart failure you already have. New or worse heart failure
  can happen in people who use TNF blocker medicines, like ENBREL.
  
• Psoriasis. Some people using ENBREL developed new
  psoriasis or worsening of psoriasis they already had.
  
• Allergic reactions. Allergic reactions can happen
  to people who use TNF blocker medicines.
  
• Autoimmune reactions, including:
  
  
  
  • Lupus-like syndrome. Symptoms include a rash on
    your face and arms that gets worse in the sun.
    
  • Autoimmune hepatitis. Liver problems can happen
    in people who use TNF blocker medicines, including ENBREL. These problems
    can lead to liver failure and death.
    
  
  

If I had to pick which chance to take, Enbril's possible side effects and waterboarding's possible side effects, I'd go with waterboarding every time!

BecMacFeegle wrote:That article claims to have thwarted many planned attacks using water boarding. It offers no evidence. The position of the British government of the time, as far as that article states, is that they doubt information gained through water boarding prevented any attacks. And how do you know no terrorists were maimed or crippled? Are you aware of the reports coming out of Guantanamo Bay? So don't give me any nonsense about suspected terrorists not being tortured or abused.

Of course it offers no evidence! Such information would be classified out of common sense! So the few people interviewed "doubted" that attacks were prevented, can they say for certain that no attacks were prevented thanks to that information? NO! If they could have, they would have. The fact that they equivocated suggests they were either not in the loop and so couldn't say for sure one way or the other, or they were in the loop and know better.

And yes, I am quite well aware of all the hysterical reports by international bodies who are nothing more than anti-American shills. And despite all of these allegations by former prisoners (no chance that THEY'D be lying, right?) and their mouthpieces, no one has yet been convicted of a thing. So yeah, there's a LOT of propaganda out there, but precious little proof that it is anything more than that.

dblboggie wrote:

BecMacFeegle wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

BecMacFeegle wrote:There is no justification for torturing other human beings. None. Nor is there any reason to suppose that there are any tangible benefits from carrying out such an activity.

First of all, as I've said before, I do not consider waterboarding torture. Second, we can most certainly say that we gained some very tangible benefits from the 3 terrorists that were waterboarded, as the article that kicked this thread off notes. It thwarted many planned attacks here and abroad, including in the UK. Many people were saved from gruesome deaths or maiming, and no terrorists died, or were maimed or crippled or even so much as scratched to get that information.

First of all, as I said to Tex, if you don't consider something which causes the gag reflex of drowning, which can cause intense pain, permanent lung damage, psychological trauma and even death - then your definition of torture is so removed from what it actually means as to be totally meaningless.

Fighting as an illegal combatant in a war can cause intense pain, permanent lung damage and psychological trauma and even death!

There's no such thing as an 'illegal combatant', that's a disgusting and dangerous phrase used in an attempt to justify torture and a flagrant disregard for the Geneva convention. Besides which - fighting as a uniformed soldier can cause all of those things too. Your point is ridiculous.

If I had to pick which chance to take, Enbril's possible side effects and waterboarding's possible side effects, I'd go with waterboarding every time!

Sorry, but that comparison is stupid. Those are possible side effects - you aren't guaranteed to get any of them, let alone all of them at once - and you used the all important word in both of your complaints - CHOICE. If you felt you couldn't take it any more you could stop taking the medication. People who are being tortured don't get a choice - they don't get to make the torture stop. You can try and stretch the definition any way you want to but water boarding is classed as torture - end of story.

Of course it offers no evidence! Such information would be classified out of common sense! So the few people interviewed "doubted" that attacks were prevented, can they say for certain that no attacks were prevented thanks to that information? NO! If they could have, they would have. The fact that they equivocated suggests they were either not in the loop and so couldn't say for sure one way or the other, or they were in the loop and know better.

Or it means we can draw absolutely no conclusions on the issue. One side says one thing. One says the opposite. There's no proof water boarding has achieved anything - other than making the perpetrators look like Sadists. Congratulations! You think this will make your enemies fear you? No. They'll hate you - and they're more likely to take up arms against you. If you want to be one of the 'good guys' you have to act like it.

And yes, I am quite well aware of all the hysterical reports by international bodies who are nothing more than anti-American shills. And despite all of these allegations by former prisoners (no chance that THEY'D be lying, right?) and their mouthpieces, no one has yet been convicted of a thing. So yeah, there's a LOT of propaganda out there, but precious little proof that it is anything more than that.

Anti-American shills? Well according to you ANYONE who criticises anything to do with American is anti-American - so I assume we can include the British Government, the European Union, Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch in that list of anti-American shill, can we? What has happened at Guantanamo Bay is illegal. No one has been convicted? Oh, I wonder why. Attempts to place the detainees outside of the remit of the Geneva Convention? Disgusting. They were illegally held - most have been released without charge. As for whether former prisoners might be lying - well they might be - but lets not forget that a great many of these 'former prisoners' were wrongfully incarcerated for several years. There's no evidence, no proof? Who's fault is that? Who's been behaving in a clandestine and illegal manner?

Casualties of war, you cry? Possibly so, and how terribly sad that would be. But when you see something that can be classed as a casualty of war you do not use that as an EXCUSE for not acting. When something bad happens and it is your fault, then you do everything within your power to ensure that it does not happen again - ESPECIALLY when that casualty might be the very thing you are SUPPOSED to be fighting for - you know, freedom, liberty, peace and all that stuff. Or does that only apply to your fellow countryman - the rest of the world be damned? What you DON'T do is sulk, stick your fingers in your ears, and accuse everyone who says something you don't like of being an Anti-American Shill and a Liberal.

dblboggie wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:"Political correctness"? There have been rules of engagement ever since there was such a thing as organised warfare; it can hardly be called political correctness. You need to stop seeing liberal conspiracies everywhere.

No, there have not been such a thing as "rules of engagement" since organized warfare, unless you consider killing as many of the enemy as you can a "rule of engagement" because that was the rule of engagement for MUCH of the history of war, which did not spare innocents, woman or children.

I never said they had high standards, I said they had rules of engagement. Many of the Greek polis' had rules of combat. In the medieval period it was called "chivalry".

dblboggie wrote:The only evidence dismissed by the judge was ONE witnesses testimony that he had sold Ghailani explosives, a witness that the CIA had learned of from Ghailani during "enhanced interrogation."

Thanks for enhancing my point.

Just stepping in for a bit..........

BecMacFeegle wrote:There's no such thing as an 'illegal combatant', that's a disgusting and dangerous phrase used in an attempt to justify torture and a flagrant disregard for the Geneva convention.

The phrase "unlawful combatant" does not appear in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII).[1] However, Article 4 of GCIII does describe categories under which a person may be entitled to POW status; and there are other international treaties that deny lawful combatant status for mercenaries and children.

Source: Wikipedia

---

---

Back to our regularly scheduled debate.

TexasBlue wrote:Just stepping in for a bit..........

BecMacFeegle wrote:There's no such thing as an 'illegal combatant', that's a disgusting and dangerous phrase used in an attempt to justify torture and a flagrant disregard for the Geneva convention.

The phrase "unlawful combatant" does not appear in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII).[1] However, Article 4 of GCIII does describe categories under which a person may be entitled to POW status; and there are other international treaties that deny lawful combatant status for mercenaries and children.

Source: Wikipedia

---

---

Back to our regularly scheduled debate.

Holding a person as an unlawful (not illegal) combatant means that - according to IHL they can then be detained or prosecuted under domestic law. Did that happen with the detainees at Guantanamo? No. They were illegally detained whichever way you look at it. The phrase 'illegal' combatant has been grossly misused in an attempt to side step the Geneva convention and IHL.

http://www.fact-index.com/i/il/illegal_combatant.html

We can debate the legality of Gitmo till we're blue in the face and nothing is going to change (much) regarding that.

That said, I disagree 100% with the idea of bringing these guys onto US soil to be tried. It changes the ballgame 100% in the other direction and not in favor of the US gov't.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:The only evidence dismissed by the judge was ONE witnesses testimony that he had sold Ghailani explosives, a witness that the CIA had learned of from Ghailani during "enhanced interrogation."

Thanks for enhancing my point.

Thanks for ignoring this point:

As Ghailani is an ILLEGAL enemy combatant, had Obama simply allowed Ghailani's military tribunal to go forward, instead of experimenting with our well founded law on how to deal with such people, we would not be in this mess in the first place. It had jack-shit to do with "torture" and everything to do with Obama screwing around where he shouldn't be! Terrorists, particularly illegal combatant terrorist have no business being tried as though they were citizens of the US in our civilian court system!!! PERIOD!

THIS is where we went wrong, treating them like we'd treat any common criminal who is a citizen of this country.