Waterboarding Resurfaces
Published February 07, 2008
While covering CIA Director Michael V. Hayden’s testimony on CIA interrogation methods, Greg Miller, a Los Angeles Times reporter, revealed that a senior U.S. Intelligence official stated that, “Tens of thousands of American Air Force and naval airmen were waterboarded as part of their survival training.”
The unnamed official went on to stress that waterboarding our own troops as a training method was preferable to mutilation or sodomizing them in preparation for their possible capture. In an attempt to justify the practice as proper, he then restated that waterboarding wasn’t torture because “…intellectually, there has got to be a difference between [waterboarding] and the others; otherwise we wouldn’t have done it in training.”
The Bush administration has previously been very vague concerning our training methods, because President George Bush doesn’t want the enemy to be able to adjust their interrogation methods of our troops, based on what they know that we precondition our men to resist.
Waterboarding was a method of torture used in the Spanish Inquisitions in which a person is strapped down, his face is covered with cloth, and water is poured over the victim, simulating a feeling of drowning. In many countries this method of interrogation has been considered a war crime for over a century.
Despite criticism from many quarters, President Bush’s White House has asserted that he still has the power to authorize the CIA to resume waterboarding captured individuals who he considers enemy personnel. This is in defiance of laws passed declaring it torture such as 2005’s Detainee Treatment Act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and also a Supreme Court ruling in 2006 that struck down the Bush administration’s treatment of detainees in an attempt to defy rules set forth by the Geneva Conventions. In addition, the 2006 Army Field Manual bans waterboarding as an interrogation method. Bush also promised key congressmen sponsoring the hearings regarding the Military Commissions Act that he would back a prohibition of waterboarding.
Since the GOP led congress in 2006 covertly passed legislation (H.R. 6054) giving President Bush immunity from being prosecuted for war crimes, he apparently feels safe using a free hand in such matters.
Senator John McCain, himself a victim of torture while a POW in Vietnam, was reportedly appalled at the White House announcement. According to Bush spokesman Tony Fratto, the newly established authorization procedure is fairly simple. An official determines that waterboarding is needed during an interrogation. The CIA director confirms the need and submits a “plan” to the Attorney General, who then declares it legal and submits it to the president, who of course endorses it.
After CIA director Michael Hayden disclosed for the first time that we have indeed used waterboarding on captured prisoners, concerned members of Congress demanded that a criminal investigation be started. The Bush administration has defiantly stated that it does not consider waterboarding a crime and the Justice Department has made no effort to initiate any kind of investigation.
Jet is the not yet published author of two spy novels, SYSTEM 10 and its sequel GHOST OF A CHANCE, and a professional artist. He likes to collect books, music, chess sets, and friends. Favorite quote: "Evil only succeeds when good men do nothing." In 2004 his "good life" came to an aburpt end with a robbery and near-fatal beating. He now works as a writer/artist on disability. You are welcome to visit his ongoing on-line diary by clicking his homepage/URL.
- Waterboarding Resurfaces
- Published: February 07, 2008
- Type: News
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Politics: War and Terrorism, Politics: U.S., Politics: Policy, Politics: Law and Rights, Politics: International
- Writer: Jet in Columbus
- Jet in Columbus's BC Writer page
- Jet in Columbus's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Why is this news? Waterboarding is old news and the fact that it's used on our soldiers in training only makes good sense.
In fact, you miss the main point of this whole controversy. We train our soldiers to be waterboarded because the barbarians we're fighting use those methods. Yet we don't want to use the same measures against them? That's what's crazy.
You're right, I'm a fool and way behind the times-- thanks for pointing that out. If it weren't for the fact that the official made the comment two days ago I'd fell like a complete idiot.
thanks again
jet
You know what, I retract that last comment. In the last 3-4 hours such sites at Reuters, ABC News, the Washington Post and CNN have all published articles on this situation.
If I'm behind the times and this is old news, it's nice to see I'm in such good company.
"In the last 3-4 hours such sites at Reuters, ABC News, the Washington Post and CNN have all published articles on this situation."
On waterboarding. Not on the subject that our soldiers are waterboarded in training. Which is old news.
Thanks Matt, I knew I could count on your support
I hadn't actually explicitly heard that our soldiers were waterboarded in the past, but I knew they were trained to resist torture, so waterboarding them makes perfect sense.
My take on this would be a bit different from Jet's. i would consider it irresponsible of the military NOT to waterboard soldiers.
Dave
By all means let's ignore the fact that Bush is defying laws he himself signed into existance and the supreme court that he inserted the head of...
...not to mention international opinion of his administration.
International opinion is against our waterboarding our own soldiers in training?
It's none of their effing business.
I suppose "international opinion" would include such international paragons as Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, the Sudan and the UN?
Yaawwwnn.
Adverse international opinion is why our great "coalition" is shrinking daily and such countries a Great Britian and Australia are threatening to pull out.
International opinion is worth only as much as the international entities involved are worth to us, and if they aren't backing us they aren't worth a hell of a lot.
Dave
Oh sure Dave, they just hold the notes that Bush ran up on our national debt credit cards especially China.
"International opinion is against our waterboarding our own soldiers in training? It's none of their effing business."
Fuckin' right, man! We're the only ones allowed to stick our nose in other countries business.
Of course you're right, after all look at the self-righteous dirt bag we have running the country.
Oh sure Dave, they just hold the notes that Bush ran up on our national debt credit cards especially China.
So? Holding US debt means that the Chinese have no choice but to be predisposed to back us up. They can't afford not to. And they have NO grounds to complain about any kind of human rights issues. Give me a break.
Dave
"after all look at the self-righteous dirt bag we have running the country."
Don't worry, Jet, we'll have a brand new self-righteous dirt bag soon.
Jet: "Adverse international opinion is why our great "coalition" is shrinking daily and such countries a Great Britian and Australia are threatening to pull out."
I can't speak for the Poms, but in Australia, it's got nothing to do with adverse international opinion and far more to with adverse internal opinion.
It's not that we don't believe in fulfilling our alliance obligations to the US, or even that we don't like America because we do, but the people who elected this government (and that was a majority), elected them knowing their platform was to set a timetable to pull our troops out of Iraq.
In other words, we decided, not international opinion. I'd say Australians couldn't give a rat's arse about international public opinion when it comes to doing what it thinks it should do.
That's why we were in Iraq in the first place. But it's probably now run its course.
You might notice that even though we are at the arsehole end of the planet and therefore not a part of NATO, we are punching well above our weight in Afghanisatn at a time when many other countries who should be pulling their weight aren't.
So there's no suggestion that Afghanistan is a lost cause in our minds or I'd imagine the collective mind of the government at this point.
None of us here with half a brain have forgotten what we saw on 9/11, or in Madrid, or the London Underground, or in Bali. Americans shouldn't lose sight of the fact at any stage that what they are facing is a grave threat to their society.
Still, I don't agree with waterboarding when a good whack in the head, that time-honoured inducement to talk, would probably work just as well. Waterboarding IS bad news, IS inhunmane, and DOES diminish the US administration in the eyes of the world if it's true, but I'd assume the CIA has got to the point where they think desperate times demand desperate measures, even though it doesn't make it right.
So the Catholic Inquisition is back, I see, albeit without the priest and the doctor on hand when "the question" is applied.
I'll have to remember this when I see good old Yankees coming to occupy my homeland with their self righteous scumbag of a president giving orders to our mendacious whiny pigs who allegedly hold power here....
You good Christians still haven't lived down your savage past - you're still practicing it. Uncivilized savages is the only term to describe you.
Feh!
After listening to an evening full of how evangelical "allies" of Israel are busy trying to steal Jewish souls - another sign of the false civilization of Christianity - reading your article just left me disgusted, Jet.
The term is not bitter. No, I sit on my hilltop here in the Shomron and look at you (not you personally) with contempt.
It's a sick, sad world, badly in need of Redemption.
The question becomes whose definition of redemption applies...
Ah, you raise an interesting question, Jet. I could answer you here - and take the discussion away from medieval methods of torture adapted for the US Armed Forces and move it towards issues of technology, prophecy and what a messianic world could look like - hijack your article, in other words - or write my own. Take your pick. I ain't fussy.
We train our soldiers to be waterboarded because the barbarians we're fighting use those methods. Yet we don't want to use the same measures against them? That's what's crazy.
That's right! It's absolutely insane to suggest that we don't want to become JUST LIKE "the barbarians we're fighting." Who would DARE to believe that we should be above the kinds of tactics that terrorists use?
But Mike, Bush has been talking to Jesus, and he knows he's right!
Rush Limbaugh hasn't made up his mind who to back yet, so he's justifiably confused.
Boys, boys, boys. No need to quarrel over whether waterboarding is torture or not.
We just ask Bush, Cheney and JOM for their opinions!
While Jet is waterboarding them, of course.
It doesn't matter if waterboarding is torture or not. Against the kind of enemy we face it's justified by their actions.
If they're as bad as THAT, then it does no good to waterboard them anyway.
"While Jet is waterboarding them, of course.
"...
Damn and I forgot to get that waterproof set of leathers...
darn
You know guys, I still have that product review waiting in the sidelines about my new desk if you're that bored!
Bill Maher covered waterboarding on his show tonight, I guess it's not as "old" a subject as some seem to think...
(JOM:
I realize it is possible that you were not attacking Jet personally. However, based on your track record, you do NOT get the benefit of the doubt.
Therefore, your comments on this thread, and those in response to them, have been deleted.
Please re-read the comments policy to remind yourself about the rules of discourse here.
Assistant Comments Editor)
Clavos said in post 9
"International opinion is against our waterboarding our own soldiers in training?
It's none of their effing business."
This is so typical of this kind of hypocritical, arrogance of people of your ilk Clavos.
You would be the first to assert that it is ok for the USA to condemn and criticize and impose sanctions on other nations that do not conform to the dictates of the White House, yet if some other nation makes a criticism of us, its none of their effing business.
I doubt seriously that you can even see your hubris and self-righteous arrogance Clavos, but it certainly does not escape me. The Ugly American comes to mind, and it is people such as yourself that make me ashamed to be an American.
I also assume that you probably have no problem with other HUMAN BEINGS being tortured when it comes to defending the "land of the free" and home of the brave. Big Smirk.
I would point out to you, though I know it will go over your head, that when you treat other human beings in such a degrading and inhuman fashion, for whatever the reason, you become that which you supposedly despise. Like I said I am sure this goes way over your head.
Torture is torture...period. As far as I am concerned if you approve of torture you are guilty of aiding and abetting such behavior.
I dont really know your opinion of water-boarding Clavos, but the thrust of my opinion has to do with your supreme arrogance in the statement above.
In keeping with my storied arrogance, Pablo, I don't really care what you (particularly you) think.
It (and you) after all, are only pixels on a screen...
When did the conversation change from "waterboarding our own soldiers during training" to "waterboarding our enemies?"
2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph Matt, had you bothered to read it before pronouncing it old news.
and...
Despite criticism from many quarters, President Bush's White House has asserted that he still has the power to authorize the CIA to resume waterboarding captured individuals who he considers enemy personnel
It's all there Matt, it's not THAt long of an article... An official determines that waterboarding is needed during an interrogation. The CIA director confirms the need and submits a "plan" to the Attorney General, who then declares it legal and submits it to the president, who of course endorses it.
I did read that part, Jet! Now did you read my comment?
That fact was first reported months ago in many outlets. Just because someone drops in a quote printed in 2008 about something doesn't mean it's a revelation.
I was answering your rather terse question: When did the conversation change from "waterboarding our own soldiers during training" to "waterboarding our enemies?"
(groan)
In the last few days this subject has been brought up in all three evening news broadcasts, CNN and Bill Maher's live show just hours ago. IT may be as you say old news, but for some reason everyone in the news industry seems to think it's news since it was finally officially disclosed in Congressional Hearings.
It's so nice to have you and JOM as my steadfast fans that you'd take time off of your busy schedule to follow me and my articles.
Makes me feel all warm inside... maybe it's your new beard
"IT may be as you say old news,"
Try to understand what's being said. People in the comments assert that waterboarding our soldiers during training is old news. You counter with "waterboarding is not old news, it was on TV tonight." You are bringing up a different topic than what is being commented on. You do not seem to understand this. I do not know why.
I am not saying waterboarding is old news. I am saying waterboarding our soldiers during training is old news.
Matt do you bitch out writers for writing articles about athletes on steriods, even though it was FIRST reported years ago? I think not. [Personal attack deleted] Everything you've ever written on the website is only 10 minutes old? I doubt it.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Waterboarding our soldiers is only the first part of the article, the rest is that Bush-despite Congress and the Supreme court telling him he can't has announced he was doing it anyway, thumbing his nose at the people and his own party while he was at it.
Since everyone else is writing about it, I decided to go at a slightly if not decrepid angle hoping to separate mine from the rest of the pack.
However I should've counted on you only reading the first few paragraphs before gleefully getting your licks in.
Jet, I wasn't talking about your article. I'm talking about the comments.
In the comments, some people said "I don't have a problem with waterboarding soldiers during training" and "this isn't a revelation." That's what was said.
After Dave was talking about training, you countered with a completely different topic -- Bush signing laws protecting himself, which was completely tangential. I was curious why that happened.
Pablo criticized Clavos for saying he was fine with this training procedure, without really refuting it and instead talking about a different topic -- torture as a war tactic.
Two more things: if waterboarding soldiers during training wasn't the focus of your article, maybe you shouldn't have talked about it for the first three paragraphs.
[Edited]
Matt, Bush signing laws protecting himself IS PART OF THE ARTICLE-Since the GOP led congress in 2006 covertly passed legislation (H.R. 6054) giving President Bush immunity from being prosecuted for war crimes, he apparently feels safe using a free hand in such matters.
[Personal attack deleted]
"Bush signing laws protecting himself IS PART OF THE ARTICLE-"
Right, but why say it in that response? Why respond to a comment that says "soldiers are waterboarded during training, and I'm fine with it" with "Bush signed laws protecting himself?"
Bush approval of waterboarding our own troops is part of the article and just a hook to get people interested in it rathing than reading the same old news and DIFFERENCIATES IT from other articles on the same subject.
Bush informing congress through his aids that he legally can waterboard captive enemies is part of the article
Bush having immunity for war crimes prosecution is part of the article...
I didn't know that parts of an article are not aloowed to be discussed in the comments section. I've read many articles and then commented on THE ARTICLE before even reading the comments. I thought others did too.
Read the damned thing
"I didn't know that parts of an article are not aloowed to be discussed in the comments section."
You know darn well I didn't say anything resembling the above statement. I was asking why you followed up Dave's comment with your comment. So are you saying you weren't responding to Dave's comment, but merely changing the subject altogether?
Surely you have better things to do while sitting naked in fron of your computer at 4:30 in the morning?
I've got a perfectly fine reason for being up at this hour, which is basically none of your business. In the meantime, I've been trying to figure out why you respond to comments the way you do, because bringing up unrelated information to the conversation is a good way to fracture the debate. The way you responded to my questions with unrelated facts and baseless assumptions tells me it's probably a good idea to improve your internet discourse on this website.
You're right Matt, How anyone as ignorant as me is allowed to write articles for this website is beyond me. I can't write coherent sentences, I become too emotional, I have nearly no knowledge of what I write about in order to make intelligent comments about it.
I should be banned from this site and all my 80-85 articles should be deleted because it'd cost too much to hire a ghost writer to make them into something any way near intelligent.
I don't meet any of the high standards of this forum and should be ashamed of myself for thinking that I could stand next to the other people who at least know how to phrase a sentence, paragraph or whole story together into something that makes sense.
I whine and feel sorry for myself way too much and should be ashamed of that too.
I'd post a "greatest hits" of all the shallow and egotistically negative comments you've posted on my assorted works over the years under the guise of "Constructive critisizm" but it'd be useless and only prove your point that I'm not worthy of your attention and should unplug my computer permanately.
forgive me for annoying you
If we waterboard our soldiers, maybe we should waterboard our politicians, too. I wonder if we could find any volunteers around here to administer the interrogations?
On waterboarding the politicians, Bliff?
Me! Me! I volunteer! Hell I'll pay for the privilege!
Please? PLease?
Why waterboard politicians when you can simply imagine them taking a dump?
Cheaper, less time-consuming, ethical and just as effective.
Maybe we could just take their "Freedom Fries" away?
"Me! Me! I volunteer! Hell I'll pay for the privilege!"
I know that this statement was not to be taken literally, or even seriously, but I suspect many harbor similar feelings more seriously.
It reminds me of just how DEEP in U.S. culture, is the advocacy of homosexual rape, as a proper, and fitting punishment for some criminals.
You raise a good point, Les. (Whoops - here we go off-topic again - sorry, Jet.) It's the 'they deserve all they get' attitude.
In fact, the humane treatment of prisoners in general seems to be a difficult concept for a lot of people - and I'm not just thinking of Americans here.
That's okay Doc, the fasten your seatbelt sign is off, feel free to wander the cabin all you like...
A good point, perhaps, Doc and Les, but where's the connection between waterboarding pols and sodomizing imprisoned criminals?
Am I missing something here?
Believe it or not someone is clairvoyant(sic) as I'd included homosexual sodomy in the original article, but it was toned down to simply "sodomy"
Maybe they could be subjected to being tied to a chair and forced to listen to an hour-long serman from the Phelps hate group regarding "fags" instead as an opposite end of the torture spectrum?
To make a point-for perhaps a future article-it seems to me that the more "humane" the punishment, the less effective it becomes as a deterrment to future offenders of the same crime.
I agree, Jet.
My philosophy regarding the treatment of criminals is that they should be treated in accordance with the constitutional safeguards against cruel and unusual punishment, but anything up to that point is acceptable, consistent with the seriousness of their particular crime(s).
They are, after all, criminals, and the worst of them are often little better than animals.
where's the connection between waterboarding pols and sodomizing imprisoned criminals?
There isn't one, Clav. We've just wandered off on a tangent again.
Bring a compass...
it seems to me that the more "humane" the punishment, the less effective it becomes as a deterrment to future offenders of the same crime.
Jet - as Obnox is fond of saying: you got any stats to back that up?
My compass reads 1:17PM, I can't remember is that "standard" direction or not-I can never keep those things straight... small wonder
Clavos re post 38
Just the sort of response I expected from you. Thank you for re-affirming my opinion of you. You talk with a good vocabulary, nice sentence structure, and even occasional dry humor, however underneath the suave writing style lurks ignorance of great breadth .
Aside from your regular caustic remarks generated in my directions, I have yet to see you actually debate ANYONE on the issues with any success whatsoever.
That being said, lately for the most part I like staying in the background, occasionally reading mostly for my entertainment, the herd.
I was hoping at least you would discuss, (certainly not for my benefit) your views on torture, mostly just to once again re-affirm what I suspect is your stance on the issue. And if you are for torturing human beings, I would also like to ask you if you would actually do it yourself if asked by your Fuhrer. I suspect that you would.
Have a nice tidy all American life Clavos.
I wasn't aware that a casual conversation regarding an opinion required stats... unless of course the conversation involved a Sussquatch
Well, kids, guess you really want to discuss waterboarding and other related forms of torture.
As for prisoners raping other prisoners, there is a pecking order in prisons and certain kinds of prisoners appear to get a pass from the homosexual rape problem.... Pervs, especially the ones who prey on kids, really get it in the butt, though. There are lots of daddies in jail.
What really interests me though, is why none of you are really willing to give the Catholic Inquisition credit where credit is due. From the diagrams I see in Jet's fine article, this is their invention, and is their style of torture, the kind they loved to do, and if they could they still would.
Someday we're going to have to have a conversation about those fantasies of yours... this has been a recorded announcement..
Pablo,
"Just the sort of response I expected from you."
I'm nothing if not predictable.
"Thank you for re-affirming my opinion of you."
You're welcome. If I can be of any further service to you, please don't hesitate to ask.
"Aside from your regular caustic remarks generated in my directions, I have yet to see you actually debate ANYONE on the issues with any success whatsoever."
Hmm. Well, I guess I'll just have to keep practicing, then.
"I was hoping at least you would discuss, (certainly not for my benefit) your views on torture..."
A vain hope, obviously.
"...mostly just to once again re-affirm what I suspect is your stance on the issue."
This is not the first time I've seen you jump to an unwarranted conclusion based on your own prejudices (and you are a most prejudiced individual, Pablo).
In this instance, I merely voiced the opinion that, if we teach our troops about waterboarding during their training by having them experience it, the fact that we do so is not the business of any other nation.
That statement implies neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of the practice; therefore, your conclusion from only that statement, about where I stand on torture, whatever it might be, is purely speculative.
"Have a nice tidy all American life Clavos."
Why, thank you, Pablo. But, I'm also a Mexican citizen, and tend to look at most issues from that perspective as well as the American one, so I can't truthfully say I'm "all American."
Jet,
As I said above, in the final analysis it's all just pixels on a screen.
A lesson I learned from gonzo marx, BTW.
Clavos Re post 78 where you said:
"(and you are a most prejudiced individual, Pablo).
I am in total agreement with this statement. However as regards to a person's race, gender, ethnicity, or wealth, I have no prejudice. When it comes to political views however that is another story. A few examples. The root of prejudice as you must know is based on pre-judging. When I read, watch tv or hear a person for instance espousing how they are pro-life (an absurd phrase on its face) I assume almost invariably that that person also supports the state killing people if they are found guilty of a capital offense.
Another example Clavos, is the use of pre-emptive military force when our nation has not been attacked; when I see a person who espouses this blatantly un-american viewpoint, I almost always assume (pre-judge) that that person for instance is probably an adherent to the Patriot Act, and/or is in support of vast databases to wiretap American citizens in violation of the fourth amendment.
These are just two examples of my political prejudices that I have learned from years of watching and seeing various correlations that seem to follow certain political viewpoints. Is it politically correct? God I hope not, but in most cases the political prejudices that I have acquired have not let me down. Give me two or three political opinions on a subject of the day, and I can almost always tell where a person stands on various other issues. Am I ever wrong? Certainly, however my prejudices do not hinder a person from employment, housing, or various other necessities of life, and I make no apologies for them whatsoever Clavos.
So yes I made prejudicial statements regarding what I think are your viewpoints regarding torture. I also left a wide berth for you to respond with your opinion which so far you have not, therefore I am even more convinced that you do support torturing other human beings. I may be wrong, but I doubt it, having read some of your other political viewpoints in the past.
If I sound acerbic in my characterization of you it is not without cause sir. I certainly have not been the one on this forum to cast the first stone, and as I do not believe in "spreading the other cheek" as it were, have only responded to you in kind, and will continue to do so when I feel that it is warranted.
The thrust of my original argument with you however had nothing to do with torture per se. It had to do with your arrogant statement that other countries should mind their own business regarding how we train our troops. A mild example at best, however I could not help but see the typical double standard that people such as yourself espouse regarding foreign policy.
On another note, I get great entertainment value watching you and various other amateur pundits talk about the electoral process, as if any of it means a hill o beans. It doesn't, and the sooner that people such as yourself realize this, that you are just spinning your wheels, because the electoral process in this nation is FIXED, the sooner we may be able to return this country to "we the people". As it is now it is controlled in total by multi-national corporations, the Rockefellers, the CFR, the Bilderbergs, and of course the "City of London" of which I am sure (prejudice intended) that you are completely unaware of. And they are laughing at YOU and your ilk all the way to the FED.
So have fun with your dialogues of Clinton, Obama, McCain, etc. Guess what? They ALL work for the same people, and it is not you or me! However you are certainly entitled to think that they do, in fact they hope that you do! Enjoy. :) :)
Clavos,
If my view of the world is Kafkaesque, then yours is extremely naive.
And I am blissful in my naiveté (and probably a LOT happier than you), Pablo.
Clavos:
Ignorance is bliss, enjoy!
You've misquoted, Pablo, but I get the idea and I will enjoy.
Far more than you will...
Yup! Ignorance is bliss alright. I'm going back to sleep. Wake me up when the missiles start fallin'....
The missiles will do that for you, Ruvy...
Valium can't be instantly transmitted electronically can it?
Pablo, where you struggle on credibility with me is that, with your every post it seems, you toss out yet one more new organization which you claim is controlling the world.
Yes, The X Files has a lot to answer for...
Here you go, Doc:
The most recent...
Are you not telling us something, Doc?
If we can waterboard our soldiers after they enlist, why not waterboard them before they enlist? That should really ease our recruitment troubles.
So, let's suppose we round up some good, healthy, adult Americans of indisputably good character, like, say, Chelsea Clinton and those 5 Romney lads, and waterboard them before they show up for enlistment (as I'm sure they soon will, coming from families of avid war-supporters).
We'd probably be doing them a favor by sending the recruitment van directly to their homes, so the poor dears don't have to drive down to the recruitment center.
We can call it "Preemptive Enlistment".
Then, while waterboarding them for training purposes we ask them how long they want their recruitment to be, and provide a spectrum of choices.
For example, the Kindly Old Recruiting Sergeant asks them, while bobbing their heads under water: "I don't want to pressure you, heaven forfend, but would you like that enlistment to be for 5 years, or just to please your Kindly Old Recruiting Sergeant would you like to make it 10 years?"
Be careful Bliff, Suss could warn you about old news and changing the subject!
Dread,
I thought you were a Brit! Perhaps my recollection is failing me. The Knights Templar established the City of London, and also modern banking, today most of the world'd biggest banks are located inside the square mile of the City of London. As to adding new groups, not really. Take your pick, however imho the most influential and powerful of all of these groups is the Bilderberg group formed in 1952 by former SS officer Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. Should you have any interest in this group there is an excellent book "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group" written by Daniel Estulin and available at amazon.
Take a chance, open your mind, read the book, you just might learn something new about the world in which you live.
There is a plan afoot to get rid of 90% of the humans on the planet, install one world global dictatorship, with two types of humans, rich, and the slaves that will service them. The various instruments through which this goal is being achieved are the CFR, Chatham House, The Bilderbergs, and the UN. My primary sources on these groups are, CFR and Chatham House, Quigley, Bilderbergs, Estulin, the UN Joan Veon.
It's news to me, Clav. Last time I looked, the City was a bunch of offices with an after-dusk population of approximately zero.
I reckon Dr Makow has to rent a fleet of trucks to carry around all those loads of bollocks.
"There is a plan afoot to get rid of 90% of the humans on the planet"
Actually, it's only a little over 80%:
"Its goal: to reduce the human population from its current level of over 5 billion people to below 1 billion people within the next two to three generations..."
And it would do the planet a LOT of good...
Clavos,
Why quibble over a few hundred million people? As to doing the planet a lot of good, do you think that the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, the Queen, the Bush's, and the rest of the rulers are going to lose even one of their very own in said holocaust? I don't, now if they are to cull the population and start with those families I am all for it!
Perhaps Clavos, since you think that it is a good idea, perhaps you can volunteeer you and yours to be the first to go! Somehow, however I doubt it, meaning that it is alright to eliminate others as long as its not your flock. How utterly selfish.
Thus you have the crux of the problem in a nutshell. I suppose we should start with indigenous third world humans, who consume 90% less than the average american in terms of resources, and probably emit less than 2% of the carbon that average americans consume, but hey, we have been exterminating them quite effectively for the past 500 years, why stop now?
The Ugly American never stops, he/she is more entitled to life, liberty (cough) and the pursuit of happiness than those ignorant savages.
Clavos you make my arguments so very very easy. Do the planet good my arse!
Heh.
Zealots are soooo easy!
Here's yer leg back, Pablo.
Why do I have the feeling I've walked in on a script meeting of a really bad episode of a 60s Batman show?
Ruvy esrim v'echad: Hey, are you familiar with Devash? Check out the 2nd part of The Nature of Our War.
CNN is now speculating that the 9/11 conspirators were waterboarded and whether they can have most evidence against them because they were tortured.
Pablo,
Prince Bernhard and the SS - is this another one of your imaginary facts?
Prince Bernhard and teh Dutch Royal Family fled the Netherlands and took refuge in England when the germans invaded. Bernhard ended up at work in the war planning councils, logged 1,000 hours in Spitfires (crashed two of them), flew on a B-24 bombing V-1's, and from 1942 to 1944, flew as a pilot with the Royal Air Force and helped organise the Dutch resistance movement.
He was present during the armistice negotiations and German surrender in Hotel de Wereld ("The World Hotel") in Wageningen in The Netherlands on May 5, 1945.
I suggest a little fact-checking on your comments might be called for....
CNN is now speculating that the 9/11 conspirators were waterboarded and whether they can have most evidence against them because they were tortured.
You do realize that in the entire history of the use of waterboarding by the US only THREE people have been waterboarded, right? One of those does happen to be Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who is one of those going up for trial, but the other 5 were not waterboarded.
Dave
Oh for chrissakes...CNN is now speculating that three of the 9/11 conspirators were waterboarded and whether they can have most evidence against them because they were tortured.
Deano, has any checked to see if Pablo works for the omnipotent Nalle?
Someone really needs to talk to the Washington Post about printing old news! A paragraph from an article written only hours ago reads...
"But Hartmann declined to answer questions about the admissibility of evidence obtained against Mohammed by waterboarding, a technique that the CIA has acknowledged using to extract information from him and from two other al-Qaeda members who are not among those charged today. The technique, which simulates drowning, has been widely described as torture."
But all of us have known about this for months now right?
Deano,
From wikepedia about Prince Bernard of the Netherlands.
"Bernhard was a member of the NSDAP, the SA and a special branch of the SS called the "Reiter SS."
Nice try though Deano.
Deano,
One other reference to Prince Bernard of the Netherlands taken from:
'H. R. H. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands; an authorized biography' Harrap, 1962. by Alden Hatch
"The story that the Prince of the Netherlands once wore the black uniform of Hitler's SS is quite true."
I do my homework Deano, I suggest that you do yours, next time you want to cast stones on my writing as to FACTS sir.
Oh and Deano?
Please send me more information on imaginary facts that you think that I have conjured up out of thin air, I will gladly provide documentary evidence to the contrary. Next.
Dave you said:
"You do realize that in the entire history of the use of waterboarding by the US only THREE people have been waterboarded, right?"
This statement can hardly be construed as accurate. You might want to revise and say that in the entire history THAT IS KNOWN ABOUT, waterboarding by the US only three people have been waterboarded. For you to make such an amazing claim as FACT, which it cannot be corraborated due to the clandestine nature of the torturers being in the CIA or another clandestine intelligence group, is rather hard to swallow.
I submit to you that more than likely many more human beings have been tortured by these organizations, in addition many humans have been tortured in rendition by other nations, with our tacit approval.
I would very much like to hear you to expound on YOUR opinion on the use of torture Dave. I am all ears.
The Bilderberg group was waterboarding the Prince of Netherlands?
The reporter asks his subject,
"When did you stop beating your wife, sir?"
Thanks Jet.
It referred to comment #111; yours kinda slipped in there when I wasn't looking.
Clavos, I like it when you participate in one of my articles... Though I always don't agree with you I loke you "intellectual style"
diabetic rhetenopathy-Like your intellectual style
This statement can hardly be construed as accurate. You might want to revise and say that in the entire history THAT IS KNOWN ABOUT, waterboarding by the US only three people have been waterboarded. For you to make such an amazing claim as FACT, which it cannot be corraborated due to the clandestine nature of the torturers being in the CIA or another clandestine intelligence group, is rather hard to swallow.
Look, I'm just going with the testimony presented to Congress. In the absence of ANY contradictory evidence we have to assume that testimony is correct. If you have actual evidence, not unfounded suspicions, of other waterboardings by US personnel, do share. Hell, call the Washington Post - they'd be interested.
I submit to you that more than likely many more human beings have been tortured by these organizations, in addition many humans have been tortured in rendition by other nations, with our tacit approval.
I never said a word about what has been done by other countries under rendition in the 200+ years we've been practicing it. I doubt they use waterboarding though, when they have access to much more effective methods.
I would very much like to hear you to expound on YOUR opinion on the use of torture Dave. I am all ears.
Why do you care? It's just an opinion. Do you think that knowing my opinions helps to legitimize yours? No matter how many of us share the same opinion it still doesn't change reality.
But I'll humor you. I think torture is a violation of individual rights, and therefore should never be practiced on anyone by government or other individuals. That having been said, like any absolute it runs into problems in the real world where arguments of exigency and the 'greater good' sometimes trump ethics and we all shed a tear and move on and try to make sure it never happens again.
Dave
Dave
Thank you for sharing your opinion regarding torture.
Dave - waterboarding was used with regularity in Vietnam
What's your source for that, troll?
I was introduced to the technique and its use by a handle bared mustachioed spook in the early 70's
for some reportage see this...Pablo doesn't need to contact the Post
I think the justification goes: It's all right when we do it, because we're doing it for the right reasons...
I agree with Dave (dear god no!). As I've said before "since when does expressing an opinion require having stats to back it up.
I do it all the time
Much to the chagrin(sic) of others...
Like they say Doc "Do as I say, not as I do."
The Bush administration's policy of "Do as I say not as I do" has lost us a lot of worldwide respect.
Dave you've my permission to use my "But that's only my opinion" tag line from time to time if needed.......
I agree wholeheartedly with Jet's above comment regarding Dave.
troll 122,
Now there's an intriguing little tidbit.
C
Troll brings up an interesting point of conversation that's been floating around here for a while but never talked about.
We can't seem to talk about personal experiences unless we can link to some other source to back it up.
Troll says he has first hand experience with waterboarding during the Vietnam era. Why can't he make that statement, or write an article about it as a factual report, without half of this site saying, "We want concrete proof of this" because your word isn't good enough, all but calling us liars if we try.
It's very frustrating at times.
I-like-a few on this site could tell you of experiences first hand with near death, encounters with celebrities in my travels, and UFO's that curl your hair, because I grew up near the airforce base in Pittsburgh, my father was in the airforce ahd could lay his hands on photos that the world never saw, and yet unless I have someone to back up what I know are facts, I'm not allowed to write about it.
We're sorry but if you want to publish this article you'll need to link some of what you're asserting to prove they're facts...
I hardly find it surprising that waterboarding was used in Vietnam, as well at the Mylai incident, and napalming.
The fact is that humans have been torturing other humans since the dawn of time, this however does not make it right, and it remains barbaric and inhumane.
I do find it ironic that one of the first things some people do when talking about how evil certain regimes are; nazis, red china, pol pot etc, is to almost invariable bring up the use of torture as one of the primary examples of barbarism.
However when we do it, now that is a different story. After all we only do it to protect "freedom" and "democracy". I suggest to those of you that do approve of waterboarding, that when you engage or approve of such cruelty you lessen yourselves as human, and are on the road to becoming exactly what you supposedly deplore.
I do wonder being the curious person that I am if one could do an actual poll. Taking capital punishment as an example, and those that approve of it; what percentage of such people also approve of using torture. As opposed to those that are against capital punishment, and are opposed to torture. I suggest that there is a correlation, and that the people that are pro capital punishment, are far more likely to also believe in using torture.
I would like to reference Mr. John Yoo former Justice Department official with the Office of Legal Counsel, who aided in writing the USA Patriot Act and whos legal memos were used in authorizing torture. On Nov 3rd 2006 at the Baker Institute Student Forum, in answering a question, said that there is no law or treaty to prevent the President from authorizing crushing the testicles of a child in front of their parents.
John Yoo on torture
This to me shows how far we have fallen as a nation, and that a former public official would utter such a statement, is appalling. According to Mr. Yoo's opinion there is absolutely nothing that a president cannot do to anybody in prosecuting an undeclared war. This is one of the reasons that I feel we are in big trouble as a nation and headed for tyranny.
So, troll,
Care to elaborate (maybe just a little)?
Clavos - I think that I've mentioned that when I was a kid training design was my thing...in my early twenties I fell in with a group of ex-HumRRO types and ended up doing contract work for the Army Research Institute (amongst others) in the final years of the 'police action'
it was a pretty dark nihilistic period during which I learned lots of dirty secrets about Americans and their ways of warfare
(not to mention myself)
I'd be happy with waterboarding if they used beer.
That wouldn't be waterboarding, Stan. It'd be Friday night at an average American college frat house.
Except they don't have access to proper beer, the poor luvs
Thanks, troll.
I hadn't seen that before (maybe before my time?).
Anyway, I think I understand, based on my own experiences at the time, where you're coming from, especially the part about introspection...
BTW, I have a cousin who does training design for the Navy; he's a PhD in psychology and doesn't go into a lot of detail about what his job entails.
Jim Hightower says that McKasey hornswaggled us on waterboarding by first fooling Shumer and Feinstein.
cf.: jim hightower
Here's a good quote from bliffle's citation:
"Thus, gullible as two rubes at a medicine show, Schumer and Feinstein gave Mukasey the votes he needed to win confirmation." (emphasis added)
Shummer and Feinstein are hardly the sharpest tools in the shed, but then Jim Hightower is hardly a source of anything resembling objective reporting.
Dave
What the Mukasey/administration position on Waterboarding comes down to is that they claim the right to keep it as an option while at the same time promising that it will not be used except in situations of the direst threat - such as when the only way to find out where a bomb that's about to go off can be found... your basic Jack Bauer scenarios.
I think a lot of people like Shumer and Feinstein and many others are comfortable with this. Clearly some folks don't have that much faith in the CIA.
Dave
"Jim Hightower is hardly a source of anything resembling objective reporting."
Yeah, that's pretty obvious...
Dave, considering that Bush thinks of himself as elected by god, and the fact that he's defying 2005's Detainee Treatment Act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and also a Supreme Court ruling against him, do you seriously believe that he's going hold to his promise "that it will not be used except in situations of the direst threat".
We're talking about a president that is intentionally keeping a false war based on faulty intelligence and out and out lies
and why?
So he can keep his "war time" presidential powers.
One of my mates worked for the Water Board back in the '70s. He said at the time it was torture.
Tough way to make a living, especially with all the standing around they had to do whilst leaning on their shovels.
He said when they were trying to look busy, they used to poke sticks into drains.
Ah, yes, the good old 70s. Efficiency and cost-effectiveness were just something that happened to other people back then, weren't they?
and the fact that he's defying 2005's Detainee Treatment Act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and also a Supreme Court ruling against him,
All of those things have very specific limitations which Bush has argued his way around relatively effectively. None of them apply explicitly to waterboarding, so there is a handy little gray area.
do you seriously believe that he's going hold to his promise "that it will not be used except in situations of the direst threat".
Bush isn't really the one to hold accountable. It's what the CIA and the military and the DOJ do which matters - and how much we trust them, not Bush.
We're talking about a president that is intentionally keeping a false war based on faulty intelligence and out and out lies
I'm not in a position to second-guess Bush's choice to downplay certain aspects of the intelligence surrounding the Iraq invasion and rely instead on weaker evidence. I can think of a number of reasons, though.
Dave
Yeah, they did Jet ... but I think from memory we paid a standard rate per household, regardless of how much water was used. That is why every second house in Australia has a swimming pool.
These days, what with the drought and all, water restrictions have been pretty tight until recently.
I was banned from watering my garden more than twice a week, and it had to be on Sundays and Wednesdays, after sunset.
Up north and over on the west coast, I believe they were banned from watering their lawns altogether.
Water can be a scarce commodity on this continent ... but it does go in cycles.
Right now, it's been pis.ing down for about two months after a six-year drought.
All I can say is, the old Water Board was good compared to the current mob.
So bring back the Water Board I say!!
Remind me to label my jokes so people know when to laugh. I've seen news reports of huge dust storms so I guess waterboarding has nothing to do with surfing?
This should be fun, the Senate just passed an intelligence bill that included forbiding waterboarding-
I'd call that a slap in the face at Bush who just announced his assertion that he'll use it if he wants to laws and Supreme court be damned.
So the bill explicitly forbids waterboarding and describes the activity and provides NO exceptions at all?
Got a bill number?
Dave
Okay Dave,
Click here to read the entire article...
(CBS/AP) The White House said today that President Bush will veto a measure that would ban the CIA from using what the administration describes as "enhanced interrogation methods" on terror suspects.
The provision, part of a broad intelligence authorization bill passed by the House and Senate, would prohibit any interrogation techniques to be used on prisoners that are not authorized or condoned by the U.S. Army Field Manual.
CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller reports that the White House is confident that the president's veto would be sustained.
The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 51 to 45; 5 Republicans joined 45 Democrats and 1 independent in favor of the ban.
White House press secretary Dana Perino characterized the confrontation in partisan terms, saying Americans will have to choose between supporting a ban on waterboarding and protecting national security: "They'll have to ask themselves, 'Do you trust the intelligence community more than you trust Democrats who are beholden to their left wing?' And that's the debate that this country is going to have."
Gee I hope no one consideres this old news...
According to one of the other articles I read, the house passed it 222-199 Last December (old news again (sigh)) but here's something interesting, John McCain, himself a victim of torture whilst a POW voted against the bill banning waterboarding and other methods of torture!!!!?
Sounds to me like the hypocritical Senator is trying to kiss a few asses with the far-right wing in order to get elected.
advantage in setting up a presidential veto. The bill was approved 51 to 45 in the Senate after passing the House in December, 222 to 199. Neither margin would be sufficient to override a veto.
If I recall right McCain led a movement in the senate to get it banned. Is this considered the deadly practice of "flip-flopping?" on a grand scale?
but of course that's only my opinion!
... or is it?
From the article, it would appear that the short answer to your question(s) Dave, is no.
The Bill obligates the CIA to follow the dictates of the Army Field Manual; it doesn't go into specifics as to prohibitions.
It's part of a much broader intelligence bill, and even McCain is opposed to it.
Uh Clavos, did you read or just scan?
"McCain had earlier sponsored the 2006 Detainee Treatment Act which included a ban on waterboarding, which President Bush invalidated by a signing statement giving himself the authority to ignore it."
I read it, Jet.
The 2006 Detainee Treatment Act is another piece of legislation, which as its name states, was passed in 2006, only to be vetoed by GWB.
As you pointed out above, McCain is opposed to the current bill.
we'll see how the evening news handles it.
Bush has vetoed legislation meant to ban the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics because it "would take away one of the most valuable tools on the war on terror."
Sure, torture has it's critics because it disgusts the general public and it never yields useful results, but look on the bright side: it improves the economy by providing jobs for unemployed torturers. How can you argue with that?
You're absolutely right Bliff. How could I be so thougtless not to think of that. Now what did I do with my leather????
The President has declared that the proper response to 9/11 is to go shopping. Well, how can torturers go shopping if they don't have money?
He's hoping we'll all buy stock in Haliburton?
Actually Bliff, If we did that most of the money would go to China. Don't forget Bush I was the ambassador to China before he became the Chief of the CIA
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/73652)
I don't think I've ever heard of government sponsored insanity... until now