Wow, Mike. I guess I didn't realize you were carrying on so without having actually watched the video we were discussing. That has to be a new milestone, even for our whacky world of PPOT.

So you chime in on a thread with (what you now admit was) a pretty solid, preconceived opinion on the status of waterboarding as a form of "torture". You don't even bother to watch the video (did you even read the article, at least?) in question, yet you feel wholly qualified to add to the discussion? Please, Mike, don't let anything like a review of the subject matter (or facts and data) get in the way of your heartfelt expert opinions. And I live in my own little world?

IROC,

I do not know if you are referring to the same individual who purports to be an expert and a trainer with vast SERE experience who the “left” trots out. The one I am familiar with touts all kinds of experience, etc. but also states that it is normal to get quarts of water into someone’s lungs. This individual stated that this is what he did during SERE training until called on the fact that quarts of water into lungs would cause lots of medical down time + permanent (both death and inability to continue service) loss of expensively trained personnel. This individual has since changed his story to state that what goes on is different than SERE training.

Just take a logical look at the thought of dumping “quarts” (or even pints/cups) of water into someone’s lungs a few times a day would do to their ability to answer further questions just for verifications sake. I know we have some medical Dr.s on the board and they can give their opinion on subject of regular water intake into the lungs as is suggested by whatever percentage.

I still have never seen anything that makes water boarding as conducted torture as defined under anything other nebulous standard of “whatever”. I am talking about legal, historical standards.

S/F, FOG

Enough said.

As a physician I can tell you that as little at 10 cc of water actually in the small airways (past the carina) is enough to cause major distress if not pneumonitis if not suctioned out. We see aspiration pneumonitis all the time mainly from aspiration of vomitus or food and it's amazing how little it takes.

I can definitively say that someone who says that "quarts" of fluid get into the lungs is full of it, unless those people are directly admitted to ICU after waterboarding.

Interrogating a known Al Qaeda terrorist is too flippant an answer. That's a no brainer without considering gray areas. How about a suspected terrorist, maybe anyone arrested or detained in the area or from a tip?

I think many who condone torture techniques fail to see that what goes round comes around. If the US condones torture, that makes it that much easier for others, unfriendlies included, to rationalize doing the same for their detainees (US soldiers, diplomats, civilians, contract workers, etc.). What the hell, since it's not "torture", how about federal agencies using those same techniques to extract information/confessions from US citizens? Do you see a problem with that? I hope you see past the, "I'm a good guy and wouldn't be in that same category" argument.

And if govt. officials don't define waterboarding as torture, then other forms of coercion could also be exempt (electric shock, beating, etc.). It's the same old slippery slope. To allow administration officials, staff lawyers and a college law professor to define US policy and overrule military and Geneva conventions is irresponsible and reduces our credibility throughout the world.

And that's not even addressing the proven fact that, in many cases, the extracted confession is false.

I'm pretty confident that, with a penis clamp, I could, from the first person I tried, find out who stole the strawberries out of the ship's refrigerator. That's too harsh. Let's try a finger clamp for the same result and use the PC as a backup.

Sherwood

Unfortunately, both the far right and the far left are equally guilty.

What are you talking about?! America wouldn't ever detain the wrong people! :rolleyes:

I must hate America...Snowman's still taking names? SHiiT!!

More WB background for everyone's torture pleasure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

The piece describes an example where volunteer CIA agents tried it and only lasting a couple of seconds longer than Hitchens. So what if a SERE-trained individual can withstand this interrogation technique for longer time periods? According to sources, that's not the intent of SERE training. There's no time clock limit imposed on enthusiastic interrogators bent on extracting information of any kind.

Sherwood

+1. Most of you are getting wrapped around the wrong axle. The above is what I'm talking about. Sherwood gets the point. Who cares how long Hitchens could take it? In the end, it's this slippery slope that I'm talking about. That and the fact that I think beating information out of people has its limits of value. And everyone agrees that waterboarding is no big deal and that it's fair game to treat our soldiers this way if captured? If that is the consensus, then yeah, maybe I need to think about this further. Maybe I am making more out of this than need be. Maybe it's no big deal?

The Geneva conventions do not apply to illegal combatants. Terrorists are illegal combatants.

You are, of course, absolutely right. What I find absolutely ironic about this situation, however, is that no sooner had I typed that than one (in this case, towards the left end of the spectrum) piped up and as much as admitted it. After pontificating profusely over the topic (see title of post), he has no trouble telling us he never actually watched the video. A Roseanne Rossannadanna - esque "never mind..." would seem appropriate from him at this point.

Hitchens simply pulled a cheap Geraldo like stunt to try to convince his readers/viewers of the veracity of his claim that "water boarding is torture". I honestly do not care what the semantics of it are, what "world opinion" (as typically expressed by the left) may be; none of that. I'm focused on Hitchens' incredibly melodramatic, over the top, "investigative" reporting. I simply cannot believe it ensnared (self declared) "intelligent" people. It was no more than a P.T. Barnum side show. And yet it seems to have convinced many; some right here on PPOT. At least one without even watching it...

Now, here we have some one with first hand experience trying to inject a little bit of reality into the discussion. What FOG has to say makes perfectly good sense. Notice it also went completely ignored by our "water boarding is torture" crowd. Having spent a few pages touting others' first hand experiences as worthy and adding to the discussion, the first equally qualified input that is voiced which is contrary to their heartfelt beliefs is simply ignored. Falls completely flat. Make of that what you will.

Couple of points:

The Geneva Convention also doesn't define "illegal" combatant - and the law on this is incredibly muddled.

But I agree, that known terrorists should be treated as illegal combatants - and not have the protection of the Geneva Convention.

The best statement I have found on the reasons for this follows:

Quote

The ultimate reason to have legal rules defining combatant status is not simply to ensure that the right of combatants to employ vicarious violence is respected, but simultaneously to ensure, as far as possible, that such violence is not directed against civilians. The essence of combatant status is to be liable, at any time, to deliberate attack. The essence of civilian status is to be immune from deliberate attack. Any legal norm that expands the rights of civilians to function as combatants is certain to erode that basic immunity. In legal terms, what is good for the guerilla must inevitably be bad for the civil society within which he hides.

A terrorist or other "illegal combatant" who trades upon his adversary's respect for the law is, in effect, using the law as a weapon. He cannot simultaneously use it as a shield...

Unquote

Rick,
You realize legal/illegal combatants is an administration wiggle-word to enable "legal" application of torture techniques to combatants of the illegal type?

You mean "illegal", just because they might carry an AK-47 but don't wear a uniform. Hmmm, that would include all enemy combatants in Iraq, wouldn't it, even including civilians.

Guess what? If we were to have a totalitarian govt someday, and should we decide to protest instead of going along with big brother, we would be considered illegal combatants ...... unless the Pelican Parts T-shirt qualifies as a uniform.

Sherwood

So why does the Geneva Convention even mention lawful and unlawful combatants? Why does it mention uniforms and avoiding civilians if there's no distinction between that and foreign fighters wearing civilian clothes and targeting civilians? What's the point of the entire Geneva Convention if the bad guys are never held to account for ignoring it? Does al Qaeda get a pass for using a retarded woman as a suicide bomber to kill more civilians because they don't belong to a nation state so they can't have a national uniform and they can't defeat the U.S. militarily, so they might as well just foment chaos among Iraqi civilians? You just seem to never run out of excuses as to why we need to play nice with terrorists. Show me one U.S. captive who was treated well by al Qaeda because we treated their folks well.

I'm not aware the Geneva convention describes any distinction between "illegal" and "legal" combatants - it's a legal loophole definition created by our Justice dept. I'll recheck the Wiki waterboarding link to confirm.

As for what happens in a war zone; no excuses on both sides, but who takes the high road and who plays to the lowest common denominator? Should the U.S. take the later? I say no. I think we should be held to a higher standard, otherwise we allow our troops to legally kill civilians too.... in the name of "peace" and "democracy" (aka collateral damage).

And who's to say all future combatants will just be Al Qaeda and no one else?

Sherwood

Have a read:

Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.

Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

See wounded combatants for a list of protections.

Convention II extends these same protections to those who have been shipwrecked (Convention II, Art. 13)

Convention III offers a wide range of protections to combatants who have become prisoners of war. (Convention III, Art. 4)

For example, captured combatants cannot be punished for acts of war except in the cases where the enemy's own soldiers would also be punished, and to the same extent. (Convention III, Art. 87)

See prisoner of war for a list of additional protections.

However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)

The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren't as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions.

In addition to rights, combatants also have obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)

For more protections afforded the civilian population, see civilian immunity.

Although all combatants are required to comply with international laws, violations do not deprive the combatants of their status, or of their right to prisoner of war protections if they are captured. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 2)

A mercenary does not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. (Protocol I, Art. 37)

Actually it does define combatants that are afforded the protection of the conventions, see Rick Lee's post above.

I suppose the Iraqi terrorists could be defined as organized resistance, so let's see if they qualify:

1) members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command: We'll give them a check on this one just for argument's sake.

2) are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population: Nope. In fact they go out of their way to be indistiguishable from the civilian population.

3) carry their arms openly: Unless you consider explosives strapped to your body and hidden under a robe or coat openly...nope.

4) and obey the laws of war: not only no, but hell no.

Thus, we can see that the terrorists in Iraq/Afghanistan/wherever do not meet the criteria set forth in the Geneva conventions and thus do not have the protection of the Geneva conventions.

Talk about waterboarding all you want, but saying that it is against the Geneva conventions has no bearing on the issue.

Well stated points Rick and Rick.

Best,

I think an important distinction needs to be drawn between waterboarding (or any other like activity) conducted by the US military on other members of the US military for training purposes and waterboarding (or any other like activity) conducted by the US militarily on its captives. There would be a realistic assumption on held by members of the US military undergoing such training that they will, in fact, not be murdered by their employer.

The same cant be said for captives of the US military.

I think you will find Rick/s, that the term "unlawful combatant" was invented for use in the US's Military Commisions Act (2006). Good Wiki article at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

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 which deny lawful combatant status for mercenaries and children. In the United States, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 codified the legal definition of this term, and invested the U.S. President with broad discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is not contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"[4] because in the opinion of the ICRC "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action".[1][5]The

Stuart,
I also reviewed that same page and arrived at the same conclusion.

As for what the GC says about torture:
"Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

The current administration's attempt, via the US Military Commisions Act (2006), to narrowly define an enemy combatant, is to circumvent humane treatment and suspend the right of detainees and prisoners of war and thus make it legally acceptable to use methods of interrogation widely defined as torture. That an estimated 70% of the countries do not adhere to the GC (according to Wiki) is irrelevant. If we as a society ascribe to its policies, we should adhere to them as well.

Sherwood

You ought to write copy for al Jazeera.

Rick,
I guess you don't subscribe to the principles of the Geneva Convention. Let's hope you don't become a detainee under this administration or it's narrow interpretations.

Sherwood

Even if I did subscribe to the ideals in the GC, I would not expect to be covered by it if I were a terrorist. If terrorists are entitled to GC protections, who is not? Why bother even defining who's covered, if terrorists wearing civilian clothes, hiding bombs beneath their clothes deliberately target civilians are covered by it? What's the point?

You ought read al Jazeera.

You might have a different view of the world.

Leaving aside the question that raises about the presumption of basic human rights- you seem to saying its OK for a nation state to sanction torture if a person is deemed a "terrorist". One man's terrorist is anothers.....but lets park that question.

What about some poor schmuck (like the four Brit citizens) grabbed out of an airport in Pakistan and "rendered" to Cuba. or the Canadian citizen, recently hugely compensated, grabbed while returing to Canada through the US?

What about a non uniformed Afghani fighting an invading and occupying army in his own homeland?

You can laugh off Hitchens and the practice of waterboarding, or using dogs, or stress positions- or just good old beating people to death all you want. The damage the US has done to itself in world by condoning or legitimising these practices is enormous and very possibly irrepairable.

There is no way on God's green earth that you can make a case that a terrorist is provided the protections of the Geneva conventions. It is stated very clearly in the posts above the requirements that must be met in order to have those protections as a POW.

Call it lawful, unlawful, illegal, legal, whatever the hell you want, the rules are there and the terrorists don't meet those rules by any stretch of the imagination.

Of course don't let fact get in the way of your preconceived notions, this discussion is going the same way as the "Iraq is an illegal war" discussion. Complete ignorance of the facts of the matter.

By what altered state of conciousness can you get that from my post?

I asked you- what a a bout a non uniformed combatant fighting an occupying army IN HIS HOMELAND. Or the British citizens grabbed, held for considerable time in Cuba the released, never charged with a thing? And on and on.

Your are choosing to be obtuse, I think.

Really? You think they could make me sympathize with terrorists like you and Sherwood do? I doubt they can convince me. Call me stubborn.

During the American revolution the british fought a gentlemen's war. Marching in line, standing out in the open, not firing on officers.

The revolutionaries started firing from behind trees and targetted officers. The British though that was barbaric but it worked. Similar comparisons could be made about the viet cong and the americans.
The terrorists do not fight conventional battles. If we say we are above that and need to be "gentlemen" we will lose.
F that.
War is hell and should be fought to win. Period. I'd prefer we don't lose a war because some bleeding freaking heart liberal insists that we worry about making terrorists comfortable or playing nicely. That's a loser's strategy and history has proven it too many times.

Stuart,

Yes there distinctions between the two groups. Due to the general health and fitness of the U.S. military members the interrogators learned to go to a certain level, and injuries still occur as in any training. What has been found is that enemies held are unable to sustain the same level of interrogation w/o injury so the interrogators have had to dial things back.

S/F, FOG

Dottore,

Thank you for bringing in the prime reason for the distinction between legal and illegal combatants. As you’ve probably researched this concept dates way back and illegal combatants have always been treated very harshly, and with good reason.

There are other conventions, treaties, etc. dealing with the subject.

S/F, FOG

911,

The concept of legal and illegal combatants pre-dates the USA. The treatment of legal and illegal combatants was addressed during and post both world wars, and the legalese is mostly European in origin as it relates to the Geneva, Hague, etc. conventions.

S/F, FOG

Nathan’s Dad,

I’m obviously no MD. Just wanted further clarification that quarts (or pints, cups, etc.) of water in the lungs is bad. Probably not an efficient way to kill somebody nor to keep them in condition to answer questions.

Kind of makes one wonder about the rest of the individual’s narrative and expertise.

S/F, FOG

No, I am answering your question. None of the above would be afforded the protection of the Geneva convention. It's pretty simple, you can wage war however you like...but if you get captured, don't expect the protections of the Geneva convention. A terrorist does not qualify whether they be on Iraqi, British or US soil. Neither does a covert operator from a nation, whether that be the US or anywhere else.

You are trying to make a case, it seems, that the terrorists are really freedom fighters or an organized resistance. That's fine. If they want the protection of the Geneva convention they must follow the rules. That means differentiating themselves from the general population, carrying arms in the open and following the rules of war as set in the conventions. If al Qaeda in Iraq wants to start doing that then they will be afforded the full protection of the conventions.

Until that time, though, they are illegal combatants and are not afforded the protections. It's pretty simple, Stuart.

Exactly my point. If a guy will stand up in front of Congress and testify that "quarts" of fluid were poured into someone's lungs, then the rest of their testimony is immediately suspect.

Rick,
Detainees are detainees. Why assume all detainees are "terrorists"? They're not. Of course to label them as such makes it simpler to consider them illegal combatants without rights as POWs, then torture is just the next optional step. Your mind at ease - the bad guys are not your worry.

At Gitmo, most detainees (terrorists per your definition) have been released after charges were never filed they were a terrorist or charged with a terrorist act; sometimes years after they were arrested.

Is this guy a terrorist? I don't know, and in many cases the interrogators didn't know either or perhaps didn't care. After all, like many of our security forces (e.g. Blackwater and others), interrogators are contractors and aren't held to the same standards as US Military. Do you know what happens in the detainee camps in the Ukraine or Romania that the administration denies exist? No. I don't either. Do you know there's a reason the govt. doesn't have detainee camps in the CONUS?

Is this your America or your Gestapo? Don't allow facts to cloud your belief system.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1215541348.jpg

Sherwood

Is that what happened to you?

Lefties never let reality get in the way of what they think!

Sherwood you are confusing two completely separate issues. The first deals with what Stuart is talking about, those people arrested or captured in theater. They are not afforded the protection of the Geneva conventions.

You are talking about people detained either here or abroad on suspicion of aiding or abetting terrorism outside of the theater. They are ALSO not afforded the Geneva conventions.

International terrorism is a police matter. It is not a military matter. The people who undergo rendition do so at the command of the CIA, not the military. The two issues are completely separate. The reason the US has been able to keep these people without charges is because they are in a legal no-man's land.

Whether extraordinary rendition is right or wrong is another debate completely, but the facts of the matter are clear. Neither combatants (since you seem to like that term better than terrorists) inside or outside of Iraq are afforded the protections of the Geneva conventions as POWs because they do not meet the requirements set forth in those conventions. It really is not complicated.