When the US convicted a Japanese commander of waterboarding American captives in WWII, during a brutal war with survival on the line, the US hanged him by the neck with a rope until he was dead.
You have never been tortured by waterboarding.
The Japanese in question was convicted of inflicting the, Water Treatment or Water cure is a form of water torture in which the victim is forced to drink large quantities of water in a short time, resulting in gastric distension, water intoxication, and possibly death. The method used involved pumping large amounts of water in to the victim's stomach by a water hose being forced down his throat, and pumping him up with water, them strapping him on the floor and beating or jumping on the victims stomach, the victim being a POW, and this was done as punishment, or just because the Jap's though it was funny to watch.
When you had your mom pull a hangnail, that was not the same as being tortured by having your fingernails pulled out either.
So now you are claiming that we pull out fingernails? new direction here, called Red Herring.
People at Gitmo were tortured, according to eyewitness testimony, FBI testimony, prisoner testimony, various admissions by military personnel, documentary records, and much circumstantial evidence including front page photographs in the major daily newspapers of the United States.
Please post the photograph from the Major News Paper, your word is far from sufficient, and documentation of fact that what happened wasn't in compliance with law, and regulation.
Do you know what happens to circumstantal evedence in a Court of Law?
It is inadmissible as evidence.
The US President had his personal lawyer write a formal opinion absolving him of war crimes for what was done at Gitmo - the argument was not that the Geneva Convention was not violated (it most certainly was), but that it didn't apply to treatment of the detainees at Gitmo. So not only were prisoners badly abused at Gitmo, but everybody knew about it and planned on it.
Citation of Fact is required here, please post the (formal opinion absolving him of war crimes for what was done at Gitmo)
Again please post photographic evidence, as far as I know ever incident of alleged abuse of prisoners was investigated, and went through proper investigative action, and the appropriate action was then taken.
You are not a Lawyer, You are not a JAG Officer versed in Military Regulations, and the Code of Military Justice, you are not a International Law Expert, or Lawyer in International Law, all you are is a Liberal with a agenda, making accusations, in a wild and crazy rant.
There is no national imperative involved here, and "aggressive interrogation methods" of that kind are crimes regardless.
2,752 lives is not a National Imperative? 9/11 is not a National Imperative?
21 July 2005 London bombings aren't a National Imperative? 170 people Dead, and 600 wounded by bombing in Madrid, not a National Imperative?
And Spain is now accused of Torture:
The U.N. Committee against Torture has expressed concern over the rigors of the closed regime in Spanish prisons, in particular the limited number of hours outside per day; the exclusion from group, sport, or work activities; and the extreme security measures. “Generally speaking, it would seem that the physical conditions of imprisonment [of these prisoners] are at variance with prison methods aimed at their rehabilitation and could be considered prohibited treatment under Article 16 of the [Torture] Convention.”192 This article obligates all states parties to “undertake to prevent...other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”193 In conjunction with article 16, article 11 obligates states parties to “keep under systematic review...arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form o
It seem that they have decided that aggressive interrogation techniques in dealing with terrorist are necessary.
I don't care what other nations do. Other nations do a lot of stupid, ugly, criminal things they, and we, would be better off not doing.
That is the problem, you don't care, your way doesn't care about the 2,757 live, you would not have used aggressive interrogation methods to learn of the attacks before hand and have let those people die just so you could claim that your hands didn't have any stain on them, well you have the stain of 2757 lives on them because your way would have let them die, any way.
You don't have access to the classified information recovered in aggressive interrogations, or knowledge of the act that have been stopped by such methods, you are screaming in the dark about something that you have only the smallest amount of information on, and most of that is second hand guess work based on self serving reports of Lawyers, and guess work, The FBI deals whit criminal matters, and has a different set of rules in dealing with civilians.
The Military has another set of rules for dealing with Pow, and Combatants, and Terrorist.
The way these two organizations deal with their respective domains are almost mutually exclusive of each other.
The G.C. allows speaks to this in Article Three, and how Detainee are to be treated before being classified, POWs, spies, terrorist, after the determination the POWs have rights, but not the right to be released until the war is over, and it is determined that they are no longer a threat.
The process was being carried out, until the lawyers got involved, and it went to the Supreme Court, where they made the Lawful decision that the Congress needed to Make the process at Gitmo, a Regularly Constituted Court or Tribunal, which the Congress did in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), meeting the requirement of the of the Geneva Convention.
Congress established the creation of military commissions, affirming quite satisfactorily that the MCA is consistent with the requirements of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions – the military commissions so established constitute a “regularly constituted court,” affording all the necessary “judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”
Not only does the MCA provide crystal clear guidance in the context of the establishment and operation of military commissions to try “any alien unlawful enemy combatant” (al-Qa’eda and al-Qa’eda-styled Islamic terrorists) it provides concrete statutory definitions concerning a wide variety of terms that have been previously hotly debated. The MCA also clearly places a large legal “seal of approval” on many of the initiatives taken by the Bush Administration in the War on Terror. For instance, the MCA defines “unlawful enemy combatants” in precise language while recognizing in the same breath the lawful functioning of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal for enemy combatant determination set up by the Department of Defense in response to the 2004 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ruling:
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
The MCA also lists in detail the criminal offenses that fall within the jurisdiction of the military commission. Apart from the traditional list of war crimes the MCA appropriately includes “conspiracy” and “providing material support for terrorism,” drawing definitional language from the Material Support provisions at Section 2339A for the later offense. In addition, reaffirming the fact that the United States is in a state of hostilities, the MCA addresses the matter of streamlining the process for dealing with the large number of petitions filed by lawyers on behalf enemy combatants in the federal court system. Again, if one recognizes the government’s premise that the nation is at war and the laws of war apply, then the MCA properly deals with restricting habeas corpus and providing for other limitations on the jurisdiction of civilian courts.
