eisely Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 Some Japanese leaders were executed after trials, but I would be surprised to learn that any were executed solely for water boarding anybody. One of the more controversial cases involved the Japanese commander in the Philipines. I think his name was Yama **** a. In the closing months of the war he essentially lost control of most of his army as it was falling apart and units were separated from one another. Many of these isolated units perpetrated atrocities and he was held accountable for actions over which he had no control. Oh no!!! Busted by the computer for correctly spelling a Japanese name. I hope I don't get thrown off the forum for this infraction.(This message has been edited by eisely) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Kahuna writes: Unpleasant? Scary? Definitely. Torture? No, sorry. The US attorney general disagrees with you.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 In order for waterboarding to be effective, the subject must have the sensation and realization that their life will soon end. Otherwise, its just a cold shower. What hardened terrorist would give up information if they knew they would survive the procedure with no lasting injuries? The unpleasant aspect is the sensation that you are drowning and will soon die. Similar to loading a revolver with one round and holding it to the subjects head and pulling the trigger. Of course, you only loaded a blank, but he doesn't know that. Or better yet, get one of the family members of the subject and put the gun to their head. Then ask the subject a question, pull the trigger. If you think you are gonna die, its torture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eisely Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 The opinion of the attorney general of the US matters, but in this instance lacks credibility. Eric Holder was the hack who pushed through clemency for convicted Puerto Rican terrorists who actually murdered people in order to enhance Hillary's senate prospects in New York and pushed through the Marc Rich pardon in the closing days of the Clinton administration. In both instances Holder knowingly bypassed regular procedures to get the desired result. Holder was, unfortunately, just confirmed this week as AG, but lacks judgment and a sense of propriety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eisely Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 Oh yes, Alberto Gonzales was also an incompetent hack and an unfortunate choice for AG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kahuna Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 >>The US attorney general disagrees with you.>> I'm a better lawyer than he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 While some people might agree that being a lawyer makes one competent to judge whether something is "torture," I don't. I can easily find a number of war tribunals where it has been prosecuted as torture, and I can't find any instances where it was judged as not being torture. It meets the criteria in the UN's Convention Against Torture. Yukio Asano was found guilty of torture in 1947 for waterboarding a civilian. On what basis do you claim it isn't torture, Kahuna? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beavah Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Not an issue for lawyers. Dat's what juries are for, eh? Put the men and officials on trial, demonstrate or describe da technique, and let da jury make a finding of fact on whether waterboardin' is torture. Thing is, to my knowledge every case anywhere in da world which has come to trial over da issue of waterboarding has resulted in conviction. The technique was developed by da Inquisition for cryin' out loud. It's been a favorite of Spanish-speakin' despots and communist juntas ever since. Beavah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eisely Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 I am not an attorney, but I disagree that this is not an issue for lawyers. Lawyers have to tell us what the law is and is not. One of the lawyers in the Bush administration Justice Dept., John Yoo if I recall correctly, apparently authored guidance early on after 9/11 about what is permissable and what is not. He is one of those ex Bush officials whom some people believe is a war criminal. I have not seen the memos he wrote, but if one is a war criminal merely for giving your best advice, where does this leave us? He may have been dead wrong in his opinion at the time, but a war criminal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kahuna Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 >>On what basis do you claim it isn't torture, Kahuna? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 So if waterboarding isn't torture, you'd be ok with the government performing it on your children if they deemed that they had information they think they needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kahuna Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 >>So if waterboarding isn't torture, you'd be ok with the government performing it on your children if they deemed that they had information they think they needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Situational ethics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 If waterboarding isn't torture, it's OK for your local police station to use it then, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSScout Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 When I insisted that we listen to "Stainedglass Bluegrass" on the car radio sunday morning on the way to Meeting, my then young daughter would complain of being "tortured". Now a lovely grown married woman, I doubt if she would compare THAT torture with this discussion's topic. As has been said before, morality can't be legislated. Ethical behavior is not necesarily legal. The fault shown by Abu Ghraib and the secret prisons and secret rendition and the present discussion about whether waterboarding (selective drowning) is "ethical" or "legal" by American standards (?only American standards?) has more significance than mere legal argument. When the truth came out about the activities at Abu Ghraib, everyone asked who is at fault? The US guards? Their captains? The CIA interrigators? I believe the fault goes all the way back to the young guard's teachers, Scoutmasters, even parents and clergy (if any). The permission to engage in any activity (waterboarding, bamboo splinters under finger nails) be done in the name of it's goal (information, loyalty sworn, supposed truth be declared) is given both EXTERNALLY ("I was only following orders") and INTERNALLY ("the devil made me do it") and SOCIALLY ("everybody else was doing it"). Somehow, the ability to refuse to follow those EXTERNAL orders and SOCIAL permission must be enfused in the person by our moral example as parents, clergy, teachers and Scout leaders. The courage to "do the right thing" is , I think, not innate in humans. It must be taught and exampled. Torture is, more than not, I think, about revenge. The inability to see the "enemy" as a human such as ourselves, leads to the need to subjegate, dehumanize and punish. Are the Japanese or the Germans still the "yellow peril" or the "devil Hun"? Our perception and depiction of "the Other" is dependant on our personal experience and often the projected needs of our government and business interests. Is this, perhaps, an extreme form of... bullying? The ability to codify, and define what our society will and will not accept in behavior (even in time of war) goes a long way to displaying to others what it is that makes America unique and desirable. It also makes it impossible for other folks to point and say "see??? They did it!! We can do it to them!!!" so that we have no reason to point and say "see?? We need to do it back , just like they did it to us!!" In the mean time, how does the Golden Rule come into this debate? How would we , as Scouts, (at least), if not people of Faith (pick one), react in similar situation? Could we have the courage to say "nope. won't. It's wrong."? Or would we do the dunking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now