Is waterboarding torture?

LOL.

Thanks for this dj, it is keeping entertained on a slow day at work.

Plese feel free to add it to your favourites. Hopefully I'm wrong.

Dude, you've got some serious issues if you read and beleive any of that.

actually you are the one that is wrong, Wheel. Anyone not wearing clear markings as a combatant is not covered by the 3rd Geneva convention (see article 4). If special forces not wearing identifiable uniforms or operating covertly not carrying weapins openly are captured they are NOT covered by the convention and are thus not treated as prisoners of war. If you read the 3rd Geneva convention it becomes pretty clear that the likes of Al-Qaida terrorists are covered either.

not that i think that is necessarily a justification for torture, though.

that "plot" wasn't "thwarted" by the US government. GIve me a break, please! Next time before you copy and paste a list, please read it and make sure you know what it is. Reid was decked by other passengers and cabin crew when he was seen fumbling about with his shoe. The US government had nothing to do with bringing him down.

Wrong. It doesn't that say everyone has to have clear markings as a combatant. You only have to fall into one of the categories listed and at the start everyone is afforded the protection of POW status until decided otherwise by a court.

First, let me say that I read the article. Second, it is my opinion that someone should have waterboarded Christopher Hitchens a long time ago. Third, it only took 2 seconds to break him... Fourth, the final destination of this man probably has something more to do with fire, than water.

Christopher Hitchens is WATERBOARDED

That's right, because in your deluded world, to think is a crime worthy of eternal punishment.

I'm no fan of the distorted propaganda of the Bush administration. Call it what you want. There is, unfortunately, no denying that there are some very dangerous religious nationalist forces in the world. Unless wish to be subject to them, we must resist them. Therefore, let's stay with the question of "How we resist" rather than "If".

yes it does. Article 44 of Protocol I does: . Admittedly the US hasn't ratified Protocol I but everyone else has.

@OG taken from what you wrote:


Says nothing in there about have a uniform or distinguishing markings.
And you do not have to be a combatant just to avail of the protections afforded by the Geneva convention.

yes it does. read the fuckign quote.


I specifically said Third Geneva Convention, which does specificially apply to PoWs. To qualify as a PoW you have to be a combatant in one the categories.

I read it but can you not see the bit afterwards or what?

I suggest a Crusade against the Jihadists. Oh yeah, the Bush Administration and our soldiers in the Middle East are doing a great job of resisting them.

Equivocating is the heart of the weak and the stupid. America is strong, so stop being stupid! Torture is torture and I served my Country in the United States Navy. If you haven't served, then you cannot have an dissenting opinion on this subject! Chicken hawks should get off their asses and sign up now. They will take you no matter how stupid you are. Serve your Country or shut the fuck up!

Proof positive.

You are quite correct in that Reid was not physically thwarted by the US government. However, the US government did issue a warning to aircrews prior to this incident alerting them to particular behaviors to be aware of. The US government, along with the FAA & airlines after 9-11 changed their responses to particular "Passenger Behavior in regards to threats on board", prior to 9-11 it was cooperate, negotiate & survive. This is no longer the case.

Do you believe no attacks have been thwarted since 9-11? and that all the additional security measures taken should be rescinded and we go back to pre 9-11 operations?

Nice piece about the geneva conventions. Since "terrorists" are not Nation States and therefore cannot ratify the conventions, are they covered?

personally I don't believe that terrorists are covered by the 3rd Geneva convention. Nor do I think they are covered by the 4th. which just highlights the fact that the Geneva conventions need ommending to cover terrorists. However, just because they aren't specifically covered it doesn't mean you should be allowed to get away with any sort of treatment. Although I am sure their are sitautions where torture of prisoners may yield results and prevent future loss of life, I think the cost is far to great to go down that route. at least openly.

Your Liquid Bomb Plot from August 2006 is BOGUS ,yet people like yourself still believe this shit.

As for the Geneva Convention, are they POWs or civilians? There is no middle ground, even terrorists are alleged terrorists until proven guilty.

Dark times ahead.

actually, i think there is a middle ground, however the Geneva conventions don't recognise one as yet. As I said before, I think the Geneva conventions need revising to cover this scenario and specifically deal with terrorists.

If you are at war (The war on Terror) then they are enemy soldiers and deserve POW status. If they are individuals arrested/detained, they deserve to be treated as innocent UNTIL proven guilty, thats the very foundation of "the free world". Where does this nonsense stop? Terror and Torture is unacceptable in both scenarios and will only lead to more bloodshed at home. There can be no middle ground with "suspects" !!

If they are 100% bonafide terrorists then a COURT OF LAW should decide their fate. Not some GI who was bullied at school.

Why? The Geneva Conventions are about wars. Terrorists don't play a part in wars. The insurgents/resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan were/are overwhelmingly fighting the US occupation - as they are allowed to do. IEDs aimed at US soldiers aren't terrorism. A tiny number of terrorists took advantage of the chaos to target civilians by placing bombs in markets and so on to further their own separate political agenda. That had nothing to do with the resistance. Terrorism is a policing issue, not a military one.

yeah they do. especially when they declare war on you explicitly in multiple videos etc. The terrorists themselves say they are at war, so why not accept it? I just think that by not acknowledging the fact that war is not necessarily fought between countries using conventional armies you close the loopholes to abuse of interpretation.

I sort of agree with you there, except these militia also don't act according to the Geneva convention.

In what way do they not act in accordance with the GCs? Before I plough through them to see if anything is relevant.

Edit: had a quick look, not sure if the resistance have breached them regularly. They're about treatment of PoWs, civilians etc.

Including the US military

Very true.

well, militia Iraq and Afghanistan don't really qualify under the 3rd Geneva convention because of their own actions. It is article 4.2.1 that I think they breach thus disqualifying themselves from being treated as PoWs.


I also believe they breach the spirit, if not the word, of the 4th Geneva convention by deliberately making themselves, as fighters, indistinguishable from civilians and also by basing operations from residential areas thus putting civilian populations at direct risk.

As far as I know the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan frequently fulfilled all those conditions.

'basing operations from residential areas' is bollocks. Every army does that, it's unavoidable. The accusation is part of the 'human shield' nonsense used by the US and in particular the Israelis as an excuse for killing civilians.

so do the militia identify themselves as fighters with a distinguishable sign?

they certainly have breached articles 33 (by targeting civilians) and 34 (by taking hostages) of the fourth convention.

I specifically mentioned the resistance, not militias, and I'm not convinced that they do much of either of the things you mention. Don't forget a lot of groups are operating in Iraq, some of them resistance, some terrorists, some both at one time or another.

The Madhi Army militiamen are known for dressing in black, for instance.

Were they? So who was killing all the innocent Iraqi civilians in public places? US forces, presumably, as Iraqi freedom fighters were devoting all their energy to fighting the occupier.


If you don't think the US military fights by the rules, you should see who they're dealing with and the rules they follow...


Can you please elaborate on that,"'human shield' nonsense used by the US"? What is the point that you are trying to make here?

Fuck off Jules, I can't be bothered with your bullshit any more.

Edit: One last time.


I've already answered that indirectly:


If you aren't bright enough to distinguish between the groups based on news reports you aren't worth debating with.

Sorry OG, but you did make me laugh there:


What? Like being native to the country that is being occupied?


The first law and custom of any war is... that there ain't none, apart from to the victor, the spoils. I don't agree with this, but that's the way it seems to be.

Didn't we attempt some eons ago to determine what a terrorist is? Somebody who brings terror? A pilot bombing indiscriminately is therefore clearly a terrorist, likewise somebody who straps a bomb to themselves and specifically targets civilians. However, and as history shows from many conflicts, when exactly does an individual who collaborates with the occupier cease to retain civilian status? I would say at the point that they are identified as a collaborator. War is all about propaganda. To get the good people to commit to bad and fight takes careful planning. In this case you need to lower your trousers right round your ankles, turn your entire security system off for a whole day and cross your fingers that the bad guys will guess exactly what day it will be and coincide it with their meticulous planning. A very tall order I would say, but not impossible... as we know.

Just to go back to the original thread question, Is waterboarding torture? Though I honestly though that waterboarding was what Ed Bob was doing on the Isar that time.

Well it certainly is a poor mans torture, a plank of wood, hood, towel across the face and a bit of water...come on!! These guys should watch a bit of 24, there are loads of cool drugs they could use.

I thought REAL torture was what Mr. Moseley does?

However, well spotted Mr. Lions. Remind me to try some waterboarding on you so you can give me a better educated opinion.

They are, that's part of the problem.

what exactly is the difference between the two in your opinion?


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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bombi...Iraq_since_2003

Two letters and they're spelt differently. Their anagrams don't even match.

Enough for ya?

What is the point in distinguishing these groups if you say yourself that they are sometimes both terrorists and insurgents?! That sounds more like bullshit to me and another one of your attempts to split hairs in order to condemn the terrorists who blow up innocent people so as to justify the actions of gangs that have taken up arms against the US in Iraq. You use similar tactics on Israeli/Palestinian threads. As you said yourself though, they are "interchangeable", so what does that mean? When they attack open-air markets they are bad and when they attack coalition forces they are good? In many cases it's the same people, or different groups with similar political aims.
What we are talking about, apart from waterboarding, is fighting while not in uniform, and those who do not fight in uniform know that they run extra risks and are not always granted the same status that a soldier in uniform deserves. Not so long ago, one would be shot on the spot for something like that...
If you actually think that insurgents in Iraq do not use civilians as human shields, or that it's some US invention, you really have no clue what you are talking about.

The best sentence summing up what happened on 911 I've read to date.

Respect.

The Mahdi Army is a militia. It hasn't been one of the primary resistance groups, although there have been occasional direct confrontations (mostly provoked by the US, since Al Sadr is so opposed to the occupation).

The backbone of the resistance is/was Ba'athists.


The hostages were taken mostly by Sunni extremist groups like Al Qaeda in Iraq. These groups have had very little to do with the resistance, they have their own separate agenda.


Ditto.

But isn't Al Sadr also resisting for the Shia, which I think are about 60% of the population of Iraq?

He has steered clear of direct action against the Americans for the most part, despite several attempts by them to arrest or kill him, or reduce his influence.

Well, we're in the phase before the occupation ends and the in-fighting begins. He's probably saving his strength.

His conduct is very erratic. He seems to spend a lot of the time telling his followers to put down their arms and go home. But he hasn't been defeated or killed, which he probably would have have been if he'd gone all out.

'sactly. He's biding his time. Mark my words.

The Americans killed thousands of civilians during the siege of Sadr City earlier this year trying to finish him off (for the fifth or sixth time).

so you are denying that the Mahdi army was responsible for kidnapping and/or holding non-combatants in Iraq? Would you deny that they have attacked and killed civilians and used hospitals to stage attacks. i think you are clutching at straws here. As JW said earier the same groups that are killing americans one day are kidnapping civilians and blowing up busses the next. there is no black and white in these situations which is something that international law needs to recognise to prevent abuse and loopholes.