If "simulated drowning" (water boarding) isn't a war crime, then why has the US prosecuted it as a war crime?

Question

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

*crickets*

cons...where are you guys?

oh, thanks bildy, i will be sure to trust you over the washington post. wheres your source? i have one.

pony -
if you would like to discuss ted's drunken escapades, thats cool, but how about you answer this question first?

smedrick -
i realize the reality of what you say, however, i myself do not define "truth" as fast and loose as the cons do.

cvq -
it seems to me that you are the one "going to great lengths" here. its really quite simple. either it is torture and we are wrong to be doing it, or it is not torture, and we were wrong to condemn others for doing so. it can't be both. i disagree about the latitude that the government and military would or did exercise during WWII. in that era, America was a country that could be counted on to act constitutionally and uphold human rights and dignity without falling to the levels of our enemies. this is no longer the case.

silver -
couldn't have said it better myself. America is long overdue and in need of a middle class man/woman in leadership instead of a snobbish elite from one of only several wealthy politico families.

cvq -
i have not mentioned bush by name or made any personal attacks on him in this question. however, since you mention it, it is within his power and indeed is his responsibility, as the commander in chief, to ensure and assure that government officials abide by the rule of law and to define what is and what is not acceptable behavior for such employees. he describes himself as the "decider", but instead he chooses to employ deception, vagueness, and avoidance of the issue of torture so as to avoid culpability. that is not the kind of ignoble actions i expect from my president.

Answer 1

Waterboarding IS a War Crime,
it has always BEEN a War Crime,
and it will always BE a War Crime.

This is just one more sleazy wordplay trickery engaged in by this criminal regime - to suit their own sick purposes.

When will the bushlickers grow a conscience?

Answer 2

Thanks for the cite. I will have a look, and also check other sources.

I would say generally that if we used the rules employed in WWII rather than the rules of engagement we have today, we'd have much more latitude in dealing with the enemy. Even without figuring in the mass internments of US civilians or the use of atomic weapons.

I know this from stories of veterans fighting in Europe and Asia during that time, relayed first-hand.

I don't think it's intellectually honest to "cherry pick" some rules from one era and some from another, though, in an effort to give our enemies the most latitude.

I find it extremely misguided, and disturbing, that people in our own country - the very targets of these genocidal maniacs - go to such lengths to do so.

PS We WON WWII, and the world is much better off. Your assertions about our conduct during that war are not correct. I don't consider FDR a war criminal, nor do either of us know the circumstances of the cases cited by the Washington Post.

If you believe a series of personal attacks on the President constitutes a model answer, then we are indeed far apart in views. But thanks for a respectful debate, all the same. :)

Answer 3

That seems to be the issue with Mukasey. If he declares waterboarding as torture then he may have to prosecute Bush/Cheney, etc. for crimes committed.

Waterboarding is torture. Plain and simple. There is no gray area here. The thought that an innocent person is being victimized by this breaks my heart. That shouldn't be. How can some people be so callous and cruel? God forbid if they ever find themselves in this situation. It's a possibility for all of us. You just never know where life will lead you. We aren't 100% in control.

Just because our enemies use torture doesn't mean the U.S. should. Must we be at their level? Do you know what that really means? Have you thought about it? Talk about the break down of civilization.

Answer 4

And who, of the human beings who even have the authority to accomplish that, are "stressful that Cheney be tried for conflict crimes"? are you able to call one member of the ICJ that has observed as for an indictment of the former vice-president? Do you additionally be responsive to what the ICJ is? Heck, i think of OJ did homicide his ex-spouse and her boyfriend, yet that doesn't recommend that there could be yet another trial basically because of the fact of what i think of. the comparable is going for you, > each and every physique who does actually learn permit you to be responsive to that web pages at the instant are not real documentation. I asked you to call one (basically one) member of the ICJ this is even pondering issuing an indictment to Dick Cheney and you submit an internet site that may not from the ICJ. guess what, the three morons from "loose substitute" have an internet site. Is that info? of course not. there is greater info that Bigfoot exists. How approximately you have some refresher on the thank you to do actually learn and look into the ICJ. Then come back with what you have. >BTW. I did hassle to do slightly learn for in this count. The ICJ bargains with international agreements, not conflict crimes. inspite of the undeniable fact that, the international criminal courtroom does prosecute conflict crimes and crimes against humanity; they have issued warrants to the president of Sudan at present. The ICC has gained 1000's of proceedings with reference to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, yet has not discovered any foundation for issuing any warrants, much less indictments.

Answer 5

This is a bit cheeky yet an unfortunate truth. It is only a war crime when you are on the losing end of the battle.

Almost every war criminal every put on trial came from a collapsed, government, army or society.

As a side note who would charge the US with a war crime? The USA holds veto power in the UN and can therefore veto any motion put forth to charge them.

It is not a crime, it is not an abomination for the simple reason the USA will not be held accountable.


EDIT: Free Radical, nor do. However that is the reality of the situation. I believe such a practice to be repugnant. I do believe it is torture and in no way should it be considered an interrogation technique. Although I may be Strong in my convictions the reality is it is only ever considered amoral and a crime if there is somebody there to enforce a consequence. IN the case of the USA there isn't, thus they can continue with said egregious human rights violations.

Answer 6

Why?

Because in 2004, a lot of people were scared witless and went along with Bush's rhetoric about "bein' President in a time a' war."

Because they were protecting what they had--which amounted to some measly little damned tax return.

Because they decided to sell off their own security, their future, their children's future, civil rights, and the reputation of this country in exchange for their little reward.

Because this country is largely populated with people who do not read and do not think, people who know damned well that they're too uninformed to vote, and who go to the polls anyway.

Because in 2004 we handed GWB, a veangeful little rich snot, carte blanche to destroy this country, which he proceeded to do because he has a MBA and thinks he's CEO of the United States.

Because GWB hates this country and all that it stands for--hates it almost as much as he hates the rest of the world.
Why?

Because we don't like him, and he knows it.

And in his little soul, the soul of a four-year-old who can't get his way, that's all that really matters.

That's why.

Thanks for the link.

NOTE: the above comment is probably an insult to four-year-olds. Apologies to little tykes everywhere.

Answer 7

Because it IS a war crime. The Bush regime is trying to "redefine" torture like they've altered the meaning of so many other things.
If not for Iraq, the legacy of Bush could be doublespeak.

Answer 8

its funny how first it was ok to send "rendition" suspects to 3rd world countries for torture

then it was ok to do it at Gauntamano and Abu Grahaib at US bases

then it was ok for US to do it on ships rented by the US

when will bush say its ok to do it on American soil?

Answer 9

I can't wait to see the squirming answers to this very good question.

Answer 10

Ted Kennedy knows all about water boarding. Remember Mary Jo.

"Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. "We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II," he said.

Kind of sick,blow hard Ted never went back to help poor Mary Jo,yet whines about terrorists.