WWII 'war criminals' were imprisoned in part because of the use of waterboarding. How is it now not torture?

Question

It was determined 50+ years ago to be torture.

I don't want to be a nation that condones or practices torture!

We ARE better than that! That is what I always thought made the United States of America an awesome country!
We have technology and intelligence that make torture unnecessary!

Again if people were imprisoned for the use of waterboarding American prisoners of war 50+ years ago how can we now in 2007 accept the fact that the U.S. government is using this technique?

rukiddin: Here's one.

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/warcrime/Japan/Yokohama/Reviews/Yokohama_Reviews_Asano.htm

**Hope I typed it right.

NOPE!
Here I'll try again:
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~warcrime/Japan/Yokohama/Reviews/Yokohama_Review_Asano.htm
Let's see if that works.

COOL! It worked this time.

Have any of you who questioned or argued against the authenticity of my question checked the site I provided?
That is just one case would you like more?

Arguing POW's vs enemy combatants IMO is purely semantics and parsing of terms. Lawyer tricks.

Answer 1

Your question contains its own answer. "American prisoners," or POWs of any nation, have their treatment prescribed by the Geneva Conventions. These agreements prohibit even QUESTIONING captured enemy soldiers - people in uniform fighting for a signatory of the Conventions. Unless you believe we are not allowed even to question captured enemy combatants (suspected terrorists), then you have already accepted that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to them.

(Also, all the effort to give these suspected terrorists legal rights in court would be misguided. POWs are to be held until hostilities end, and NOT put on trial! So to ask for review in court seems to acknowledge that these poeople are not POWs.)

I once asked here if the US ever prosecuted anyone for waterboarding an enemy compatant, as opposed to a POW or a civilian, and got no response indicating that it had.

In short, different rules apply, depending on the status of the person in question.

PS Your link applies to "PWs" prisoners of war. Again, it's a good question to ask, but I think I have the answer.

Whether waterboarding should be allowed at all is another question - a moral one. (Or a legal one if Congress bans the practice, and has the authority to do so.) But legally the positions are not inconsistent.

PPS This is not a meaningless distinction. Far from it! And indeed others have also recognized that different rules apply, strengthening my case (whether they realize it or not).

I'm not saying that waterboarding is hunky dory. All I'm saying is that the cases you cite are not relevant to this debate, and don't dispose of the issue. That WAS the question you asked.

Answer 2

During World War II both Japanese troops, especially the Kempeitai, and the officers of the Gestapo,[64] the German secret police, used waterboarding as a method of torture.[65] During the Japanese occupation of Singapore the Double Tenth Incident occurred. This included waterboarding, by the method of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach. That's not what happened at Guantanamo. No soft tissue damage even occured, so just keep your anti-rants. Only 13% of Americans oppose what they did. How does it feel to be 1 in 10. Noone cares about those murderers who are going to get a bullet in the brain anyway.

Answer 3

I agree with you 100%. However, I have to argue that the distinction between "Prisoner of War" and "Enemy Combatant" is very important and more than just semantics and "lawyer tricks" because IF they were actually considered POWs then they wouldn't be tortured. A simple change in wording has cost us credibility and cost lives.

Answer 4

I fervently agree with you. While in the Marine Corps, we were heavily indoctrinated on the proper treatment of POWs. This was clearly not an acceptable practice.
Now the practice does not cause physical harm and has proven to be effective; doesn't excuse the fact it is clearly wrong.
Now the premise behind torture is divided between morality and defense. We chose to prohibit said activity simply because we choose to take the high road on this issue. We also chose this path, because of fear these tactics would be used on us. Well, the terrorists we have obtained do not waste time with interrogating. They be-head and they engage in gross mutalation; all of which was performed long-before the US was engaging in waterboarding.
So, while some may argue that since we our enemies are engaging in far worse than us, and our preclusion from torture would yield nothing from them, we still arrive at the aspect of morality.
Wrong is wrong. You can't church it up in any capacity to agument that.

Answer 5

We put military in prison for "torture" at Abu Ghraib at the direction of the CIA but we will not declare items that are set by the Geneva convention as torture to protect the CIA. I do believe that if the citizens understood what the CIA has done in the name of freedom, they could understand the foreign terrorists that we are so afraid of.

Answer 6

Can you cite one case?

War criminals that were tried and imprisoned by tribunals were found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Very few POW interregators were tried in the war crimes tribunals.

Members of the German and Japanese government who participated in torture will guilty of far worse than water-boarding. Have you ever researched torture during the Second World War?

Answer 7

It looks like fun to do and I believe that it should be administered to all that do not like the US and bad mouth our citizens and precious land, especially the hippy bleeding heart, tree hugging liberals! I'll pay to administer it to anti-Americans!

Answer 8

You are correct. Technically, George W. and others could be prosecuted for war crimes internationally for violating the Geneva Convention, but, it is, of course, incredibly unlikely to happen.

We have so fallen as a culture the last 60 years it shatters the imagination. We need leaders that speak of ethics and morality as easily they do economics and partisanship.

I am amazed at what we have become.

Answer 9

Waterboarding only worked for the witch hunts! A suspected witch would be tied to a long pole,then repeatedly dunked into water. If she drowned,she was innocent,if she lived,she was obviously a witch,and then was burned at the stake!

Answer 10

How can you possibly compare waterboarding to being raped with a bayonet, having your dick cut off, your entrails pulled out and set on fire, a water hose shoved up your rectum and turned on full force, have acid put in your eyes, being buried alive, being used for bayonet practice, used for biological weapons practice, have your tongue cut out, be gang raped, watch your babies head smashed open with a rifle butt or have your genitals electrocuted? Imagine how the Japanese army would have laughed if someone suggested that you torture someone by not letting them sleep? Or turn the AC off? Or pretend to drown them with some water and a washcloth??????? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!

OMG!! Are you naive!!!!!!