A Conservative's view on waterboarding

[jillian]

As I look at the sometimes tedious and monotonous back and forth on a thread like this, I submit two observations:

1. Just as I opined, the leftwing ideologues ignored an opportunity to actually think about the difference between policy and reality in a crisis situation.

2. And I now further opine that had waterboarding been used during the Obama Administration to obtain information useful in killing Osama bin Laden or thwarting furture mass murders via terrorist attack, the same people condemning the procedure would likely be defending it now. And I doubt that many conservatives would hold much different positions that what they now hold.

i suggest you actually read the piece.

facts just get in the way.

 

[uscitizen]

The thread is full of logical fellatio.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's not the case with me. Who are you talking about exactly?

I'm saying that the leftwing will NOT even look at, much less discuss, what they would do in a crisis situation in which hundreds or thousands of innocent lives were at stake. The conservatives have at least acknowledged they would not apply the standard policy at such times. I used an illustration from a scene in "Guarding Tess" and said it would be ignored. It was.

And I think I know how it works well enough to believe that had the Annointed One been the one to use waterboarding to get useful information on the whereabout of bin Laden instead of that happening during the Bush Administraation, we probably would not have enough discussion about it to fill twenty seven pages of a thread now.

The current administration did act on intelligence that was obtained by President Bush.


In my my book, some things go way beyond politics... I think it's sad some people have such little faith in the intentions of their fellow Americans...

I wasn't talking about how the intelligence gained was used though Val. I was referring to the posts regarding water boarding for ANY reason. The point is because the Bush Administration allowed it, they are still scum despite the results re bin Laden. It still violated international law and never should have been used, yadda yadda.

However, if the enhanced interrogation had been authorized under Obama with the same results, the same people trashing Bush and waterboarding would now be looking for ways to defend it.

And most of those condemning water boarding won't discuss any remote reason to deviate from a no-waterboarding standard policy.

And perhaps I am second guessing some folks here, but it comes from long experience and observation of this kind of phenomenon over a lot of years now. It has become pretty predictable.

 

[Foxfyre]

As I look at the sometimes tedious and monotonous back and forth on a thread like this, I submit two observations:

1. Just as I opined, the leftwing ideologues ignored an opportunity to actually think about the difference between policy and reality in a crisis situation.

2. And I now further opine that had waterboarding been used during the Obama Administration to obtain information useful in killing Osama bin Laden or thwarting furture mass murders via terrorist attack, the same people condemning the procedure would likely be defending it now. And I doubt that many conservatives would hold much different positions that what they now hold.

i suggest you actually read the piece.

I don't need to read somebody else's opinion on this to draw my own conclusions about what I have observed during the course of this thread. I have expressed no opinion but my own and made it clear that it was my own observation/opinion.

Look, I'm not trying to put down anybody in particular here and I'm not trying to pick a fight.

But there are other ways to approach the topic in addition to a) water boarding is evil vs b) no it's not or a) water boarding is torture vs b) no it's not, etc.

I wish there was a way to look each member in the eye and ask them point blank: "If you knew that there was a weapon of mass destruction to be used someplace that would put hundreds or thousands of innocent citizens at risk of injury, maiming, death, would you then look the other way as enhanced interrogation was used to get the information from somebody you were certain had it?" Would you do that if it was your own wife, husband, kids, parents, neighbors, friends, loved ones at risk?

 

[del]

As I look at the sometimes tedious and monotonous back and forth on a thread like this, I submit two observations:

1. Just as I opined, the leftwing ideologues ignored an opportunity to actually think about the difference between policy and reality in a crisis situation.

2. And I now further opine that had waterboarding been used during the Obama Administration to obtain information useful in killing Osama bin Laden or thwarting furture mass murders via terrorist attack, the same people condemning the procedure would likely be defending it now. And I doubt that many conservatives would hold much different positions that what they now hold.

i suggest you actually read the piece.

facts just get in the way.

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”

—Herbert Spencer

 

[uscitizen]

I'm saying that the leftwing will NOT even look at, much less discuss, what they would do in a crisis situation in which hundreds or thousands of innocent lives were at stake. The conservatives have at least acknowledged they would not apply the standard policy at such times. I used an illustration from a scene in "Guarding Tess" and said it would be ignored. It was.

And I think I know how it works well enough to believe that had the Annointed One been the one to use waterboarding to get useful information on the whereabout of bin Laden instead of that happening during the Bush Administraation, we probably would not have enough discussion about it to fill twenty seven pages of a thread now.

The current administration did act on intelligence that was obtained by President Bush.


In my my book, some things go way beyond politics... I think it's sad some people have such little faith in the intentions of their fellow Americans...

I wasn't talking about how the intelligence gained was used though Val. I was referring to the posts regarding water boarding for ANY reason. The point is because the Bush Administration allowed it, they are still scum despite the results re bin Laden. It still violated international law and never should have been used, yadda yadda.

However, if the enhanced interrogation had been authorized under Obama with the same results, the same people trashing Bush and waterboarding would now be looking for ways to defend it.

And most of those condemning water boarding won't discuss any remote reason to deviate from a no-waterboarding standard policy.

And perhaps I am second guessing some folks here, but it comes from long experience and observation of this kind of phenomenon over a lot of years now. It has become pretty predictable.

I am totally against waterboarding interrogation types of stuff.
I was against if when Bush did it and I am still against just like the Iraq war and nation building in Afganistan.

 

[Foxfyre]

The current administration did act on intelligence that was obtained by President Bush.


In my my book, some things go way beyond politics... I think it's sad some people have such little faith in the intentions of their fellow Americans...

I wasn't talking about how the intelligence gained was used though Val. I was referring to the posts regarding water boarding for ANY reason. The point is because the Bush Administration allowed it, they are still scum despite the results re bin Laden. It still violated international law and never should have been used, yadda yadda.

However, if the enhanced interrogation had been authorized under Obama with the same results, the same people trashing Bush and waterboarding would now be looking for ways to defend it.

And most of those condemning water boarding won't discuss any remote reason to deviate from a no-waterboarding standard policy.

And perhaps I am second guessing some folks here, but it comes from long experience and observation of this kind of phenomenon over a lot of years now. It has become pretty predictable.

I am totally against waterboarding interrogation types of stuff.
I was against if when Bush did it and I am still against just like the Iraq war and nation building in Afganistan.

So you know there is a weapon going to be deployed someplace where it will kill hundreds or thousands of innocent men, women, and children. You won't look the other way when enhanced interrogation is used to save those people? Really?

When the Secret Service agent shot the toe off the Chauffeur and threatened to do the same to a second toe in order to get him to reveal the location of the dying kidnap victim, you would prosecute that agent to the fullest? Even when it saved the victim?

These are the things that make this issue less cut and dried than some seem to wish to make them.

 

[uscitizen]

I wasn't talking about how the intelligence gained was used though Val. I was referring to the posts regarding water boarding for ANY reason. The point is because the Bush Administration allowed it, they are still scum despite the results re bin Laden. It still violated international law and never should have been used, yadda yadda.

However, if the enhanced interrogation had been authorized under Obama with the same results, the same people trashing Bush and waterboarding would now be looking for ways to defend it.

And most of those condemning water boarding won't discuss any remote reason to deviate from a no-waterboarding standard policy.

And perhaps I am second guessing some folks here, but it comes from long experience and observation of this kind of phenomenon over a lot of years now. It has become pretty predictable.

I am totally against waterboarding interrogation types of stuff.
I was against if when Bush did it and I am still against just like the Iraq war and nation building in Afganistan.

So you know there is a weapon going to be deployed someplace where it will kill hundreds or thousands of innocent men, women, and children. You won't look the other way when enhanced interrogation is used to save those people? Really?

When the Secret Service agent shot the toe off the Chauffeur and threatened to do the same to a second toe in order to get him to reveal the location of the dying kidnap victim, you would prosecute that agent to the fullest? Even when it saved the victim?

These are the things that make this issue less cut and dried than some seem to wish to make them.

Umm the Mushroom could thing was false.

You can what if all you want.
I do live by my principles and do not indulge in the ends justifies the means type of thinking.
I believe in our laws applying to all.
I AM an American who believes in our constitution.

 

[uscitizen]

And yes I would prefer to die than to corrupt my morals.
Makes me different from most christians.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As I look at the sometimes tedious and monotonous back and forth on a thread like this, I submit two observations:

1. Just as I opined, the leftwing ideologues ignored an opportunity to actually think about the difference between policy and reality in a crisis situation.

2. And I now further opine that had waterboarding been used during the Obama Administration to obtain information useful in killing Osama bin Laden or thwarting furture mass murders via terrorist attack, the same people condemning the procedure would likely be defending it now. And I doubt that many conservatives would hold much different positions that what they now hold.

i suggest you actually read the piece.

I don't need to read somebody else's opinion on this to draw my own conclusions about what I have observed during the course of this thread. I have expressed no opinion but my own and made it clear that it was my own observation/opinion.

Look, I'm not trying to put down anybody in particular here and I'm not trying to pick a fight.

But there are other ways to approach the topic in addition to a) water boarding is evil vs b) no it's not or a) water boarding is torture vs b) no it's not, etc.

I wish there was a way to look each member in the eye and ask them point blank: "If you knew that there was a weapon of mass destruction to be used someplace that would put hundreds or thousands of innocent citizens at risk of injury, maiming, death, would you then look the other way as enhanced interrogation was used to get the information from somebody you were certain had it?" Would you do that if it was your own wife, husband, kids, parents, neighbors, friends, loved ones at risk?

The problem is, the "ticking bomb" scenario doesn't happen in real life, only in re-runs of 24.

What's the point of discussing a hypothetical that has NEVER happened to justify the use of torture?

 

[elvis]

still waiting for Sean Hannity to go through with being waterboarded.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

still waiting for Sean Hannity to go through with being waterboarded.

I think he got too scared when he saw what happened to Mancow.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkj9pjx3H0]YouTube - Mancow Waterboard[/ame]

 

[Wicked Jester]

I am totally against waterboarding interrogation types of stuff.
I was against if when Bush did it and I am still against just like the Iraq war and nation building in Afganistan.

So you know there is a weapon going to be deployed someplace where it will kill hundreds or thousands of innocent men, women, and children. You won't look the other way when enhanced interrogation is used to save those people? Really?

When the Secret Service agent shot the toe off the Chauffeur and threatened to do the same to a second toe in order to get him to reveal the location of the dying kidnap victim, you would prosecute that agent to the fullest? Even when it saved the victim?

These are the things that make this issue less cut and dried than some seem to wish to make them.

Umm the Mushroom could thing was false.

You can what if all you want.
I do live by my principles and do not indulge in the ends justifies the means type of thinking.
I believe in our laws applying to all.
I AM an American who believes in our constitution.

The Constitution in no way applies to non-american enemy combatants.

This isn't a damn global citizenship issue.

And, Waterboarding is not deemed torture nor illegal. And that comes from some great legal minds who ensured it wasn't, before Bush made it a useable policy.

 

[Old Rocks]

"WHEN US Representative Steve King learned that Osama bin Laden had been killed by US troops in Pakistan, he couldn’t resist a little crowing about the efficacy of torture. “Wonder what President Obama thinks of water boarding now?’’ the Iowa Republican tweeted on May 2.

It was an outrageous remark, but King wasn’t going out on a limb. A parade of others, mostly Republicans, have joined him in claiming that the death of bin Laden had vindicated the use of waterboarding — the most notorious of the “enhanced interrogation techniques’’ the Bush administration employed to extract information from senior Al Qaeda detainees....

...I don’t know whether waterboarding was indispensable to rolling up bin Laden; for every interrogation expert who says it was, another expert argues the opposite. But the case against waterboarding never rested primarily on its usefulness. It rested on its wrongfulness. It is wrong when bad guys do it to good guys. It is just as wrong when good guys do it to Al Qaeda....

The killing of bin Laden was gratifying, but it was no vindication of torture. Republicans rightly argue that much credit is owed to George W. Bush, who launched an effective war on terror and pursued it with fierce resolve. But Bush was wrong to permit waterboarding, and wrong to deny that it was torture. I don’t agree with Obama on much, but when it comes to waterboarding, he is right. America will defeat the global jihad, but not by embracing its most inhuman values."

Ends don’t justify the means - The Boston Globe

Jeff Jacoby (columnist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A conservatives view?


Not hardly.

A conservative view, not a Conservative view. The Conservatives gave us a tax cut as we launched two wars. The conservatives were appalled at the idea, and correctly predicted that disaster would develop from such a policy. The conservatives are men of laws, the Conservatives are the people of the LEADER psychology.

 

[Wicked Jester]

"WHEN US Representative Steve King learned that Osama bin Laden had been killed by US troops in Pakistan, he couldn’t resist a little crowing about the efficacy of torture. “Wonder what President Obama thinks of water boarding now?’’ the Iowa Republican tweeted on May 2.

It was an outrageous remark, but King wasn’t going out on a limb. A parade of others, mostly Republicans, have joined him in claiming that the death of bin Laden had vindicated the use of waterboarding — the most notorious of the “enhanced interrogation techniques’’ the Bush administration employed to extract information from senior Al Qaeda detainees....

...I don’t know whether waterboarding was indispensable to rolling up bin Laden; for every interrogation expert who says it was, another expert argues the opposite. But the case against waterboarding never rested primarily on its usefulness. It rested on its wrongfulness. It is wrong when bad guys do it to good guys. It is just as wrong when good guys do it to Al Qaeda....

The killing of bin Laden was gratifying, but it was no vindication of torture. Republicans rightly argue that much credit is owed to George W. Bush, who launched an effective war on terror and pursued it with fierce resolve. But Bush was wrong to permit waterboarding, and wrong to deny that it was torture. I don’t agree with Obama on much, but when it comes to waterboarding, he is right. America will defeat the global jihad, but not by embracing its most inhuman values."

Ends don’t justify the means - The Boston Globe

Jeff Jacoby (columnist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A conservatives view?


Not hardly.

A conservative view, not a Conservative view. The Conservatives gave us a tax cut as we launched two wars. The conservatives were appalled at the idea, and correctly predicted that disaster would develop from such a policy. The conservatives are men of laws, the Conservatives are the people of the LEADER psychology.

Yeah, like Algore is fraudulently LEADING you GW fools straight to his own damn off shore bank accounts.

 

[Foxfyre]

i suggest you actually read the piece.

I don't need to read somebody else's opinion on this to draw my own conclusions about what I have observed during the course of this thread. I have expressed no opinion but my own and made it clear that it was my own observation/opinion.

Look, I'm not trying to put down anybody in particular here and I'm not trying to pick a fight.

But there are other ways to approach the topic in addition to a) water boarding is evil vs b) no it's not or a) water boarding is torture vs b) no it's not, etc.

I wish there was a way to look each member in the eye and ask them point blank: "If you knew that there was a weapon of mass destruction to be used someplace that would put hundreds or thousands of innocent citizens at risk of injury, maiming, death, would you then look the other way as enhanced interrogation was used to get the information from somebody you were certain had it?" Would you do that if it was your own wife, husband, kids, parents, neighbors, friends, loved ones at risk?

The problem is, the "ticking bomb" scenario doesn't happen in real life, only in re-runs of 24.

What's the point of discussing a hypothetical that has NEVER happened to justify the use of torture?

It isn't an attempt to justify torture though. It is an attempt to get people to think about whether they are going to stick to principle even if that causes severe harm to another. An event like 9/11 had NEVER happened prior to it's happening. Nobody even contemplated such a thing. But now that we know there are people willing to do that and who will do it again given opportunity to do so, that changes the parameters of possibilities.

If it is your principle to always obey traffic laws, would you violate that principle to get a person to the hospital when second count? Most honorable people would.

If it is your principle to always tell the truth, would you violate that principle and lie to protect an innocent person from harm?

You can go right down the line of such hypotheticals that are hypothetical only until they happen. Most people in search and rescue, disaster relief, and such train using hypotheticals. But if the rule is you don't act without authority from somebody higher up, but you have to act or lose the victim, you violate the principle.

It is a matter of putting the greater good ahead of rules, procedures, and 'principle' based on nothing but ideology.

Of course our policy should be no cruel or inhumane treatment of anybody for any reason. That is a Christian principle we can all agree on or should.

But, if it is the lives of hundred or thousands of innocent men, women, and children at stake, I won't really care what they have to do to get the information to stop that kind of disaster. And I think our national leaders have to have the ability to do whatever they have to do to protect the lives of the innocent.

And I think all Christians will pray that it never be necessary to have to make that kind of decision.

 

[Old Rocks]

So you know there is a weapon going to be deployed someplace where it will kill hundreds or thousands of innocent men, women, and children. You won't look the other way when enhanced interrogation is used to save those people? Really?

When the Secret Service agent shot the toe off the Chauffeur and threatened to do the same to a second toe in order to get him to reveal the location of the dying kidnap victim, you would prosecute that agent to the fullest? Even when it saved the victim?

These are the things that make this issue less cut and dried than some seem to wish to make them.

Umm the Mushroom could thing was false.

You can what if all you want.
I do live by my principles and do not indulge in the ends justifies the means type of thinking.
I believe in our laws applying to all.
I AM an American who believes in our constitution.

The Constitution in no way applies to non-american enemy combatants.

This isn't a damn global citizenship issue.

And, Waterboarding is not deemed torture nor illegal. And that comes from some great legal minds who ensured it wasn't, before Bush made it a useable policy.

You are a damnable liar. Waterboarding is considered torture.

Waterboarding is Illegal - Washington University Law Review

The Torture Act makes it a felony for any person, acting under color of law, to commit an act of torture upon any person within the defendant’s custody or control outside the United States.[27] Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” upon a person within the defendant’s custody or control.[28] To be “severe,” any mental pain or suffering resulting from torture must be “prolonged.”[29] Under this law, torture is punishable by up to twenty years imprisonment unless the victim dies as a result of the torture, in which case the penalty is death or life in prison.[30]

The War Crimes Act differs from the Torture Act in several respects. It applies to acts committed inside or outside the United States, not simply to acts committed outside the United States.[31] Second, it prohibits actions by any American citizen or any member of the armed forces of the United States, not simply to persons acting under color of law.[32] Third, violations of the War Crimes Act that do not result in death of the victim are punishable by life in prison, not simply for a term of twenty years.[33] Finally, when it was enacted in 1996, the War Crimes Act did not mention torture or any other specific conduct like the Torture Act does, but rather contained a very broad definition of the offense. The original statute provided that “war crimes” included any “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions.[34] In 2006, in the Military Commissions Act, Congress defined the term “grave breach” of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention to include “torture” as well as “cruel or inhuman treatment” of prisoners.[35] As in the Torture Act, the War Crimes Act (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2006) defines “torture” as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering.”[36] Cruel or inhuman treatment is defined as “serious physical or mental pain or suffering,” and also includes “serious physical abuse.”[37] The law defines “serious physical pain or suffering” as including “extreme physical pain.”[38] All of these clarifications of the term “grave breaches” of Common Article 3 were made retroactive to 1997.[39] The 2006 Act replaced the requirement that mental harm be “prolonged” with a more broad definition that mental harm be merely “serious and non-transitory.”[40]

The third federal statute that prohibits waterboarding is entitled “Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons under Custody or Control of the United States Government.”[41] This law was enacted in 2005 as part of the Detainee Treatment Act,[42] and in 2006 it was supplemented in the Military Commissions Act by a statutory provision entitled “Additional Prohibition on Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”[43] These civil rights laws very simply state that no person under the physical control of the United States anywhere in the world may be subjected to any “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,”[44] and they each define “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” to be any treatment or punishment which would violate the Fifth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.[45] These civil rights laws award the same rights to all prisoners who are in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world as citizens of the United States are entitled to under the Constitution. This means that if it is unconstitutional to subject prisoners in the United States to waterboarding, then it is illegal to commit this act against prisoners in the War on Terror, wherever they are being detained.

There is no doubt that waterboarding is illegal under the plain language of each of these four statutes. When it is practiced in other countries, the State Department characterizes waterboarding as “torture.”[46] Waterboarding inflicts “severe pain and suffering” on its victims, both physically and mentally, and therefore it is torture within the meaning of the Torture Act and the War Crimes Act.[47] It inflicts “serious pain and suffering” upon its victims, and it qualifies as “serious physical abuse,” therefore it is “cruel or inhuman treatment” within the meaning of the War Crimes Act.[48] Finally, American courts have ruled that when prisoners in the United States are subjected to waterboarding, it is a violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore it would be a violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000dd and 2000dd-0 prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.[49]

Why don't you name those great legal minds?

 

[Foxfyre]

Ah well, Old Rocks has gallantly negged me a whopping -68 pts for expressing a point of view he doesn't agree with. So much for keeping debate and differences of opinion civil, huh. Egads, I may never recover.

So on that note, I'm going to bed with a good movie and will see all you good people back tomorrow. Good night.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't need to read somebody else's opinion on this to draw my own conclusions about what I have observed during the course of this thread. I have expressed no opinion but my own and made it clear that it was my own observation/opinion.

Look, I'm not trying to put down anybody in particular here and I'm not trying to pick a fight.

But there are other ways to approach the topic in addition to a) water boarding is evil vs b) no it's not or a) water boarding is torture vs b) no it's not, etc.

I wish there was a way to look each member in the eye and ask them point blank: "If you knew that there was a weapon of mass destruction to be used someplace that would put hundreds or thousands of innocent citizens at risk of injury, maiming, death, would you then look the other way as enhanced interrogation was used to get the information from somebody you were certain had it?" Would you do that if it was your own wife, husband, kids, parents, neighbors, friends, loved ones at risk?

The problem is, the "ticking bomb" scenario doesn't happen in real life, only in re-runs of 24.

What's the point of discussing a hypothetical that has NEVER happened to justify the use of torture?

It isn't an attempt to justify torture though. It is an attempt to get people to think about whether they are going to stick to principle even if that causes severe harm to another. An event like 9/11 had NEVER happened prior to it's happening. Nobody even contemplated such a thing. But now that we know there are people willing to do that and who will do it again given opportunity to do so, that changes the parameters of possibilities.

If it is your principle to always obey traffic laws, would you violate that principle to get a person to the hospital when second count? Most honorable people would.

If it is your principle to always tell the truth, would you violate that principle and lie to protect an innocent person from harm?

You can go right down the line of such hypotheticals that are hypothetical only until they happen. Most people in search and rescue, disaster relief, and such train using hypotheticals. But if the rule is you don't act without authority from somebody higher up, but you have to act or lose the victim, you violate the principle.

It is a matter of putting the greater good ahead of rules, procedures, and 'principle' based on nothing but ideology.

Of course our policy should be no cruel or inhumane treatment of anybody for any reason. That is a Christian principle we can all agree on or should.

But, if it is the lives of hundred or thousands of innocent men, women, and children at stake, I won't really care what they have to do to get the information to stop that kind of disaster. And I think our national leaders have to have the ability to do whatever they have to do to protect the lives of the innocent.

And I think all Christians will pray that it never be necessary to have to make that kind of decision.

Here's the problem with your argument:

Would you ever shoot a cop in the back?

What if he was a zombie about to kill your family?
I know I would.


Does that make it ok to kill cops?

 

[Wicked Jester]

Umm the Mushroom could thing was false.

You can what if all you want.
I do live by my principles and do not indulge in the ends justifies the means type of thinking.
I believe in our laws applying to all.
I AM an American who believes in our constitution.

The Constitution in no way applies to non-american enemy combatants.

This isn't a damn global citizenship issue.

And, Waterboarding is not deemed torture nor illegal. And that comes from some great legal minds who ensured it wasn't, before Bush made it a useable policy.

You are a damnable liar. Waterboarding is considered torture.

Waterboarding is Illegal - Washington University Law Review

The Torture Act makes it a felony for any person, acting under color of law, to commit an act of torture upon any person within the defendant’s custody or control outside the United States.[27] Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” upon a person within the defendant’s custody or control.[28] To be “severe,” any mental pain or suffering resulting from torture must be “prolonged.”[29] Under this law, torture is punishable by up to twenty years imprisonment unless the victim dies as a result of the torture, in which case the penalty is death or life in prison.[30]

The War Crimes Act differs from the Torture Act in several respects. It applies to acts committed inside or outside the United States, not simply to acts committed outside the United States.[31] Second, it prohibits actions by any American citizen or any member of the armed forces of the United States, not simply to persons acting under color of law.[32] Third, violations of the War Crimes Act that do not result in death of the victim are punishable by life in prison, not simply for a term of twenty years.[33] Finally, when it was enacted in 1996, the War Crimes Act did not mention torture or any other specific conduct like the Torture Act does, but rather contained a very broad definition of the offense. The original statute provided that “war crimes” included any “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions.[34] In 2006, in the Military Commissions Act, Congress defined the term “grave breach” of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention to include “torture” as well as “cruel or inhuman treatment” of prisoners.[35] As in the Torture Act, the War Crimes Act (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2006) defines “torture” as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering.”[36] Cruel or inhuman treatment is defined as “serious physical or mental pain or suffering,” and also includes “serious physical abuse.”[37] The law defines “serious physical pain or suffering” as including “extreme physical pain.”[38] All of these clarifications of the term “grave breaches” of Common Article 3 were made retroactive to 1997.[39] The 2006 Act replaced the requirement that mental harm be “prolonged” with a more broad definition that mental harm be merely “serious and non-transitory.”[40]

The third federal statute that prohibits waterboarding is entitled “Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons under Custody or Control of the United States Government.”[41] This law was enacted in 2005 as part of the Detainee Treatment Act,[42] and in 2006 it was supplemented in the Military Commissions Act by a statutory provision entitled “Additional Prohibition on Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”[43] These civil rights laws very simply state that no person under the physical control of the United States anywhere in the world may be subjected to any “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,”[44] and they each define “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” to be any treatment or punishment which would violate the Fifth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.[45] These civil rights laws award the same rights to all prisoners who are in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world as citizens of the United States are entitled to under the Constitution. This means that if it is unconstitutional to subject prisoners in the United States to waterboarding, then it is illegal to commit this act against prisoners in the War on Terror, wherever they are being detained.

There is no doubt that waterboarding is illegal under the plain language of each of these four statutes. When it is practiced in other countries, the State Department characterizes waterboarding as “torture.”[46] Waterboarding inflicts “severe pain and suffering” on its victims, both physically and mentally, and therefore it is torture within the meaning of the Torture Act and the War Crimes Act.[47] It inflicts “serious pain and suffering” upon its victims, and it qualifies as “serious physical abuse,” therefore it is “cruel or inhuman treatment” within the meaning of the War Crimes Act.[48] Finally, American courts have ruled that when prisoners in the United States are subjected to waterboarding, it is a violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore it would be a violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000dd and 2000dd-0 prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.[49]

Why don't you name those great legal minds?

Our version of waterboarding is far different than the Japanese or Vietnamese, you stupid ol' coot!