Gotta love how they make it sound "harmless" huh

I really hope anyone in favor of waterboarding or torture for that matter gets the joy one day of experiencing it all their own.

if you have not watched it before, rent gi jane. They show waterboarding in that film while they are training demi moore to resist torture etc.

Have it done to yourself and see if it leaves no psychological impact on you. Have your body be convinced that it is drwning (or suffocating) and see if you do nt have emotional scars for the rest of your life.

You have a of of good points in several different threads that I have seen you star, but this comment about no damage is just plain bull ****

How do you know that the intelligence that the cia is true? Let's use th ever popular bush history here as an example.

You are saying that it is ok to torture in order to force information out of someone if you believe they are knowledgeable, right?

Well President Bush had intelligence that dictated there were wmd's in iraq, and used that information to attack Saddam. Later it was found out that the intelligence was faulty, and thus the entire nation (or so it seems) is against him because of it.

Well, whats the differance between your scenario and his? Both the president and the cia believed their information was correct. both act on it in their individual ways (war vs torture). the suspected information turns out to be false. The cia has just tortured an innocent person.

I think we sould quit waterboarding terrorists and start waterboarding Madisonman

to be honest they are rougher with our special forces and fighter pilots during SERE school. Only intead of being psyched out they are allowed to break one major bone and two minor bones at any time during their (Resist) phase. Like i said, it sucks but there may be a use for it someday...

cool move mad man

Though we rarely agree on much I agree here, anyone who doesn't consider waterboarding torcher should try it themselves. Of course we considered it torcher when the japanese was doing it;^]

I don't see why we should get upset with the treatment of terrorists...when a combatant dresses in civilian clothes he/she can be deemed to be a spy and shot on site...the terrorists don't even fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention...

"Article 68 of the above Convention distinguishes between normal acts of resistance in an occupied zone and what the media likes to call insurgents--those dressed as civilians who engage in military operations:

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment

And when a member of the resistance is engaged in espionage, sabotage, or killing?

may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons

Of course, all this only applies if the person is 'protected'--meaning a civilian or a uniformed member of an armed force. The Conventions are explicitly not extended to those who engage in acts outside the generally accepted rules of war.

The Additional Protocal is even more specific about who is and who is not a combatent, protected by the Conventions. Article 43: 1:

The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates....[they] shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict

While I'm sure Zarqawi and co. have some sort of internal discipline, it would be hard to argue that they enforce the rules of war.

Article 44: 3 conitnues:

In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) During each military engagement, and

(b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Insurgents do not carry their arms openly. In fact, they try their hardest to blend in with the civilian population.

Burying an IED in the dead of night, wearing civilian clothes, cannot be considered within the rules of war. Detonating that IED with a cell phone while blending in with a crowded market is also outside the bounds.

This does not mean that such prisoners ought to be summarily executed, but that they lose their 'POW' status.

But wait, there's more. Various reports indicate that the muj are, in fact, substantially rewarded for their efforts. That they are mercinaries. And mercinaries, according to Article 47:

shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

The Conventions, as Ace mentions in his post, are built upon mutual obligations. When one side has no regard for rules of war, the protections of those rules no longer apply to them.

The Conventions should not apply to Islamist insurgents, and they do not."

well now

i was wondering when this would appear

its a pitty the (insurgents) people fighting in there own country by the way, no longer have a standing army. did america not support the contras? they too did not have a standing army and our support of them led the world court to find america guilty of WAR CRIMES. Unfortunatly Fox news wasnt around then or they would have blared that 24/7 so you could be a more informed citizen. Is there any country on earth that matches america in t he number of conflicts bigand small that we have been invoved with? Nope america stands alone as the worlds most aggresive country....here is a little dose of reality ....Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, the Dominican republic, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Lebanon, Granada, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, Somalia, Afghanistan again, and Iraq again.

news flash.....nearly all the terrorists in Iraq are not from Iraq...

you have just made that up please provide any data you have. The latest figure I have heard was 10% of violent acts are due to outside forces and that was from our own government. wow if you believe that there is no hope

The essential questions are: How large is the presence of AQI, in terms of manpower and attacks instigated, and what role does the group play in catalyzing further violence? For the first question, the military has produced an estimate. In a background briefing this July in Baghdad, military officials said that during the first half of this year AQI accounted for 15 percent of attacks in Iraq. That figure was also cited in the military intelligence report during final preparations for a National Intelligence Estimate in July.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.tilghman.html

After seeing all these threads being posted I finally understand. You have convinced me. We should put them in a room that has no locks(perhaps one in Madisons house) Tell them to please stay put. Hell why stop there. Lets see if they want a massage. Tell them you are sorry that you took away their ability to kill you. And as far as the statement of crushing some babies balls???.. How did we get from waterboarding to crushing balls? lol Nice try on trying to link them together. Well whatever floats your boat.(scratching head) And I sleep very well thanks. As a matter of fact before I lay my head down to sleep. I think of some of the terrorist I have helped meet Allah and their 72 virgins. Gives me a warm feeling inside. Well gotta go. Getting sleepy. SEMPER FI

essential questions are: How large is the presence of AQI, in terms of manpower and attacks instigated, and what role does the group play in catalyzing further violence? For the first question, the military has produced an estimate. In a background briefing this July in Baghdad, military officials said that during the first half of this year AQI accounted for 15 percent of attacks in Iraq. That figure was also cited in the military intelligence report during final preparations for a National Intelligence Estimate in July.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.tilghman.html

Pffffttt!!! For what????


I doubt it very much...

Thank some mis guided person brainwashed to within an inch of his life to think he is doing GOOD??

Pig's arse!! It would be a cold day in hell when I thank someone for contributing to the despotic agendas of weak spined government bullies...