Bush Vetoes Bill Barring Use of Waterboarding (UPDATED)

Guess it depends to start with on your philosophical and ethical position...either Torture (however you define that is a tin a worms too) is a) just plain wrong or b) you do the least harm that benefits the greater number (benthamite view)

If you decide that waterboarding is not 'really' torture becasue it is nothing like drilling teeth, breaking limbs, the rack, or red hot pokers, or whatever then I guess you'll be fine with it.

or perhaps you take the view that there is a 'real' world out there with people who WILL do harm to innocents and maybe they only understand 'tough' measures... and teh ends justify the means...

or perhaps you say we should morally superior to terrorists etc and 'model' a better way...

I take the view that these individuals woke up one day and 'made a choice' to do harm, and in making that choice THEY gave permission for others to treat them in whatever way is necessary to relieve them of what they know...they could of course simply tell what they know and avoid the hassle... a psychologist friend of mine worked in resistance to interrogation and I was intrigued to learn about the sophisticated tricks they used to get info...she replied..."they all talk when you kick them in the goolies"!!!

Of course, you knew I'd say that ;) Waterboarding, number one, can easily go wrong and no longer just "simulate" and given the climate of hatred and/or aggression that I'm sure exists would it be that hard to imagine that someone's hand would just oops! Slip? What good what it do then?

Number two, it's a form of torture that was invented during the Spanish Inquisition and since been banned because of the very nature of it - why are we resurrecting it?

Number three it is blatantly in defiance of the Geneva Convention. At no point, no matter what the status of a prisoner is, no matter whether or not that prisoner is "protected" by the Geneva Convention (and if they aren't, we have no business keeping them, as the Geneva Convention clearly states they must be transferred to a neutral country) are we, the US, a signatory of the Geneva Convention allowed to use ANY form of torture, or even "harsh interrogation techniques". and we aren't allowed to for a reason - so that we don't turn into the very terrorists we are supposedly fighting.

Number four, it just sealed our reputation globally, as torturers. As if we don't have enough problems with foreign relations right now.

1.  Shit Happens... Maybe they should not have been trying to kill us...   Besides, "... it requires the consent of the attorney general and president on a case-by-case basis."  It's not like every person speeding down the road is going to get waterboarded....  How many time did we use 3 maybe 4 times?  AND IT SAVED LIVES.

2.  It works.

3.  Name one country, other than the US that has complied with the Geneva Convention.

4.  That's bullshit... Where is the worlds condemnation of other countries committing atrocities on there own people?  It's just jumping on the "Bash American" bandwagon...

You write, "Waterboarding is a tool that has saved American lives and prevented other attacks on the United States." That's what I hear from the administration, but I haven't heard any concrete examples.

Placing limits on violence, advocating humanity in warfare, is not just about being humane for its own sake. There are two self-interest aspects to it. First, we don't want to give others an excuse to torture our soldiers. Second, any war on terror must also be a war of ideas. For that to work, we have to be better than our enemies.

To both of these arguments you can say water boarding pales in comparison to what others do, but that's beside the point. It still looks bad and places us in a morally ambiguous position.

Judging by your comment, I wonder if you would believe them if they did release any specifics.   Maybe the information they gained, is still actionable and releasing it could put our people in jeopardy, I don't know and frankly, I don't care.  I believe what that have said so far and I'm sure more will come out later.

As for the torture piece of this, all I can say is this.  If it is torture, why do we use it our own Special Forces troops and other forces going through Survival, Evade, Resistance & Escape (SERE) training?  Is it OK to torture our folks, but not a known terrorist?  

As a historian, you know the treatment our soldiers received at the hands of their captors, from the Japanese, to the Germans, to the North Vietnamese, to the Iraqis.  So, your logic about not using water-boarding because our soldiers may be tortured seems flawed to me.  And yes, I know McCain is against it, but I don't agree with a lot of his positions...

With it all said and done, let's looks at the facts as we know them:

1. We have only used water boarding three times on three very well known terrorists: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abd Al-Rahim al-Nashiri, and Abu Zubaydah. Not really your average terrorist picked up off the streets.
2. It has not been used since 2003.
3. It requires the consent of the attorney general and president on a case-by-case basis
4. It has been used on our own military members during training, with no known physical or mental problems noted.

So I still think Bush did the right thing.

The three or four times is three or four times too many, in my book. And yes, using it on our own troops as a form of training is also wrong - UNLESS the soldier in training openly and knowingly wants to go through it, just in case. But there is a difference between doing it to a consenting person, and a person against their will. There is alos a human difference between performing it on a brotehr in arms with safe words etc, and someone you are trained to hate. One person will be kept safe, the otehr will be treated brutally. Whats worse is that it does and has been officially approved by our government....*shaking my head*.

If it's really not that bad why don't we get someone like Mukasey or Bush or Cheney or one of their children, pretend they are a terrorist (tell the interrogators that they are) and let them go through it. I'll guarantee you it would never happen.

With regards to who follows the Geneva Convention and who doesn't - you can fall back on your mother's wisdom for this one - just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't mean yuo should too. (Or whatever variation she used "jump of a bridge etc etc :D )

We are signatories of that, and we have a duty and a responsibility to live up to our promises - otherwise we are no better than the terrorists.

Our foreign relations have been shot to hell recently, and this veto caused a stir world wide. You're right, people are beginning to hate America! Because our government keeps doing asinine things like this. Doesn't that make you angry? It makes me angry, for sure.

Just probably not for the same reasons!

Ok, First we need to establish a few things. 

First, there are terrible people in the world that will do anything to destroy, kill or hurt us in anyway they can.

Second, these people do not hold hands and sing kum-baya. They are hardened terrorist, so asking pretty please is not going work. They receive resistance training just like our military receives. That is why our military members go through it, so they know what to expect.

Your assumption that there are “safe words” in SERE training only shows, you are not aware of the real purpose and procedures used in SERE. Trust me, there are no “safe words’ or “Time-Outs” or any of that type of stuff.

The fact we have only used it on three terrorists, but thousands of our military members should tell you something. It tells me that the US is aware of the international opinion, but is reserving the right to use a procedure that is very much controlled, and held only for the most dangerous terrorists. It also says to me that it is not that terrible torture you think it is.

As for your comments about Bush, or Cheney, or anyone else who supports water boarding, should have their daughters or they themselves should go through the procedure is really desperate. There are so many things the military does in training that are a hell of a lot more uncomfortable and dangerous than water boarding. They go through that training, because they want to be the best in the world and they are.

So again, a quick review of the facts for you…
1. We have only used water boarding three times on three very well known terrorists: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abd Al-Rahim al-Nashiri, and Abu Zubaydah. Not really your average terrorist picked up off the streets.

2 Congress was briefed and approved the procedure. “…on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.”

3. It has not been used since 2003.

4. It requires the consent of the attorney general and president on a case-by-case basis

5. It has been used on our own military members during training, with no known physical or mental problems noted.

A final question to you, “If we had intel that a nuclear weapon was set to go off in some city in America and we just captured the terrorist who was broadcasting all over the Internet that he set it up, would you allow waterboarding in then?

Caveat one: This would be the second, weapon. The first killed over 5,000 and injured over 20,000 and more that 40,000 are showing signs of radiation poisoning.

Caveat two: It’s the second attempt and we know the city, and your family lives there.

You see absolutes do not exist when it comes to survival. All Bush did was to prevent an absolute from being put in place.