No
It is my opinion that everyone in the world is different and every situation is different especially in a war. A 17 year old Iraqi kid that has been bullied into believing Americans are monsters is far different from a hardcore Al Qaeda member.
So my answer is No but connected is the statement above which implies there are no absolutes. Induced hypothermia may be torture to a teenager but not to a hardcore Al Qaeda guy.
Let me clarify:
"Do you consider any of these techniques torture?"
A midguided teenager versus an experienced Al Queda would have different techniques of persuation put on them, some I would consider torture and others no. You want me to say aboslutlely "no," I won't because it is a rhetorical question.
With that said, for the sake of debate I will answer straight, No I do not consider any of the above mentioned techniques torture.
One other thing: "Whether or not torture is sometimes justified is what lies in the gray area." -moderators words
We haven't actually gotten to the debate as to whether the above things mentioned are torture and you as the "moderator" have implied they are. Lets keep it neutral moderator-man.
Interesting because don't we induce hypothermia on our own men in different forms of training?
Induced hyporthermia short of it being life threatening is harsh but does not fall under what I consider torture. I trust our military knows the line and when not to cross it.
Ok, you make a valid point as far as choosing versus forced, as far as the effect. The point I was trying to make is a basis of torture or not torture is based whether our men can handle it in training. If 100 of our men can handle harsh treatment then so can a person who is being interrogated. Yes there is the mental anguish of not knowing how long the enemy is holding them in these conditions but is that actually torture.
"If it's ok to do it because our military does it for training is it ok to do it to normal criminals in prison. If we catch a drug addicted can we use waterboarding and induced hypothermia in order to catch the drug dealer?"
This is a terrible comparison, drug dealers aren't blowing innocent people up.
Our military is trained on how much a prisoner can handle. Waterboarding under controlled situations is not torture. -This is what I mean by "crossing the line": I will concede that members of our military and other agencies have gone to far in their interrogations. The Manadel Jamadi case you showed in the ice picture. He was hung by his arms and beaten and died. These members of the CIA and the military who allowed this should be prosecuted. At the same time these rogue members are not representative of America.
"In fact a japanese officer was convicted of torture by the US after waterboarding and American soldier. Are you telling me that this wasn't torture and that this japanese officer committed no crime?"
Our soldiers are not the Japanese and it is not the same technique. If you compare an interrogation by the Japanese versus by the Americans you will discover the Japanese side is much harsher. Our servicepeople are trained in this stuff and know how to use it effectively to get information and at the same time do not go into the rhelm of what is torture. Out of the thousands of people in the military, if a handfull of animals get out of control,does that warrant: Bush Authorizes Torture- In a headline?
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Waterboarding-Definition-Wikipedia24dec05.htm
In the article above it says: "There are several different varieties of interrogation techniques referred to as waterboarding"
After you read this article (which is not friendly to the actual technique) you will see there are different types of waterboarding.
If your asking me whether Khalid Shaik Mohammed spending two minutes of pure terror thinking and feeling as if he is going to drown, no I do not consider that torture. Yes it is harsh but it doesn't under the definition of torture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture
Torture, according to international law, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."[1]
Now when you click on "suffering" (because I think waterboarding fits more into suffering rather than "severe pain") it will say from mild to insufferable. If we actually follow this then there is no form a interrogation that we can do. Mild suffering is considered torture? That's what I have a hard time with. Where I am able to sleep at night is because trust our military. I don't believe our military personal would take any interrogation to a degree beyond what is really torture.
He argued that it was indeed torture. Some victims were still traumatized years later, he said. One patient couldn't take showers, and panicked when it rained. "The fear of being killed is a terrifying experience," he said"
I defined what torture is: "any act which causes severe pain or suffering......etc...."
<"You think it's torture and I don't, that's it."
No it isn't. You have yet to give a specific reason why our waterboarding technique isn't torture while those we've called torture in the past are torture. What makes one technique torture and the other not? I know the answer, there is no difference.
"Now, I don't believe waterboarding or the other terrible things are torture so from my point of view .."
This seems to contradict what you said earlier. I reread it and realized that you never gave a clear answer. Are you saying that in the past the americans that were waterboarded were not tortured? Are you saying that the japanese officer did nothing wrong when he waterboarded american soldier? >
You've lost me here: READ ABOUT WATERBOARDING, some countries dunk people upside down in the water until they nearly drown, some spray in the face with water, The Chinese drip water, there are many different techniques of waterboarding. Americans policy has always been we do not condone torture so the system of waterboarding that we are using is not torture, if it is people will be prosecuted. I don't wanna see Americans even go to war, interrogated, tortured, etc...and If I know the Japanese, yes Americans were tortured when they were waterboarded.
So lets see your proof of the actual process of waterboarding by Americans in this war on terror. Without the use of some ridiculously liberal source.
"Are we now training people to torture? I didn't realize we were."
I'm not going to answer this because it is another hate-America statement that shows you trust Liberal media more than you do the American military.
Is there an echo in here....
Bloc I answered the question (from my comments above):
If it is done in the manner that legal Americans do then yes, it is ok for this to be done to Americans, our soldiers are tough bastards and can (because they've endured it in training) handle it. But this is such a ridiculous notion because to the enemy we are dealing with these interrogation techniques are mild.
With that, my first question to you is what is your definition of torture? This can be a one sentence or a several paragraph answer.
So we are both are on the same page as far as the definition of torture. How I think we differentiate is; what can be construed as "severe pain" or "severe suffering." Parts of the elite media have now watered down that specific defintion to mean "discomfort" can be defined as severe pain or suffering.
If we accept this and allow people to speculate on things that should be a matter of national security it will seriously harm our ability to gather intelligence. How would you interogate high-level men who have information that could thwart attacks and possibly save lives? I'm asking this assuming you would not use any of the above techniques you believe are torture.
If you don't respond quickly I get it, I get busy also, so take your time.
Torture, according to international law, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."[1]
It is time to let the folks decide, we are going around in circles. You ask me questions based on statements you cannot prove. I think what we are missing here is this is an un-winnable argrument for either side because we are talking about things that are highly classified. Information either filtered and leaked to the media is generally unreliable.
You say: "I don't believe that torture produces effective intel. You have yet to prove that it does."
First of all there is no "torture" and secondly didn't Kalid S. Mohamed (don't give a shit about spelling) give up a boat load of information or should I say "effective intel"?
The debate here is defining torture and acceptable forms of interrogation. You can't prove our present day interrogation techniques are torture and are the present-day policy of the Bush Administration.
If I may make one final rebutt then I will let Bloc have the final word.
There are several instances where disgruntled people, or people with a strong agenda have misrepresented the facts when they went public with what they know about certain things, example is the Haditha story.
"You imply that it is torture when Americans are waterboarded in japan or vietnam, but you then claim that waterboarding by Bush isn't torture. I don't understand."
Jose Padilla had no history of mental illness when President Bush ordered him detained in 2002 as a suspected Al Qaeda operative. But he does now.
The Muslim convert was subjected to prison conditions and interrogation techniques that took him past the breaking point, mental health experts say.
Two psychiatrists and a psychologist who conducted detailed personal examinations of Mr. Padilla on behalf of his defense lawyers say his extended detention and interrogation at the US Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C., left him with severe mental disabilities. All three say he may never recover.
yeah....funny thing bloc.....I believe in America....I believe we are a just nation
we can't change the past....WWII ended the way it did....thank god......Ever since Viet Nam (A war we were winning when the left threw in the towel for us)......this has been the trend....we can't win as long as the political left has any say in it whatsoever.
Two psychiatrists and a psychologist who conducted detailed personal examinations of Mr. Padilla on behalf of his defense lawyers
I got cut off.....what I was going to say was:
The above statement says it all in my book!
Sean-The "Peak Oil" nonsense is kind silly in this country because no matter how much oil we actually find the whacko environmentalists will start suing to prevent us from getting it.
Bloc-If we had invaded North Vietnam and slaughtered all of the communists would Vietnam be a better place today?