Monday, May 4, 2009

Waterboarding As Torture?

A few posts on other blogs have brought this subject up, again and again, often leading to heated debates in the commentary. As usual, I'm not one to avoid stoking the fire a bit more.

Let's look at some of the methods of torture utilized by our forces

The attention grasp:

"Grasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion. In the same motion as the grasp, the individual is drawn toward the interrogator." The end. I've seen bigger to-dos in the halls of a high school between students, or from football coaches trying to get your thick skull to understand something when they grab you by the facemask and yank your head toward their face to explain how stupid you're being.

Walling:

"This involves pushing the terrorist against a flexible wall, during which his "head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a C-collar effect to prevent whiplash." It seems as though Fisher-Price may have gotten a no-bid contract to provide this evil device for our military. Walling doesn't cause any pain, but is supposed to induce terror by making a "loud noise": The false wall is in part constructed to create a loud sound when the individual hits it, which will further shock and surprise.

Now, if you're feeling really uncomfortable or faint from reading this, sometimes a cold compress on the forehead is helpful, but don't let it drip or you might end up waterboarding yourself.

Sleep Deprivation:

I'm pretty sure this is self-explanatory. I subject myself to this on a daily basis to avoid paying outrageous day care expenses. I may have to contact the ACLU and see what kind of reparations I can receive for having put myself through such punishing events. I'll sue the U.S. Government for not regulating the day care industry enough to make sure that it is available to me for free, so that I might be able to pay my normal day to day bills without losing so much sleep.

And then of course, the real big deal lately: WATERBOARDING. Such a horrible way of torture that causes less pain than SNOWBOARDING!!! First, let's look at what waterboarding is. The suspect is leaned back, with a cloth over his face (this is optional), and water is run up his nostrils. It creates a snesation in the suspect that he is drowning. To be sure, it is highly uncomfortable. But to be fair, I also find watching Soap Operas to be highly uncomfortable. Now, lets look at what waterboarding is not: lethal, extremely painful, permanently damaging.

Now, many of those against torture in the form of waterboarding will tell you just how cruel this method is. To tell the truth, an exercise training regimen can be more debilitating and demoralizing. Now consider this question, all you who oppose waterboarding: Would you prefer we shot these prisoners in the head, or just poured some water up their nose?

According to the Geneva Convention, the terrorists having been caught on a battle field fighting against uniformed American (or British, or Polish, or whoever)without a clear cut uniform, or clearly visible markings of an actual army, can be shot legally, without repercussion. Which to those who are under orders to go in and capture prisoners, the idea of shooting them must be more desirable, as it is much more dangerous to corner your adversary and take them alive.

Many claim that no actionable intelligence has ever been obtained from such tactics. Well, when you obtain every word spoken, written or stored away from such actions you can use the "never" argument. Tagging the U.S. alone for torturous methodology would also be an ignorant statement. Most countries, in the past and present endeavors of war have committed acts of torture, often far more brutal than waterboarding, walling, and the like. Now, torturing prisoners to death, I will disagree with. Sadistic "fun" is not what it's all supposed to be about. Our methods of torture are to be used strictly to gain information that can save lives, either immediately, or to be gleaned for future incidences where it may be applicable (force structures, locations, tactics, etc).

Those who will not talk willingly may be deemed, necessary to save innocent lives or the lives of our brothers in arms, to go under these torturous practices. For those of you who say that torture is in no way to be condoned, even if innocent lives are at stake, I would say that the blood of the innocents should be shouldered by you, for refusing to help them.

3 comments:

All In said...

I can see it now Headline News: Obama supports "Shoot on Sight" policy for suspected terrorists! - I'm liking him more everyday.

scotterb said...

It's a slippery slope, especially if there is uncertainty about threat and guilt. How far can the government go to abuse people in the name of security? How much power do we want to give the state?

American Elephant said...

Slippery slope -- baloney! The entire purpose of these memos was defining exactly how far the government could and could not legally go.

Democrats were aware of the policies and ONLY brought them up AFTER the UNapproved actions at Abu Ghraib made them believe they could gain political power from doing so. Nancy Pelosi has been caught blatantly lying about NOT knowing.

The only slippery slope is the ones Democrats have created. They have decided, for political gain, that people can be prosecuted for the OPINIONS they give. They have decided, for political gain, that legitimate policy differences should be criminalized. How far can that go? Where will that stop? What liberal policies could Republicans criminalize next time they get in office?

And the most dangerous slippery slope of all is the one Democrats started long ago with the Church Hearings. Back then Democrats also thought America was "violating our principles" by getting intelligence from some less than perfect people. So they wrote all sorts of laws to ensure we would never again get intelligence from less than ideal people.

The result, according the the unanimous findings of the 9/11 Commission, were the attacks on our country in September 2001 and the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans. Attacks we could not prevent because we had no human intelligence, in large part because of the Church Commission.

And now we will lack intelligence because, while Obama even admits that these techniques work, and admits it will make it harder, we must live up to the American principle of not defending ourselves if it means making people uncomfortable???

I missed that principle in my historical readings.

Once again, people will die for liberal a**hattery.