• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Cheney endorses simulated drowning

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Cheney endorses simulated drowning

    Cheney endorses simulated drowning
    Mark Tran
    Friday October 27, 2006
    Guardian Unlimited

    The use of a form of torture known as waterboarding to gain information is a "no-brainer", the US vice-president, Dick Cheney, told a radio interviewer, it was reported today.

    Mr Cheney implied that the technique - a form of simulated drowning - was used on the alleged September 11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is being held at Guantánamo Bay.

    In an interview with Scott Hennen, a conservative radio show host in Fargo, North Dakota, on Tuesday, Mr Cheney agreed with the assertion that "a dunk in water" could yield valuable intelligence from terror suspects.

    "Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?" Mr Hennen asked.

    "Well, it's a no-brainer for me," Mr Cheney replied
    . "But for a while there, I was criticised as being the vice president for torture. We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in."

    In some versions of waterboarding, prisoners are strapped to a board and their faces covered with cloth or cellophane while water is poured over their mouths to stimulate drowning. In others, they are forced head first into water.

    Mr Cheney's comments set him at odds with the Military Commissions Act, which bars, under all circumstances, treatment of prisoners that inflicts serious physical or mental pain or suffering.

    Two of the chief sponsors of the legislation, senators John McCain and John Warner - both senior Republicans - say it outlaws waterboarding.

    Last month, the US army also revised its field manual to specifically ban waterboarding and other techniques as "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" that is banned by the Geneva accords.

    Military officials said such techniques did not yield reliable intelligence from prisoners.

    Mr Cheney told his interviewer that the ability to interrogate high value detainees had "been a very important tool that we've had to be able to secure the nation ... we need to be able to continue that".

    A spokeswoman for the vice president yesterday said Mr Cheney was not confirming the use of any specific interrogation techniques.

    "He was talking about the interrogation programme without torture," Lee Anne McBride told the Washington Post. "The vice president does not discuss any techniques or methods that may or may not have been used in questioning."

    The US group Human Rights Watch said Mr Cheney's comments on waterboarding contradicted the views of Congress and the defence department and warned they could come back to haunt the US.

    "If Iran or Syria detained an American, Cheney is saying that it would be perfectly fine for them to hold that American's head under water until he nearly drowns, if that's what they think they need to do to save Iranian or Syrian lives," Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for the organisation, said.

    The US has long considered waterboarding - which dates back at least to the Spanish Inquisition - to be torture and a war crime.

    As early as 1901, a US court martial sentenced Major Edwin Glenn to 10 years hard labour for subjecting a suspected insurgent in the Philippines to the "water cure".

    After the second world war, US military commissions successfully prosecuted as war criminals several Japanese soldiers who subjected US prisoners to waterboarding.

    In 1968, a US army officer was court martialled for helping to waterboard a prisoner in Vietnam.

    ------------

    Cheney was certainly waterboarded sometime ago as some of his brain cells are sure dead.

    #2
    Read my lips - torture works!

    You don't have to be a nasty, venal, draft-dodging little pr1ck like Dick Cheney to believe in torture. The important thing is to TELL THEM WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR while you're torturing them.

    This is the beautiful circular logic of torture. In the end, your victim will behave rationally, and tell you what you want to hear, thus reinforcing the effectiveness of torture. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a lefty, pinko tree-hugger, and probably a closet gaylord to boot. The best weapon in the war on terror is a war of terror. History and God will judge us, and our decisive, direct action will be vindicated.

    Comment


      #3
      "Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?" Mr Hennen asked.

      "Well, it's a no-brainer for me," Mr Cheney replied. "But for a while there, I was criticised as being the vice president for torture. We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in."
      Pretty loaded question and he answered it correctly. If it saved lives I doubt anyone here would say its a bad thing not to save those lives.

      Mailman

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Mailman
        Pretty loaded question and he answered it correctly. If it saved lives I doubt anyone here would say its a bad thing not to save those lives.

        Mailman

        I agree it's a loaded question but to say he answered it "correctly" is a bit simplistic IMHO. How do you determine if a confession gained through blatent torture saves lives? I believe the US' unwillingness to budge over the allegged possession of WOMD by Iraq was because a senior Al Qaeda person was tortured into "confessing" this at Guantanomo Bay.. I don't think anybody will want to dispute that this false confession caused by torturing a person into saying what you want them to say cost more lives than it saved, and continues to do so every day. The article makes a very interesting point where it refers to the outcry there would be if American captive soldiers would be subjected to this treatment by 'terrorists'. I wish the interviewer would have asked Cheney that question..

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Mailman
          Pretty loaded question and he answered it correctly. If it saved lives I doubt anyone here would say its a bad thing not to save those lives.
          Ok, they had their way for a few years now, in fact since 2001 it is 5 years, almost as long as WW2, where are the results from that torture? The answer is that none - people would say anything to avoid torture, it is just not a reliable method of getting information - only to make people self-incriminate themselves in things they have not done, this helps close some hard to solve cases.

          In any case the PR loss from that torture is much higher than any results that could have possibly being obtained.

          Comment


            #6
            International law is for wimps

            Originally posted by Mailman
            Pretty loaded question and he answered it correctly. If it saved lives I doubt anyone here would say its a bad thing not to save those lives.

            Mailman
            Here we go. Your're so fking naive. The rich, powerful man says "We did it to save you, for the greater good", and you swallow it whole. Sounds a bit like our Tony with his "if you knew what we knew, you would understand why we're invading Iraq" back in 2003. Wise up

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by XperTest
              I agree it's a loaded question but to say he answered it "correctly" is a bit simplistic IMHO.
              Its a simple question answered with a simple answer.

              Im sure they could have debated for hours the ins and outs of the question BUT most likely they didnt have hours to p1ss away argueing the symantics of the question.

              Mailman

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by white-anglo-reactionary
                Here we go. Your're so fking naive. The rich, powerful man says "We did it to save you, for the greater good", and you swallow it whole. Sounds a bit like our Tony with his "if you knew what we knew, you would understand why we're invading Iraq" back in 2003. Wise up
                You know a fall from that great height you are looking down upon can quite often be fatal

                Mailman

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Mailman
                  Its a simple question answered with a simple answer.
                  I think they should have brought in a bucket with water and suggest to put Cheney's head into water for couple of minutes, after all it is not torture and most certainly being 100% sure that Cheney is not a terrorist will benefit people all around the world.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Reliable

                    If torture didn't work it wouldn't be used. To argue that torture doesn't work is the same as saying that something humans have been doing since the year dot doesn't work.

                    Can anyone think of any other form of behaviour carried out all over the world by every civilisation since time began that doesn't work?

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X