UN blasts White House on waterboarding

By BRADLEY S. KLAPPER Associated Press Writer
© 2008 The Associated Press

GENEVA — The United Nations' torture investigator criticized the White House Wednesday for defending the use of waterboarding and urged the U.S. to give up its defense of "unjustifiable" interrogation methods.

The comments from Manfred Nowak, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on torture, came a day after the Bush administration acknowledged publicly for the first time that waterboarding was used by U.S. government questioners on three terror suspects.

Testifying before Congress, CIA Director Michael Hayden said the suspects were waterboarded in 2002 and 2003.

"This is absolutely unacceptable under international human rights law," Nowak said. "Time has come that the government will actually acknowledge that they did something wrong and not continue trying to justify what is unjustifiable."

The White House on Wednesday defended the use of waterboarding, saying it is legal — not torture as critics argue — and has saved American lives.

Waterboarding involves strapping a suspect down and pouring water over his cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning. It has been traced back hundreds of years, to the Spanish Inquisition, and is condemned by nations around the world.

Hayden banned the technique in 2006 for CIA interrogations and the Pentagon has banned its employees from using it. FBI Director Robert Mueller said his investigators do not use coercive tactics in interviewing terror suspects.

But White House deputy spokesman Tony Fratto said Wednesday that CIA interrogators could use waterboarding again with the president's approval.

He said that approval would depend on the circumstances, with one important factor being "belief that an attack might be imminent." Appropriate members of Congress would be notified in such a case, he said.

Critics say waterboarding has been outlawed under the U.N.'s Convention against Torture, which prohibits treatment resulting in long-term physical or mental damage. They also say it should be recognized as banned under the U.S. 2006 Military Commissions Act, which prohibits treatment of terror suspects that is described as "cruel, inhuman and degrading." The act, however, does not explicitly prohibit waterboarding.

Source

And on the other hand - Waterboarding is legal, White House says

Jazakallahu-khayr for sharing that.
I think the waterboarding is only just the begining of horrific treatment that will unravel in the next few years to come.
Enshaallah everyone will receive the same punishments as they had inflicted (AND STILL ARE!!) on these poor men at Guantanamo.

Ebtisweetsam said:

Jazakallahu-khayr for sharing that.
I think the waterboarding is only just the begining of horrific treatment that will unravel in the next few years to come.
Enshaallah everyone will receive the same punishments as they had inflicted (AND STILL ARE!!) on these poor men at Guantanamo.

Click to expand...

I am not aware that waterboarding was ever used at Guantanamo. I know it makes good propaganda to claim such, but it simply isn't true to my knowledge. It was apparently used on a handful of bigshots held by the CIA (Ramzi bin al Shib and perhaps two other pieces of human debris).

Here is the lesson. If you are engaged in an international conspiracy to murder Americans and the CIA comes to the door, don't answer.

OK...this is the spot where someone posts a picture of Abu Ghraib (which was against the Uniform Code of Military Justice and for which several people are serving jail time and the commander has been fired). Let's go ahead and get that done so the adults can carry on the discussion.


As far as the pustule from the UN is concerned, the NYPD should deport him for his doubtless numerous unpaid parking tickets.

Muezzin said:

Critics say waterboarding has been outlawed under the U.N.'s Convention against Torture, which prohibits treatment resulting in long-term physical or mental damage. They also say it should be recognized as banned under the U.S. 2006 Military Commissions Act, which prohibits treatment of terror suspects that is described as "cruel, inhuman and degrading." The act, however, does not explicitly prohibit waterboarding.

Source

And on the other hand - Waterboarding is legal, White House says

Click to expand...

Waterboarding is not legal and does not produce quality results since, under that level of extreme duress, the subject would confess to anything! I despise waterboarding and I'm fighting it tooth and nail, along with that issue of white phosphorus!

On the other hand, I also despise beheadings. Funny, I don't have to fight tooth and nail over that. The Taliban have already sent a directive to end that barbaric form of execution. I'm hoping AQ will follow suit.

It just seems to me, things are becoming very demonic in the nature of this war... and it's got to stop.

The Ninth Scribe

Ninth_Scribe said:

Waterboarding is not legal and does not produce quality results since, under that level of extreme duress, the subject would confess to anything! I despise waterboarding and I'm fighting it tooth and nail, along with that issue of white phosphorus!

On the other hand, I also despise beheadings. Funny, I don't have to fight tooth and nail over that. The Taliban have already sent a directive to end that barbaric form of execution. I'm hoping AQ will follow suit.

It just seems to me, things are becoming very demonic in the nature of this war... and it's got to stop.

The Ninth Scribe

Click to expand...

are you sure about this? until fairly recently, the talibaan did not go in for beheadings at all. when did they "send a directive" (?) to end this practice?

Cognescenti said:

I am not aware that waterboarding was ever used at Guantanamo. I know it makes good propaganda to claim such, but it simply isn't true to my knowledge. It was apparently used on a handful of bigshots held by the CIA (Ramzi bin al Shib and perhaps two other pieces of human debris).

.

Click to expand...

This was plastered literally on every channel when the story leaked out to the media..... that it was in fact used on several occasions to torture these guys.

Ebtisweetsam said:

This was plastered literally on every channel when the story leaked out to the media..... that it was in fact used on several occasions to torture these guys.

Click to expand...

Very well. Perhaps you need to educate me. I believe the claimes re Gitmo were bright lights, sleep deprivation, "stress postions" (prolonged squatting), female interrogators, day/night confusion, annoying music......that kind of "torture"

I believe there are a few "high value detainees" that were transfered to Gitmo after interrogation by the CIA somewhere (Eastern Europe? Pakistan?). That the CIA used waterboarding (which, honestly, is torture) has been established.

Remember, I am talking about Gitmo. As it was "plastered" everywhere, it should be easy to find a credible source (Red Cross, Senate hearing, something like that...not Al Jazeera or some Jihadist site or Code Pink)

Cognescenti said:

I am not aware that waterboarding was ever used at Guantanamo.

Click to expand...

You're getting hung up on the time and place. It doesn't matter where it was performed. What matters is that is was performed - on the prisoners who are at Guantanamo... and the dispute is over whether this was legal. I believe it was not and dispute the reports that claimed vital information was obtained via the use of these techniques. As I said before, I could have had those men confess to being gay. They would have confessed to anything at all. Or are you trying to tell me that all those so-called witches who endured this... were really witches because they confessed?

This is a personal issue with me. I know what it feels like - my uncle did that to me once... just for the fun of it. I got an aweful bronchial infection that dragged the whole ordeal out for weeks afterward because I took pond water into my lungs that was full of bacteria. He did it as a joke (a dunking) and didn't realize he held me under too long. I can forgive a mistake, but I can't forgive this when it's deliberate.

The Ninth Scribe

Ninth_Scribe said:

You're getting hung up on the time and place. It doesn't matter where it was performed. What matters is that is was performed - on the prisoners who are at Guantanamo... and the dispute is over whether this was legal. I believe it was not and dispute the reports that claimed vital information was obtained via the use of these techniques. As I said before, I could have had those men confess to being gay. They would have confessed to anything at all. Or are you trying to tell me that all those so-called witches who endured this... were really witches because they confessed?

This is a personal issue with me. I know what it feels like - my uncle did that to me once... just for the fun of it. I got an aweful bronchial infection that dragged the whole ordeal out for weeks afterward because I took pond water into my lungs that was full of bacteria. He did it as a joke (a dunking) and didn't realize he held me under too long. I can forgive a mistake, but I can't forgive this when it's deliberate.

The Ninth Scribe

Click to expand...

That is kind of harsh joke by your uncle, but I dispute your claim that the facts don't matter. The previous poster made an absolute statement about Gitmo. It isn't true. There have been many hundreds of detainees at Gitmo (most now released) The implication that it was routinely used there is deliberately inflammatory. We now know it was used by the CIA in CIA run detention facilities....apparently on less than half a dozen (those with knowledge of impending operations). Never have I seen evidence that it was used to extract confessions. Who needs a confession from Khaled Sheik Muhammed?

Now, I have to agree with you that it does seem like a form of torture, but your claim that no useful information could be gleaned is suspect. You might ask yourself why there has been no follow-up attack to 9-11 in the US? It has been over 6 yrs. Do you think Al Quaeda changed their mind?

As for legality...clearly the Constitution and the Geneva Convention don't apply to Khaled Sheik Muhammed. The CIA hve always pushed the limits. It seems to me that is part of their mandate. After all, they are not a chess club, and they still seem like pikers compared to the old KGB. What do you think William Buckley, CIA station chief in Beirut, went through in 1984? He was kidnapped and slowly tortured to death (probably by Hizbollah). I suspect he would have lept at the chance for a bit of fun on the waterboard. Khaled Sheik Mohammed's fat ass is still alive and he will get a trial with legal representation. Then he will be executed....painlessly , of course.

It seems to me the practice is more assailable on the basis of morality or political prudence, but I have noticed all the "connect the dots" idiots have disappeared. This is what "connecting the dots" looks like. If you can't handle it then don't read the newspaper or tell your Congressman to shut up and do something useful. There was a time when the CIA was supposed to be secret. Now every mid-level CIA pencil-pusher with an axe to grind goes to the NY Times. Maybe they coudl transfer to the Peace Corps.

The alternative to electronic eavesdropping and aggressive interogation is to simply grab your ankles and wait for the next attack.

Nein Danke.

Cognescenti said:

As for legality...clearly the Constitution and the Geneva Convention don't apply to Khaled Sheik Muhammed.

Click to expand...

I am very glad that the question of legality will be answered by lawyers and not people who post on message boards.

The CIA hve always pushed the limits. It seems to me that is part of their mandate. After all, they are not a chess club, and they still seem like pikers compared to the old KGB. What do you think William Buckley, CIA station chief in Beirut, went through in 1984? He was kidnapped and slowly tortured to death (probably by Hizbollah). I suspect he would have lept at the chance for a bit of fun on the waterboard.

Click to expand...

When a party one supports is caught in the wrong, one should simply refuse to condemn that party and instead fingerpoint. Cute. The Muslim community seems to do it a lot, too. It's lame when we do it. It's lame when anyone does it.

Oh well. I do wonder if these waterboarded confessions are admissible in a court of law. Probably not, since waterboarding is defined as torture by just about everybody outside of the Bush administration.

From what I remember, it wasn't waterboarding that broke Khalid Sheik Muhammed in the first place, it was prolonged exposure to Red Hot Chili Peppers music. At least that was the story a year ago. I'm sure he was waterboarded, and frankly I don't care. That might sound heartless, but I don't have much sympathy when it comes to that psychopath.

As for the legal issues, the Pentagon stated the six Gitmo detainees will have the same rights as any U.S. soldier put before a military tribunal. I doubt the confession will be legal, but there is enough other evidence to do the job anyway.

Muezzin said:

I am very glad that the question of legality will be answered by lawyers and not people who post on message boards..

Click to expand...

Just for giggles, then. Do you believe Kahled "furball" Mohammed is a POW under the Geneva Convention? Or is he to be afforded full rights under the Constitution as a citizen or resident of the US?

He is to be granted representation and rules of evidence for his commission that would be afforded to any US soldier . The trial is to be open (except for national security secrets where the government will have to convince the judges that secrecy is needed).

Just what exactly do you want for this piece of human excrement who claims to have personally sawn off Daniel Pearl's head becasue he was a Jew? He is lucky he is not a wet spot on some dingy wall in Islamabad.

I meant the legality of the interrogation methods used.

He's getting a fair trial, which is what everybody in the civilised world has a right to. No matter how scummy they may be.

Waterboarding seems like a smack on the cheeck compared to other humilating forms of torture that other prisoners around the world were subjected to...........

Yeah, we're all having a field day over that. I submitted a report on the subject myself. I probably landed myself in the soup, but I'm past caring about what the Bush administration thinks.

The Ninth Scribe

Omar_Mukhtar said:

Waterboarding seems like a smack on the cheeck compared to other humilating forms of torture that other prisoners around the world were subjected to...........

Click to expand...

That's true, but when the United States behaves this badly while trying to parade itself as "the envy of the world" (Bush's own words), there's a noticable contradiction! We're supposed to be the perfect society: Liberty and Justice for ALL... yet we're behaving no better than any of the other countries we condemn for this very same behavior. Liberty and Justice is NOT for "all" - apparently!

The Ninth Scribe

snakelegs said:

are you sure about this? until fairly recently, the talibaan did not go in for beheadings at all. when did they "send a directive" (?) to end this practice?

Click to expand...

February 4, 2008... ten days ago.

The Ninth Scribe

Cognescenti said:

That is kind of harsh joke by your uncle, but I dispute your claim that the facts don't matter. The previous poster made an absolute statement about Gitmo. It isn't true. There have been many hundreds of detainees at Gitmo (most now released) The implication that it was routinely used there is deliberately inflammatory. We now know it was used by the CIA in CIA run detention facilities....apparently on less than half a dozen (those with knowledge of impending operations). Never have I seen evidence that it was used to extract confessions. Who needs a confession from Khaled Sheik Muhammed?

Now, I have to agree with you that it does seem like a form of torture, but your claim that no useful information could be gleaned is suspect. You might ask yourself why there has been no follow-up attack to 9-11 in the US? It has been over 6 yrs. Do you think Al Quaeda changed their mind?

As for legality...clearly the Constitution and the Geneva Convention don't apply to Khaled Sheik Muhammed. The CIA hve always pushed the limits. It seems to me that is part of their mandate. After all, they are not a chess club, and they still seem like pikers compared to the old KGB. What do you think William Buckley, CIA station chief in Beirut, went through in 1984? He was kidnapped and slowly tortured to death (probably by Hizbollah). I suspect he would have lept at the chance for a bit of fun on the waterboard. Khaled Sheik Mohammed's fat ass is still alive and he will get a trial with legal representation. Then he will be executed....painlessly , of course.

It seems to me the practice is more assailable on the basis of morality or political prudence, but I have noticed all the "connect the dots" idiots have disappeared. This is what "connecting the dots" looks like. If you can't handle it then don't read the newspaper or tell your Congressman to shut up and do something useful. There was a time when the CIA was supposed to be secret. Now every mid-level CIA pencil-pusher with an axe to grind goes to the NY Times. Maybe they coudl transfer to the Peace Corps.

The alternative to electronic eavesdropping and aggressive interogation is to simply grab your ankles and wait for the next attack.

Nein Danke.

Click to expand...

Agreed. There is a confusion concerning the reports, but the people who are passionate tend to see the crime itself and ignore the details. Agreed, the CIA have always pushed the limits, but I believe they're wrong this time.

I do not agree that the use of this technique has prevented the U.S. from being attacked a second time. I believe the aggressive Homeland Security situation has more to do with that. I'm not fond of people spying on me, but I can definately live with it - besides, whatever I say is meant for EVERYONE.

No, I don't believe Al Qaeda aims to attack the United States a second time. 1. It would backfire and 2. The reason they attacked has been brought to light and it's not impossible to deal with from this point on. Thanks.

The Ninth Scribe

Ninth_Scribe said:

Agreed. There is a confusion concerning the reports, but the people who are passionate tend to see the crime itself and ignore the details. Agreed, the CIA have always pushed the limits, but I believe they're wrong this time.

I do not agree that the use of this technique has prevented the U.S. from being attacked a second time. I believe the aggressive Homeland Security situation has more to do with that. I'm not fond of people spying on me, but I can definately live with it - besides, whatever I say is meant for EVERYONE.

No, I don't believe Al Qaeda aims to attack the United States a second time. 1. It would backfire and 2. The reason they attacked has been brought to light and it's not impossible to deal with from this point on. Thanks.

The Ninth Scribe

Click to expand...

The Director of CIA just announced that waterboarding was used on exactly 3 Al Quaeda bigshots, the last use was in 2003. It was never used to extract confessions. It was never used at Gitmo. Not that the facts really matter.

Under a strict reading of the Geneva Convention it appears not to violate the treaty, but I certainly agree that it seems to be darn close and seems to meet the sniff test for torture. Interestingly, the Army subjects its own special ops troops to the technique so they can resist better if captured and numerous reporters have volunteered to have it done as part of their reporting. It certainly does not look like fun.

It is now banned by the US Congress. Yawn.


As for preventing attacks, of course, it is only part of the picture, but may have played a role in early efforts.

Cognescenti said:

The Director of CIA just announced that waterboarding was used on exactly 3 Al Quaeda bigshots, the last use was in 2003. It was never used to extract confessions. It was never used at Gitmo. Not that the facts really matter.

Under a strict reading of the Geneva Convention it appears not to violate the treaty, but I certainly agree that it seems to be darn close and seems to meet the sniff test for torture. Interestingly, the Army subjects its own special ops troops to the technique so they can resist better if captured and numerous reporters have volunteered to have it done as part of their reporting. It certainly does not look like fun.

It is now banned by the US Congress. Yawn.

As for preventing attacks, of course, it is only part of the picture, but may have played a role in early efforts.

Click to expand...

The "facts" do matter to you and I - but not so much to others. Torture is torture and that's the only fact they require.

Water-boarding (or dunking) isn't fun. My uncle served in Viet Nam so I suppose he may have picked it up from the army. I can't be sure. He died last year so I can't really ask him, though it has been in the back of my mind: Why he left as my hero (I used to love when he carried me upstairs to bed when I was little) and returned as an arrogant bully.

I guess we'll never really know in either case... but I'm glad it was officially banned.

The Ninth Scribe