Speaking up against our would be soviet overlords.
Published on November 17, 2009 By taltamir In Politics

I wonder if I will get banned from wikipedia for this. In the water boarding article, waterboarding is declared torture (if looking to edit, there is a warning that a "wikipedia discussion" declared it to be so. Only evidence supporting such a claim is presented. If you go through the entire article, way near the bottom, is a short section that details the use of waterboarding on american troops to toughen them up... yap, its a training exercise for the military.

Well, lets do a little experiment. I copied the following line:

All special operations units in all branches of the U.S. military and the CIA's Special Activities Division [13] employ the use of a form of waterboarding as part of survival school (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) training, to psychologically prepare soldiers for the possibility of being captured by enemy forces.[14]

It serves as an "intro" to the section about US training. I pasted it into the "preview" section (aka, the top of the article that gives broad information about the topic; and already contains info about  Khalid Sheik Mohammed:

Waterboarding is a form of torture which consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages, causing the captive to believe he or she is dying.[1] Forced suffocation and water inhalation cause the subject to experience the sensation of drowning.[2] Waterboarding is considered a form of torture by legal experts,[3][4] politicians, war veterans,[5][6] medical experts in the treatment of torture victims,[7][8] intelligence officials,[9] military judges[10] and human rights organizations.[11][12]

In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex.[15] While the technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage, it can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage tolungsbrain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, if uninterrupted, death.[3] Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.[7]

In 2007 it was reported that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners and that the United States Department of Justice had authorized the procedure,[16][17] a revelation that sparked a worldwide political scandalAl-Qaeda suspects upon whom the CIA is known to have used waterboarding are Khalid Sheikh MohammedAbu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.[18][19] To justify its use of waterboarding, the George W. Bush administration issued secret legal opinions that argued for a narrow definition of torture under U.S. law, including the Bybee memo, which it later withdrew.[20][21] According to Justice Department documents, the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed provided the U.S. government with information about a potential 9/11-type attack on Los Angeles.[22]

In January 2009 President Barack Obama banned the use of waterboarding. In April 2009 the Department of Defense refused to say whether waterboarding is still used for training (e.g., SERE) purposes.[22][23]

The new text reads:

Waterboarding is a form of torture which consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages, causing the captive to believe he or she is dying.[1] Forced suffocation and water inhalation cause the subject to experience the sensation of drowning.[2] Waterboarding is considered a form of torture by legal experts,[3][4] politicians, war veterans,[5][6] medical experts in the treatment of torture victims,[7][8] intelligence officials,[9] military judges[10] and human rights organizations.[11][12]

In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex.[13] While the technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage, it can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage tolungsbrain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, if uninterrupted, death.[3] Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.[7]

All special operations units in all branches of the U.S. military and the CIA's Special Activities Division [14] employ the use of a form of waterboarding as part of survival school (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) training, to psychologically prepare soldiers for the possibility of being captured by enemy forces.[15]

In 2007 it was reported that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners and that the United States Department of Justice had authorized the procedure,[16][17] a revelation that sparked a worldwide political scandalAl-Qaeda suspects upon whom the CIA is known to have used waterboarding are Khalid Sheikh MohammedAbu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.[18][19] To justify its use of waterboarding, the George W. Bush administration issued secret legal opinions that argued for a narrow definition of torture under U.S. law, including the Bybee memo, which it later withdrew.[20][21] According to Justice Department documents, the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed provided the U.S. government with information about a potential 9/11-type attack on Los Angeles.[22]

In January 2009 President Barack Obama banned the use of waterboarding. In April 2009 the Department of Defense refused to say whether waterboarding is still used for training (e.g., SERE) purposes.[22][23]

So, will this edit stand? will it be reversed? should I expect to be banned from wikipedia? We shall soon see.

 


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Nov 23, 2009

I understand what you are saying. I just don't understand why you're not writing about those people that I mentioned. Instead, you focus your attention on the terrorist's rights who have taken away the rights of others that you so adamantly fight for/agrue for.

I completely understand your agrument.  Why don't you fight for the victims rights?

on Nov 23, 2009

Your question is a good one and if I was honest I would have to say that it happened far away and that I don't know anybody and can't relate to those victims whereas I personally know people in the US who argue much alont the lines of Taltamir and Nitro. It makes it more tangible for me even though the US is really not the bad guy. It seems to be a sad truth that a persons life seems to matter more to the government and public in the west (EU + US/Canada) than it does in other places in the world. If I argue about the US, I at least can be reasonably sure that you and others know what human rights are.

Pakistan for me does not seem to have a culture that values human right and dignity. For example, woman are treated horribly in most places and it is rife with corruption and fanaticism, especially in the long ongoing conflict with India. It's an alien world to me, whereas I know the US. What effect would it have if I wrote an article about human right atrocities in Gaza, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Iran.. they have a machismo patriarchaic culture, sometimes infused with religious fundamentalism, that is backwards and archaic and no outside influence will change it. It has to come from within. It is so ridiculous to slap a few wrists akin to

 "Golly Mr Karzai, you do seem to have alot of nepotism and corruption going on, that makes us look bad, please do something about it when you find the time, thank you so much, here's a few billion in financial aid for your country as incentive to start implementing a central government that protects human rights and enforces the constitutional rights of the people. We would very much appreciate your efforts".

------

You also insist that those human rights protect the terrorists and that the  upcoming trial will be a free PR platform for them. That the liberal media in NY will side WITH the terrorists instead of the victims - I doubt that by the way. I agree that the victims should be allowed to speak, but this trial will be a precedent, much as the Nuremberg trials of war crimes have been. Justice needs due process. It does grant the accused certain rights, but it also will make sure that their punishment will be in accordance to your laws and constitutional principles. It is strange to have a trial where the outcome is a forgone conclusion - why not simply skip the whole process, right? Save time and money and bill their family for the bullet when its done - and I don't really have a prognosis to weather this will be a farce or not. When Joseph Eichman was on trial in Israel after Mossad kidnapped him in Southamerica, it was the first trial where survivors of the holocaust publically spoke about their experience. It was a media spectacle as well and Hannah Arend wrote her famous essay about the banality of evil for the New Yorker magazine. The trial of Omar and co could be an opportunity to show that justice will be served to those who commit acts of terror on innocents, and that you will not just hunt them down but show the world that they can be caught and just what miserable and pathetic forms of human beings they are before they get what is coming for them. The trial can demystify them and take the aura of martyrdom away of heroes that are willing to die for their cause of fighting the great satan. It will be a media circus, that much is for sure, but I am not  convinced that it will only serve to show the terrorists as victims of the US and thereby endear them with the understanding leftist NYC populace.

Sorry if this post was a bit disjointed.

on Nov 23, 2009

The other thing is that I don't think we should be locking up the worlds problems.  Our justice systems needs some major rehauling.  Prison, when the U.S started using it widely in the late 1800s to early 1900s was only meant to be a holding area so the individual would cool down and realize what he did was wrong (they were also trying to figure out a humane way of dealing with this problem and in the 1920s this was better solution than executing).  Back then the prisons were not nice.  There were no beds.  The food was subpar.  Essentially, it made you not want to stay there long periods of time.

The U.S. prisons are over populated now.  They get three meals a day.  Immates use to have to do hard larbor but some people thought that was cruel to make people work and some prison officals abused it in many ways.  I would rather not go to prison but it is not a true deterrent nor is capital punishment anymore (two reasons for this is because it usually takes place way after the fact.  It would be like if your child pooped on the floor and you punished them three years later for doing it.  It is also not done so the public can view it. Out of mind out of sight its not going to happen to me.) I'm not some neonate that says 'they (people in prison) all get tv'. That's a privledge. Most people that live in prison live basically low-middle class lives in prison.  I feel that there should be hard larbor.  They should each get about $45-50 worth of food a day (that's about minimum wage worth).  They should have to pay for their room and board.

My point in saying all that is that I don't want to become the world's prison. Mexico and Cuba have both released their immates (to save money. they haven't done that for about 20 years) and told them head up here.  The U.S can't do that because if we did then we would be in big trouble.  If these guys get life in prison (their not even U.S citizens), where are they going to go? In our federal prisons.  Prison is not a punishment. Its like sending a kid to their room.  Punishing people has become inhumane. 

I am against sending them to prison. Unless you think German prisons would hold them and I'm all for them coming to your neck of the woods, Utemia.

 

on Nov 23, 2009

utemia

Your question is a good one and if I was honest I would have to say that it happened far away and that I don't know anybody and can't relate to those victims whereas I personally know people in the US who argue much alont the lines of Taltamir and Nitro. It makes it more tangible for me even though the US is really not the bad guy. It seems to be a sad truth that a persons life seems to matter more to the government and public in the west (EU + US/Canada) than it does in other places in the world. If I argue about the US, I at least can be reasonably sure that you and others know what human rights are.

You also insist that those human rights protect the terrorists and that the  upcoming trial will be a free PR platform for them. That the liberal media in NY will side WITH the terrorists instead of the victims - I doubt that by the way. I agree that the victims should be allowed to speak, but this trial will be a precedent, much as the Nuremberg trials of war crimes have been. Justice needs due process. It does grant the accused certain rights, but it also will make sure that their punishment will be in accordance to your laws and constitutional principles.

Thank you for being honest in your first paragraph.  Do you need to see poor people to have a heart for the poor? I've volunteered at soup kitchens and homeless shelters.  Lived in third world countries.  When a child who is only 3 years old gets raped (and their anus needs to get surgerory on).  Does this need to be a neighbor for you to have compassion on that child (or that family)?  I also feel disgusted (and a certain amount of compassion) for the individual who raped the child because think of how warped their mind is to do that.

The media rather tout the pictures of the victimizers instead of the victims.  In a way, its so you don't feel connected to the victims.

Out of sight. Out of mind.

on Nov 23, 2009

I feel compassion for he victims when I hear about a suicide attack or read reports and news about the plight and poverty in some places. But it is far away and it is out of my mind easily enough. It doesn't mean that I don't care, I just can't do anything. My parents organize humanitarian aid to Bosnia and Croatia for around 20 years now. The situation there is still bad for alot of people and they still need aid, but it is already a forgotten problem. Living in provisionary circumstances has become the status quo and people made do somehow.

-----

Prison - well. Taking away someones freedom and the ability to make your own choices is punishment. Being locked up in a relatively  small space is punishment. I would not underestimate that. Prisoners do work I thought, don't they have shops where they make stuff like furniture etc? I read somewhere that the penitentiary in Fort Leavenworth is famous for its furniture and even supplied the white house.

You could propose a reform of the penal system but prisons are a good business for those  who run them. I am sure I could come up with a conspiracy theory if I put my mind to it...

 

on Nov 23, 2009

here is one article about the upcoming trial that adresses an issue which i am not sure would be adressed by US media.

Spiegel online international

The Death Penalty Problem

 9/11 Trial Puts German-US Relations Under Strain

The prosecutors in the forthcoming 9/11 trials in New York will be seeking the death penalty if the five defendants are found guilty. That could pose a problem for Germany, which is supplying vital evidence for the prosecution.

The US government could have hardly picked a more symbolic venue for the trial of its worst enemies. With its colonnade of Corinthian pillars, the 27-story US Courthouse in Lower Manhattan is a daunting fortress of justice. On Sept. 11, 2001, judges and court clerks gathered on the upper floors of the building were able to observe the impact of the second jet that crashed into the World Trade Center, just a few blocks away.

 

The men accused of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks will soon be put on trial here, not far from the scene of the crime. Next year federal prosecutors in New York are expected to read indictments against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh and three other alleged conspirators. They will be transferred from the detention facility at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to a courtroom less than a mile from Ground Zero, where they will receive a fair trial instead of facing a military tribunal. US Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try the suspects in a civilian court has made international headlines and prompted sighs of relief in many parts of the world.

No Capital Punishment in Germany

But it looks like the upcoming trial will cause headaches for Germany. Holder and US President Barack Obama have announced that they intend to seek the death penalty if the five defendants are found guilty. German law prohibits capital punishment, yet evidence provided by German investigators will play a key role in the trial.

This presents the German government with a dilemma. Berlin can either oppose the use of German evidence in a bid to protect the defendants from execution -- and risk alienating a NATO ally in the process -- or it can approve the use of the incriminating documents, which would contravene Germany's position on the death penalty.

According to the current mutual legal assistance agreement between the two countries, should the information furnished by German investigators be used to impose the death penalty, Germany can insist that this evidence be considered inadmissible in court. This would not be the first time that the Germans have demanded such assurances for criminal proceedings.

The trial in New York is threatening to put a strain on German-American relations. Washington already feels that Germany has let it down by refusing to take in former detainees after the Obama administration decided to close Guantanamo. What's more, when it comes to bringing the terrorists behind 9/11 to justice, there is currently very little understanding in the US for any legal concerns that Berlin might have.

Tug-of-War over Moussaoui Documents

It's not the first time the two countries have locked horns over this issue. Shortly after the attacks, a heated debate flared up, followed by months of tug-of-war over German bank transfer documents, which played a key role in the trial of would-be French suicide pilot Zacarias Moussaoui.

At first the German government demanded that the US court could not seek the death penalty for Moussaoui. But Berlin later relinquished and allowed the German documents to be entered as evidence in the trial in exchange for a binding assurance that this information could not be used to justify the death penalty -- a concept built on shaky legal ground.

The problems facing Germany in the upcoming New York trial are considerably more serious. Moussaoui had never lived in Germany and the dispute over evidence in his trial concerned only very few documents. But it is another story altogether with Ramzi Binalshibh, who was allegedly the main logistics man behind the attacks. He lived in Germany for six years and shared an apartment in Hamburg with two of the 9/11 suicide pilots, including Mohammed Atta, who crashed the first plane into the Twin Towers.

Working out of Germany, Binalshibh gathered information about flight training schools in the US and regularly transferred large sums of money to the future 9/11 hijackers. There were, therefore, a large number of references to the results of the German investigation in the old indictment against Binalshibh, which the Bush administration had hoped would be used in a trial heard before a military commission.

Justice Ministry Alarmed

Aside from that, federal prosecutors in New York will find it difficult to use confessions coerced using highly controversial interrogation methods such as waterboarding. "It is hard to imagine how the government could present a case against Ramzi Binalshibh where a significant portion of the government case would not be based on evidence gathered in Germany," says Thomas Durkin, who is a member of the ACLU John Adams Project and a member of Binalshibh's defense team.

This explains why Holder's announcement of the trial has alarmed the German Justice Ministry in Berlin and its subordinate agency in Bonn, the Federal Office of Justice, which is responsible for mutual legal assistance.

Germany's new Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger intends to maintain the course set by her predecessor: "In this case, we will also watch very closely to ensure that the assurances given are adhered to," she said. In order to verify that the US government keeps its word, the German Justice Ministry will team up with the Foreign Ministry to send German observers to monitor the trial in New York.

But the defense flatly rejects the idea of proceeding according to the example set during the Moussaoui trial. At the time, it was decided that German evidence could only be admitted during the main proceedings, but not during the sentencing phase. This is "a distinction without a difference," says Binalshibh's lawyer Durkin, who is a Chicago-based former federal prosecutor.

Ultimately, Moussaoui did not need to rely on help from German legal experts who questioned the admissibility of the evidence. He managed to escape the death penalty without their aid. One of the twelve jurors voted against death by lethal injection and Moussaoui was sentenced to life in prison.

on Nov 23, 2009

Sounds like attempted foreign manipulation in "the shining beacon of US democracy". If I were a terrorist I know where I'd want to commit a murderous act. Pity the German government didn't get to notify 9/11 victims families in person, they might have a different take on a just punishment. The shadows of WWII really got them gun shy there, the German eagle has been de-clawed. Not for the better IMO, may as well change the name to Switzerland. 

on Nov 23, 2009

It sounds like a plot from a thriller or so - negotiating concessions for making that evidence admissable, but I wouldn't really worry. Germany does not want those men to go free.

Gun shy, eh.. you make it sound like a collective historic post traumatic stress disorder.

Here is some more history for you: the USA has become the single most important ally and friend to Germany after the war. Marshall plan, care packages, raisin bombers over Berlin during the blockade, during he cold war. That gratitude is still there at the heart of it all, despite Schröder's unwillingness to back up Bush with the war in Iraq and thus damaging the good relationship somewhat. (He did that to win his election as it gave him a lot of support of liberal voters who oppose american policy of shock and awe) In September, a conservative libertarian coalition won the elections which are the two political parties that have always supported a conservative US friendly stance in the transantlantic relationship. Incidentally, the US was thrilled by Merkels victory because of that - Merkel is a conservative and not a peacenik. She wants justice for the victims.

on Nov 23, 2009

Gun shy, eh.. you make it sound like a collective historic post traumatic stress disorder.

LOL, You said it not me! I was speaking culturally and militarily. Germany has been pushed into meekness for it's past sins. But you're in good company, as our revered president attempts the same for the US. Whatever people think of the Nazi's, I believe most people have the utmost highest regard for the pre-1945 German armed forces fighting prowess (including WWI and Franco-Prussian War), all branches. No disrespect to the current forces, but it must be tough serving in the wake of combat abilities performed 70 + years ago. German forces in Afghanistan, while providing excellent service, are not fighting at the tip of the spear. As put in an old Army term, "In the rear with the gear". When somebody mentions Germany and soldier, in the same context, in the US today, I say there is a 99% chance they talking about the WWII soldiers.  

 

Merkel is a conservative and not a peacenik. She wants justice for the victims

I know she is, and I have no doubt she wants justice (as many Germans do). But what does it mean being a conservative, non-peacenik? You get to pound your fist on the podium?

on Nov 24, 2009

here is one article about the upcoming trial that adresses an issue which i am not sure would be adressed by US media.

So if both the US and Germany follow the rules, the terrorists will go free.

 

I know she is, and I have no doubt she wants justice (as many Germans do). But what does it mean being a conservative, non-peacenik? You get to pound your fist on the podium?

It means Merkel goes as far as she can. She certainly leads Germany into a more US-alligned position.

 

on Nov 24, 2009

Found that funny, did ya? lol

Germany has been pushed into meekness for it's past sins.
Germany is watched like the proverbial hawk by its neighbours. Originally, the handbag lady Maggy Thatcher didn't support reunification because she was wary of a strong Germany. A strong Germany with a strong fighting military would send the warning bells blaring really quickly and loudly, especially in France and Poland. Russia - dunno. I hardly think germany would ever attack russia again after the last attempt.. 

So if both the US and Germany follow the rules, the terrorists will go free.
That could be the consequence of not following due process.. makes one shudder. On the other hand, if the verdict is decided before the trial even starts, it would ba mocktrial of sowjet/russian caliber, except that the accussed are actually guilty. It is a challenge, no doubt.

on Nov 24, 2009

That could be the consequence of not following due process.. makes one shudder.

No. That would be the consequence of following due process.

If the evidence Germany provides is inadmissable, all evidence might be inadmissable if Germany had anything to do with providing it.

 

on Nov 24, 2009

Because they did not follow due process with the arrest, detention and the rest of it, following due process would mean what you said. What I said referred to the first part - but both mean essentially the same.

The evidence will be admitted - if the consequence of not admitting would be that those men walk free, there is no way that Merkel will hold it back. It would mean the failure of the trial - and since the supreme court ruled that military tribunals are unconstitutional, they would have to be let go and walk free, but I can't see that happening. I don't believe Merkel wants to be responsible for letthing dangerous men like these lose again.

on Nov 24, 2009

The evidence will be admitted - if the consequence of not admitting would be that those men walk free, there is no way that Merkel will hold it back. It would mean the failure of the trial - and since the supreme court ruled that military tribunals are unconstitutional, they would have to be let go and walk free, but I can't see that happening. I don't believe Merkel wants to be responsible for letthing dangerous men like these lose again.

She wouldn't be. Obama would be.

Military tribunals were never illegal in the past, only now, very suddenly after Obama announced that he doesn't want them.

 

 

Because they did not follow due process with the arrest, detention and the rest of it, following due process would mean what you said.

The Nazi war criminals in Germany were also not arrested in the correct way; unless invading and destroying a country are part of "due process" in a criminal investigation.

 

on Nov 24, 2009

The ruling that they were unconstitutional for the detainees was under the Bush administration, before Obama.

The Nuremberg trials were a new thing at the time and a response to the dimension of the committed atrocities. If it had been a "normal" war with the usual and expected number of civilian casualties there would not have been trials for war crimes. It was decided that what the nazis did were "crimes agains humanity" - a phrase coined by the american prosecuter, I think. They arrested the nazi ruling elite  and then presented evidence in the trials and not everybody recieved the deathpenatly, either.

It was not normal circumstances. There was no civilian authority that could try the nazi regime, the infrastructure didn't exist yet.

LINK to the resource if anybody wants to take a closer look. It is particularly interesting to read the charters, agreements (London agreement) and declarations in the beginning of book 1. They wanted to bring the Nazis to justice and they wanted to do it the right way, from the very first start.

3 Pages1 2 3