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 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Nov 24, 2009

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

There is still no such civilian authority.

 

on Nov 24, 2009

IV. FAIR TRIAL FOR DEFENDANTS
Article 16. In order to ensure fair trial for the Defendants, the following procedure shall be followed :
(a)
The Indictment shall include full particulars specifying in detail the charges against the Defendants. A copy of the Indictment and of all the docu- ments lodged with the Indictment, translated into a language which he understands, shall be furnished to the Defendant at a reasonable time before the Trial.


b
During any preliminary examination or trial of a Defendant he shall have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charges made against him.


(c)
A preliminary examination of a Defendant and his Trial shall be conducted in, or translated into, a language which the Defendant understands.

(d)
A defendant shall have the right to conduct his own defense before the Tribunal or to have the assistance of Counsel.

(e)
A defendant shall have the right through himself or through his Counsel to
present evidence at the Trial in support of his defense, and to cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution.

If men like Pohl, a SS death squad commander responsible for over 80 000 killed in massacres was granted those rights and recieved justice, men like Binalshib can have them as well and will recieve justice.

on Nov 24, 2009

If men like Pohl, a SS death squad commander responsible for over 80 000 killed in massacres was granted those rights and recieved justice, men like Binalshib can have them as well and will recieve justice.

What are you talking about? Nobody is denying those rights.

But that doesn't mean that the trial cannot be a military trial.

 

on Nov 24, 2009

International criminal court in Den Haag.

on Nov 24, 2009

What exactly is the difference between a military tribunal and a civilian court? Some of the same rules apply in both instances, don't they? I think I might be confused as to the difference in trial procedure.

on Nov 24, 2009

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.

I seriously doubt that there will ever be a war again without "war crimes" proceedings attached by the victors. It has become the norm since the Balkan Conflicts. Not doubting atrocities were committed at all, but then show me a war were there are none. There is the zeal to hold someone accountable. 

3 Pages1 2 3