Human rights experts have long pressed the administration of former president George W. Bush for details of who bore ultimate responsibility for approving the simulated drownings of CIA detainees, a practice that many international legal experts say was illicit torture. In a memoir due out Tuesday, Bush makes clear that he personally approved the use of that coercive technique against alleged Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheik Mohammed, an admission the human rights experts say could one day have legal consequences for him.

In his book, titled "Decision Points," Bush recounts being asked by the CIA whether it could proceed with waterboarding Mohammed, who Bush said was suspected of knowing about still-pending terrorist plots against the United States. Bush writes that his reply was "dam_n right" and states that he would make the same decision again to save lives, according to a someone close to Bush who has read the book.

Bush previously had acknowledged endorsing what he described as the CIA's "enhanced" interrogation techniques - a term meant to encompass irregular, coercive methods - after Justice Department officials and other top aides assured him they were legal. "I was a big supporter of waterboarding," Vice President Richard B. Cheney acknowledged in a television interview in February

The Justice Department later repudiated some of the underlying legal analysis for the CIA effort. But Bush told an interviewer a week before leaving the White House that "I firmly reject the word 'torture,' " and he reiterates that view in the book. Reuters and the New York Times first published accounts of the book's contents Tuesday evening.

Since the 2003 waterboarding of Mohammed and similar interrogations of two other CIA detainees in 2002 and 2003, the agency has forsworn the technique, which involves pouring water onto someone's face while strapped to a board, to convince them they will shortly drown.

President Obama and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. have both said waterboarding is an act of torture proscribed by international law, a viewpoint supported by a handful of Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill and opposed by other Republicans. But the Obama administration has not sought to punish former Bush administration officials for approving it.

The 26-year-old United Nations Convention Against Torture requires that all parties to it seek to enforce its provisions, even for acts committed elsewhere. That provision, known as universal jurisdiction, has been cited in the past by prosecutors in Spain and Belgium to justify investigations of acts by foreign officials. But no such trials have occurred in foreign courts.

Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, said, "Waterboarding is broadly seen by legal experts around the world as torture, and it is universally prosecutable as a crime. The fact that none of us expect any serious consequences from this admission is what is most interesting."

M. Cherif Boussiani, an emeritus law professor at DePaul University who co-chaired the U.N. experts committee that drafted the torture convention, said that Bush's admission could theoretically expose him to prosecution. But he also said Bush must have presumed that he would have the government's backing in any confrontation with others' courts.

Georgetown University law professor David Cole, a long-standing critic of Bush's interrogation and detention policies, called prosecution unlikely. "The fact that he did admit it suggests he believes he is politically immune from being held accountable. . . . But politics can change."

Washington Post

Water-boarding bad.

Thousands of dead civilians much worse.

Water-boarding bad.

Thousands of dead civilians much worse.

Then America should stop killing those civilians!

You do not seem to have any problem with radical Muslim terrorists doing it.

Mite be time for some country to instigate war criminal proceedings against GW Bush and his cohorts.

Which groups claim water-boarding is torture and WHEN did they decide? Was it on the list of torture techniques before it became popularized in the past decade? Or is this something that popped up recently as a way of going after Bush?

Water-boarding isn't torture, IMO. It might be very unpleasant but that doesn't make it torture. Are there any lasting physical or psychological effects? It's like the people who believe making a suggestive remark to woman is the same as rape.

Which groups claim water-boarding is torture and WHEN did they decide?

In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

Water-boarding isn't torture, IMO.

You would be begging for mercy in way less than 20 seconds

Edited November 6, 201015 yr by flying

Which groups claim water-boarding is torture and WHEN did they decide?

In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

Water-boarding isn't torture, IMO.

You would be begging for mercy in way less than 20 seconds

Please post the rest of the detail of the Japanese water-boarding incident in question. I'm betting you won't.

Whether I would be begging for mercy in 20 seconds or 2 seconds is 100% irrelevant. I probably would. I would probably tell my interrogators what they wanted to know, and would be none the worse for it physically or psychologically. And that's the whole point of it.

People who think terror suspects plotting to murder as many people as they can in cold blood should be checked in a suite at the Marriott are delusional. And dangerously delusional if you ever get in a position of power - and don't change. I notice that Mr. Obama - who calls waterboarding torture - hasn't overturned many of Bush's policies once he got in the Whitehouse and saw the intel. How's that closing of Gitmo going?

Please post the rest of the detail of the Japanese water-boarding incident in question. I'm betting you won't.

Why wouldnt I? It is public record & easily found if you just look at the history of waterboarding...

You act as if it is a national secret

Google Yukio Asano & learn on your own...or not.

Here is a short read if you like

Waterboarding: A Tortured History

I am never really sure of your question or if you ever have one.

Edited November 6, 201015 yr by flying

People who think terror suspects plotting to murder as many people as they can in cold blood should be checked in a suite at the Marriott are delusional.

Hear, hear, but some would claim enlightened.

People who think terror suspects plotting to murder as many people as they can in cold blood should be checked in a suite at the Marriott are delusional.

Hear, hear, but some would claim enlightened.

Who on earth would ever suggest that teror suspects should be pampered? To say that they shouldn't be tortured is not to "check them into the Marriott".

More typical spin.

It is torture and the effects are often irreversible.

Sod it, if they are known terrorists then in my eyes they lose their human rights when they do inhuman things. Provided they are definitely terrorists then water-board away, I say.

People who think terror suspects plotting to murder as many people as they can in cold blood should be checked in a suite at the Marriott are delusional.

Hear, hear, but some would claim enlightened.

stupid assumptions out of thin air are used by people who don't have valid arguments.

needless to say that waterboarding or even more serious torture is justified if it saves the lives of innocent human beings and it does not make any difference if the procedure is sanctioned by a texan village idiot or by somebody intelligent in charge.

needless to say that waterboarding or even more serious torture is justified if it saves the lives of innocent human beings..

Kudos.

Each generation of doves seems to come up with more stringent rules of engagement, interrogation, interpretation of acts, etc. While those who propose violence, retribution, etc seem to push any sensibility out of their thought process. We may disagree with some of the methods of interrogation but until we are aware of the circumstances/information/supposition, etc which brought about the decision for their use, we may want to step down from the judgment throne.

Each generation of doves seems to come up with more stringent rules of engagement, interrogation, interpretation of acts, etc. While those who propose violence, retribution, etc seem to push any sensibility out of their thought process. We may disagree with some of the methods of interrogation but until we are aware of the circumstances/information/supposition, etc which brought about the decision for their use, we may want to step down from the judgment throne.

Each generation of doves seems to come up with more stringent rules of engagement, interrogation, interpretation of acts, etc. While those who propose violence, retribution, etc seem to push any sensibility out of their thought process. We may disagree with some of the methods of interrogation but until we are aware of the circumstances/information/supposition, etc which brought about the decision for their use, we may want to step down from the judgment throne.

That was worth a double post. :jap:

I was telling a Pakistani colleague today about our waterboarding debate and he laughed. Suffice to say he is in the "it's not torture" camp.

Last night on the History channel here in the US they did a show on Terrorist both real & supposed.

They released something like 520 from gitmo...Turns out 18 later were found to actually have had terrorist ties...So that is what one section interviewed lamented over....how they released folks who would return to the fight.

I wondered if instead they had created 502 new fighters. Many of whom had been held illegally without trial for 9 years.One guy showed the picture of who he was thought to be which was the reason he was held 9 years.

Well I guess they both had beards....

Last night on the History channel here in the US they did a show on Terrorist both real & supposed.

They released something like 520 from gitmo...Turns out 18 later were found to actually have had terrorist ties...So that is what one section interviewed lamented over....how they released folks who would return to the fight.

I wondered if instead they had created 502 new fighters. Many of whom had been held illegally without trial for 9 years.One guy showed the picture of who he was thought to be which was the reason he was held 9 years.

Well I guess they both had beards....

You make an excellent case for just killing them where they are captured. Taking them to Gitmo, there's a dangerous chance that real terrorists will be released and a greater chance that we'll just be creating more terrorists.

You make an excellent case for just killing them where they are captured. Taking them to Gitmo, there's a dangerous chance that real terrorists will be released and a greater chance that we'll just be creating more terrorists.

Any excellent case you imagine is in your head alone.

That case comes off as ....Kill 502 innocent detained folks so you would not screw up & release 18 wrongfully.....

Sad to say your probably not alone in your version of the world. I know of at least one other that thinks the same.

Edited November 6, 201015 yr by flying

You make an excellent case for just killing them where they are captured. Taking them to Gitmo, there's a dangerous chance that real terrorists will be released and a greater chance that we'll just be creating more terrorists.

That comes off as ignorant....Kill 502 innocent folks held so you would not screw up & release 18 wrongfully.

It isn't ignorant at all. People are captured. They are put through the system and if believed (rightly or wrongly) not to be a threat, they are released. You are claiming that ALL of those released will become new fighters. So, by your logic the smart thing to do it kill them all. Logic DOES NOT dictate never capturing anyone since we know there are bad ones in the bunch. Your post shows that 18 real terrorists were released. That may sound like a small number until you remember that on 9/11 it only took 19 real terrorists.

It isn't ignorant at all. People are captured. They are put through the system and if believed (rightly or wrongly) not to be a threat, they are released. You are claiming that ALL of those released will become new fighters. So, by your logic the smart thing to do it kill them all. Logic DOES NOT dictate never capturing anyone since we know there are bad ones in the bunch. Your post shows that 18 real terrorists were released. That may sound like a small number until you remember that on 9/11 it only took 19 real terrorists.

Again comprehension is proving tough for your reading of my posts.

Read it again

Edited November 6, 201015 yr by flying

You make an excellent case for just killing them where they are captured. Taking them to Gitmo, there's a dangerous chance that real terrorists will be released and a greater chance that we'll just be creating more terrorists.

Any excellent case you imagine is in your head alone.

That case comes off as ....Kill 502 innocent detained folks so you would not screw up & release 18 wrongfully.....

Sad to say your probably not alone in your version of the world. I know of at least one other that thinks the same.

See my previous reply before you edited your original post. My reply stays the same.

My reply stays the same.

As I said in your head alone.

It isn't ignorant at all. People are captured. They are put through the system and if believed (rightly or wrongly) not to be a threat, they are released. You are claiming that ALL of those released will become new fighters. So, by your logic the smart thing to do it kill them all. Logic DOES NOT dictate never capturing anyone since we know there are bad ones in the bunch. Your post shows that 18 real terrorists were released. That may sound like a small number until you remember that on 9/11 it only took 19 real terrorists.

Again comprehension is proving tough for your reading of my posts.

Read it again

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4006160

Not tough in this case. You just don't realise that you made the case for killing them which wasn't your intention.

I remember watching some former CIA talking head on TV saying something along the lines of the biggest mistake of Gitmo was that we didn't just kill them in the field when captured. He was right and you r post about 502 new fighters backs him up. Some of you here have argued that Gitmo has been a disaster for the USA. Since refusing to capture (potential) terrorists isn't an option, then without Gitmo or a place similar, they need to die.

Not tough in this case. You just don't realise that you made the case for killing them which wasn't your intention.

Telling others that they just dont realize their own thoughts meaning .....

They have a word for your interpretation .....Delusional

Your justification of killing 502 innocents because they may now be upset due to your injustice of wrongfully taking 9 years of their life away with an illegal incarceration & torture....Oh that's right you dont consider anything in Gitmo torture...kor tort

Your intention is even more insane than even I could imagine. Makes the classic ugly Americans sound like beauty queens

Last thought............. You work in foreign lands....If you were suddenly thrown in a room for 9 years because well say you look like someone....

You wouldn't be upset if they just killed you rather than later release you & take a chance you might be upset eh?

Last response & I will leave your merry go round now. Enjoy & hopefully you will also see the show some day or better yet the reality.

Edited November 6, 201015 yr by flying

Your post shows that 18 real terrorists were released.

I would like to see some evidence that the other detainees were "innocent".

Such uncorroborated claims posted in Outside the Box have sometimes turned out to be complete hogwash.

Edited November 6, 201015 yr by Ulysses G.

Pentagon: Ex-Gitmo detainees resume terror acts

January 14, 2009|From Mike Mount CNN

Pentagon officials say 61 former Gitmo detainees have committed or are suspected of returning to terrorism.

Dozens of suspected terrorists released by the United States from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are believed to have returned to terrorism activities, according to the Pentagon.

Since 2002, 61 former detainees have committed or are suspected to have committed attacks after being released from the detention camp, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said at a briefing Tuesday.

The number is up since the Pentagon's last report in March 2008 when officials said 37 former detainees had been suspected of returning to the battlefield since 2002.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-14/us/gitmo.detainees_1_detainees-guantanamo-bay-naval-base-pentagon?_s=PM:US

Pentagon: Ex-Gitmo detainees resume terror acts

January 14, 2009|From Mike Mount CNN

Pentagon officials say 61 former Gitmo detainees have committed or are suspected of returning to terrorism.

Dozens of suspected terrorists released by the United States from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are believed to have returned to terrorism activities, according to the Pentagon.

Since 2002, 61 former detainees have committed or are suspected to have committed attacks after being released from the detention camp, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said at a briefing Tuesday.

The number is up since the Pentagon's last report in March 2008 when officials said 37 former detainees had been suspected of returning to the battlefield since 2002.

http://articles.cnn....ntagon?_s=PM:US

Should have just shot them in the first place because now even more truly innocent people are being killed.

Edited November 7, 201015 yr by koheesti