A repost from an earlier post.

After WW2, US prosecuted the Japanese for using waterboarding on US soldiers who were captured.

And now Bush and his Justice Department lackeys say to the world and US public as if they were talking to children.

This bit is taken from andrewsullivan.com

Andrew notes a transcript http://www.lawofwar.org/what's_new.htm from a trial of Japanese interrogators after WWII who waterboarded Americans in captivity -- being prosecuted for war crimes -- the testimony of an American soldier waterboarded: quote:

"Q: What other physical treatment was administered to you at that time?

A: Well, I was given what they call the water cure.

Q: Explain to the Commission what that was.

A: Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water was poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let me up until I'd get my breath, then they'd start over again.

Q: When you regained consciousness would they keep asking you questions?

A: Yes sir they did.

Q: How long did this treatment continue?

A: About twenty minutes.

Q: What was your sensation when they were pouring water on the towel, what did you physically feel?

A: Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death."

And the CIA's description of the waterboarding technique approved by Bush admin at Gitmo; quote:

"The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt."

Sullivan ends; quote:

Sound familiar? It's worth placing in the public record that the Bush administration's torture policies are, in this specific respect, the same as the Japanese dictatorship's in World War II. The American prosecutor at the time dismissed charges against the American serviceman whose testimony appears above on the following grounds: "The untrustworthiness of any admissions or confessions made under torture would clearly vitiate a conviction based thereon." How far we've sunk. And it took a Christian president, supported by Christian voters, to take us there...

===========

Amnesty Calls U.S. Torture ‘Widespread’

The torture and abuse of American detainees is “widespread” in Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, said Amnesty International today in its report to the UN’s Committee Against Torture. The report’s authors dismiss the U.S. government’s attempts to deny the breadth of the conduct, and accuse political and military leaders of creating an environment in which torture has become institutionalized. The group didn’t limit its criticism to America’s activities outside its borders, also citing patterns of excessive force among domestic police, and inhumane conditions in high security prisons

USA AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL’S SUPPLEMENTARY BRIEFING TO THE UN COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr510612006

this is old news, but i feel it doesnt get repeated often enough: not only do we torture, but we torture to death (and worse than that, these are people who have no evidence against them, people held on hearsay provided for rewards). this is according to pentagon autopsies, and it only covers detainees in iraq and afghanistan (i think its safe to assume the secret cia prisons are a lot worse): http://www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/gen/21236prs20051024.html there is no dispute. we torture people. both john yoo and alberto gonzales have said pretty explicitly that the president has the right to order torture.

sorry to bore people that know this all already, but its damn frustrating not hearing claims like "we do not torture" shot down, because its so easy to debunk that.

US practises may have spawned an evil child in newly democratic and free Iraq:

Iraq torture 'worse after Saddam' 21 Sept 06

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5368360.stm

Torture may be worse now in Iraq than under former leader Saddam Hussein, the UN's chief anti-torture expert says. Manfred Nowak said the situation in Iraq was "out of control", with abuses being committed by security forces, militia groups and anti-US insurgents.

Bodies found in the Baghdad morgue "often bear signs of severe torture", said the human rights office of the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq in a report.

The wounds confirmed reports given by refugees from Iraq, Mr Nowak said.

He told journalists at a briefing in Geneva that he had yet to visit Iraq, but he was able to base his information on autopsies and interviews with Iraqis in neighbouring Jordan.

"What most people tell you is that the situation as far as torture is concerned now in Iraq is totally out of hand," the Austrian law professor said.

"The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein," he added.

Brutal methods

The UN report says detainees' bodies often show signs of beating using electrical cables, wounds in heads and genitals, broken legs and hands, electric and cigarette burns.

Bodies found at the Baghdad mortuary "often bear signs of severe torture including acid-induced injuries and burns caused by chemical substances".

Many bodies have missing skin, broken bones, back, hands and legs, missing eyes, missing teeth and wounds caused by power drills or nails, the UN report says.

Victims come from prisons run by US-led multinational forces as well as by the ministries of interior and defence and private militias, the report said.

The most brutal torture methods were employed by private militias, Mr Nowak told journalists.

The report also says the frequency of sectarian bloodletting means bodies are often found which "bear signs indicating that the victims have been brutally tortured before their extra-judicial execution".

It concludes that torture threatens "the very fabric of the country" as victims exact their own revenge and fuel further violence.

Mr Nowak said he would like to visit Iraq in person, but the current situation would not allow him to prepare an accurate report, because it would not be safe to leave Baghdad's heavily guarded Green Zone where the Iraqi government and US leadership are situated.

You are all going to have your jaws drop through the floor when the republicans win this upcomming election..again. Call me a pessimist (and I am), but I think Rove's plan of terrorising the country and scaring the crap out of everyone will work again in the favor of republicans. Sure torture is a good isse for democrats, but will even the average person care about who is being tortured when Rove et al start upping their terror alerts before election and telling us how close we are to another attack? If Rove can make people believe that torture protects them from harm, then I think most americans will allow torture. Again, call me a pessimist, but thats my view of the americcan public.

Jail is 'immoral'. Sometimes you need immorality to protect morality.

bill clinton made a good point on this. about the opposite of yours: if democrats make their compaign about not torturing, republicans have the perfect reason to call the democrats "weak on terror" - again.

With heavy heart, I suspect Anton is right. That and Diebold and scrubbed voter roles are likely to work yet again. Conservatives just do a better job of appealing to the worst in people than Democrats do of appealing to the best in them. They're also more willing to cheat than Dems, to think more broadly, that is, that the ends (winning) justify the means (cheating).

giving the government the right to torture is a bigger threat than terrorism. especially when that government has shown an eagerness to unilaterally declare american citizens enemy combatants. this (among other things) is a fundamental challenge to society, bush is truly radical.

people need to get it in their heads that government has infinitely more power than terrorists do, and so should be treated with at least as much distrust and suspicion. this administration actually has the power to destroy america, no terrorist could come close.

I just made a bumper sticker for my ten-year-old car:

Vote Republican: Torture & Tortured Logic

efiuh made the point that I am always making, and I want to flesh it out a little bit. The chance of an american dying from a terrorist attack today is less than the chance of being hit by lightning, or being shot by police by mistake. The truth is, terrorists are not nearly as dangerous as the government claims. terrorism is called terror because its meant to terrify and to get a political message across (written in blood), but terrorists cannot destroy this country any more than the N. Irish NRA could destroy the UK. Our government on the other hand is more than capable of destroying all of our constitutional freedoms and turning this country into a police state. Many people argue that this is already the case. Im currently taking classes in evidence and criminal proceedure, and it is amazing what has happened to american rights over the last 60 years. I dont think people are even aware of the extent to which our constitutional rights have been compromised, not just by this administration, but by every administration over the last half a century.

Maybe another good slogan would be "Support Habeas Corpus". A long standing legal tradition for even us common people, I am lead to believe. Wouldn't it be fun to have basic civil rights again? http://www.constitution.org/eng/habcorpa.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeus_corpus

FYI.

"Four months after President Bush accused Syria of harboring terrorist camps and organizations in June 2002, U.S. authorities secretly handed over to the Damascus regime a man suspected of having ties to a terrorist group.

The awful story of what happened to Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen of Syrian descent, at the hands of Syria's secret police has received a lot of attention since it broke last week. But the troubling contradictions between what the Bush administration says and what it does in its war on terror have not....

...But a year later, when Arar was picked up in a New York airport on a tip from Canadian police that he might have terrorist ties, he was detained briefly in this country before being sent to Syria. There, Arar says, he was beaten with a metal cable until he falsely confessed to spending time in a terrorist camp in Afghanistan and he was kept in a coffin-size dungeon cell for 10 months.

In sending Arar - whom a Canadian government commission recently cleared of any terrorist ties - to Syria, the Bush administration had good reason to know he would be brutalized.

"Although torture occurs in prisons, torture is most likely to occur while detainees are being held at one of the many detention centers run by the various security services throughout the country, and particularly while the authorities are attempting to extract a confession or information regarding an alleged crime or alleged accomplices," the State Department said of Syria in its 2001 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

If this doesn't cause you to wonder how committed the Bush administration is to its worldwide war against terrorism, there's more..."

Read more at:

"Opinion Two terror cases expose Bush's double standard Tue Sep 26, 6:54 AM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060926/cm_usatoday/twoterrorcasesexposebushsdoublestandard

It has just occured to me that it will now be illegal to extradite anyone to the US from most Western nations. I'm not sure about other countries, but here in New Zealand the possibility of being tortured is a defence against extradition.

testing

Habeus Corpus was upheld by the supreme court in the Hamdi case a year ago or so. In that case an american born muslim was grabbed by the CIA of the streets of Boston (if im not mistaken to the city name) and taken to Gitmo. he demanded a writ of habeus Corpus, claiming that his constitutinal rights had been violated and that he had a right to a trial. the SC agreed, but stipulated that the burden of showing innocence fell on the defendant and also that the government can set up a military tribunal to try his case so long as the issue os presented to a neutral decision maker and hamdi is represented with evidence presented against him. Some evidence may be excluded, but even before 9/11 there were situations in which a person did not always have the ability to fully defend himself. For example in snitch cases a government witness would not be presented in court to protect the witness from ritribution.