a doctor monitoring.....

Declaration of Tokyo (1975)
Guidelines for Medical Doctors concerning Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in relation to Detention and Imprisonment

Adopted by the 29th World Medical Assembly, Tokyo, Japan, October 1975

PREAMBLE

It is the privilege of the medical doctor to practice medicine in the service of humanity, to preserve and restore bodily and mental health without distinction as to persons, to comfort and to ease the suffering of his or her patients. The utmost respect for human life is to be maintained even under threat, and no use made of any medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.

For the purpose of this Declaration, torture is defined as the deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting alone or on the orders of any authority, to force another person to yield information, to make a confession, or for any other reason.

DECLARATION

The doctor shall not countenance, condone or participate in the practice of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading procedures, whatever the offence of which the victim of such procedure is suspected, accused or guilty, and whatever the victim's belief or motives, and in all situations, including armed conflict and civil strife.

The doctor shall not provide any premises, instruments, substances or knowledge to facilitate the practice of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or to diminish the ability of the victim to resist such treatment.

The doctor shall not be present during any procedure during which torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment are used or threatened.

A doctor must have complete clinical independence in deciding upon the care of a person for whom he or she is medically responsible. The doctor's fundamental role is to alleviate the distress of his or her fellow men, and no motive whether personal, collective or political shall prevail against this higher purpose.

http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/tokyo/

The use of torture does more harm than good - the intelligence you get is unreliable and the damage to you in terms of giving terrorist recruiters a propoganda tool is too strong.

To be fair, you also have to postulate that the group has been involved in international terrorism for over a decade...

it would not surprise me if the British would have then turned to enhanced interrigation.

Listen the the ones who know, McCain and the late Adm. Stockdale!...

Or suppose a terrorist is caught who KNOWS in which building a nuclear bomb is hidden that is about to be detonated in NYC........

edisto, Let's suppose you have kids and that someone knows where they are and that they are going to be killed w/in 12 hours.........would you use waterboarding to save your kids?

Or suppose a terrorist is caught who KNOWS in which building a nuclear bomb is hidden that is about to be detonated in NYC........would waterboarding be appropriate then if it would save the city of New York? It does work, and in my opinion, there are times to use it..........

Ok since your refusing to explain why it is torture, I shall ask you: Why do you consider it to be torture? WHY do you consider it to be torture?

No love lost right, against this society you consider to be some capitalistic monster who bullies others?

Youd do anything you can to take away every tool of the United States so that your underdog can keep resisting.

So your infering that any suffering is to be considered torture. But dont't people suffer in solitary confinement? Being locked up 23 hours a day with very little light? How healthy is this?

People are going to disagree, even if they have participated in the event. You will never find an issue where everyone who agrees. I know soldiers who were not in favor of the war in Iraq. But I do support the effort there. Two people relatively in the same situation and with differing views. Obviously that alone will not legitimize or make something not legitimate.

Americans have procesucuted others for torture and have included waterboarding in the argument (to characterize the enemy).

However disbarring the use of the tecnique, as little as it might be needed, still takes away a tool that was needed. In the case of the origional interview, it was determined that this was needed

But there certainly is a crowd who is on here who is clearly hostile to anything that the United States stands for.

In 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor

Vietnam War

On January 21, 1968, during the Vietnam War, The Washington Post published a controversial photograph of three American soldiers waterboarding a North Vietnamese POW near Da Nang.photo. The article described the practice as "fairly common."The photograph led to the soldier being courtmartialed by a U.S. military court two months later.

International law

All countries that are signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture have agreed they are subjected to the explicit prohibition on torture under any condition, and as such there exists no legal exception under this treaty. (The treaty states "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.") Additionally, signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are bound to Article 5, which states, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

United States

* In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II. Yukio Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor.The charges of Violation of the Laws and Customs of War against Asano also included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward."

* In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognized "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record, and critics of waterboarding draw parallels between the two techniques, citing the similar usage of water on the subject.

* On September 6, 2006, the U.S. Department of Defense released a revised Army Field Manual entitled Human Intelligence Collector Operations that prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel. The department adopted the manual amid widespread criticism of U.S. handling of prisoners in the War on Terrorism, and prohibits other practices in addition to waterboarding. The revised manual applies only to U.S. military personnel, and as such does not apply to the practices of the CIA. However, under international law, violators of the laws of war are criminally liable under the command responsibility, and could still be prosecuted for war crimes.

Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.

"Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. "We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

Defendant: Asano, Yukio


Docket Date: 53/ May 1 - 28, 1947, Yokohama, Japan

Charge: Violation of the Laws and Customs of War: 1. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture PWs. 2. Did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for PWs.

Specifications:beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward

Verdict: 15 years CHL

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~warcrime/Japan/
Yokohama/Reviews/Yokohama_Review_Asano.htm

Retired JAGs: 'Waterboarding is Torture'
Posted by Howard Salter

Just in case our recent array of posts and our organization's stand against Attorney General nominee Judge Mukasey are not convincing enough, here is a letter sent to the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee from four retired Judge Advocates General on the issue.

November 2, 2007

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Leahy,

In the course of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s consideration of President Bush’s nominee for the post of Attorney General, there has been much discussion, but little clarity, about the legality of “waterboarding” under United States and international law. We write because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.

In 2006 the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the authority to prosecute terrorists under the war crimes provisions of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. In connection with those hearings the sitting Judge Advocates General of the military services were asked to submit written responses to a series of questions regarding “the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of drowning (i.e., waterboarding) . . .” Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Jack Rives, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General, Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier Gen. Kevin Sandkuhler, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, unanimously and unambiguously agreed that such conduct is inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law, to include Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

We agree with our active duty colleagues. This is a critically important issue - but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation. All U.S. Government agencies and personnel, and not just America’s military forces, must abide by both the spirit and letter of the controlling provisions of international law. Cruelty and torture - no less than wanton killing - is neither justified nor legal in any circumstance. It is essential to be clear, specific and unambiguous about this fact - as in fact we have been throughout America’s history, at least until the last few years. Abu Ghraib and other notorious examples of detainee abuse have been the product, at least in part, of a self-serving and destructive disregard for the well- established legal principles applicable to this issue. This must end.

The Rule of Law is fundamental to our existence as a civilized nation. The Rule of Law is not a goal which we merely aspire to achieve; it is the floor below which we must not sink. For the Rule of Law to function effectively, however, it must provide actual rules that can be followed. In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - has long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.

We respectfully urge you to consider these principles in connection with the nomination of Judge Mukasey.

Sincerely,

Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02

Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000

Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93

Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88

http://globalsolutions.org/blog/index.php/home?cat=4

During the Spanish-American War, a U.S. soldier, Major Edwin Glenn, was suspended from command for one month and fined $50 for using "the water cure." In his review, the Army judge advocate said the charges constituted "resort to torture with a view to extort a confession." He recommended disapproval because "the United States cannot afford to sanction the addition of torture."

Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834

Previous Nazi records actually show that "the use of hypothermia and waterboarding (both later authorized by Bush and Rumsfeld) were initially forbidden" by the Nazis—but, Sullivan adds, "historians have found that all the bureaucratic restrictions were eventually broken or abridged. Once you start torturing, it has a life of its own."

At the Norwegian war-crimes trial, "The Nazi defense of the [enhanced] techniques is almost verbatim that of the Bush administration: 'The victims were not in uniform . . . and the acts of torture in no case resulted in death.'" (This became the Bush position in the 2002 Justice Department "torture memos" drafted by John Yoo.)

Significantly, in the Norwegian war-crimes trial, Sullivan writes, "The Court came to the conclusion that such acts, even though they were committed with the connivances of superiors in rank, or even on their orders, must be regarded and punished as serious war crimes."

http://forum.ciphi.ca/viewtopic.php?p=9889&sid=
f44dd21ea9805a7bacdbb3b718e87a71

Torture is not the only tool available to the United States. You have vast resources, incredibly sophisticated technology, and very talented intelligence gatherers, all of which has served you ably in dealing with past threats and concerns.

actually I had others in mind

But there certainly is a crowd who is on here who is clearly hostile to anything that the United States stands for.

Let's say while you are using the info to save Montreal, Calgary gets blown up by the nuke, because the prisoners lied about the real location to stop the torture. Shall we still consider torture a viable means of information gathering?

All seem to disagree with your rather off putting argument of waterboarding being rather harmless.

Let's say a plot is discovered and a big nuke is planted in downtown Montreal,with just a few hours to the end of Montreal as we know it.This information came from waterboarding of prisoners. Do you use this information ,simple question yes or no.