There is no comparison between what they did and what we do... because "they" are always the bad guys, and "we" are always the good guys, and what the good guys do is always acceptable (unless the bad guys do it, in which case it's just plain wrong).

This is obviously the case, since it's been stated time and time again, by people who are more than happy to do all our thinking for us on this issue, that "We don't torture" - so how could anything "we" do be called that? It just wouldn't be logical!

/sarcasm :damn:

Since the nazis actually (routinely) tortured people to death, and everyone knew this, there is all the difference in the world (and the two methods in question are not the same).

If the US does it to you (all 3 guys who were so-treated) you can be confident that they're going to not kill you, or even permanently harm you. When the nazis so much as talked to you, you had no certainty that the conversation would not end with you dead, right there, on the spot.

And what makes you think that this islamic insurgent "swine" or "sand ******" as he's called by his torturers, is not in fear of dying during his imprisonment ? How can he be sure he's not just waterboarded to death ? This is the whole purpose of torture, mind you, to get information by scaring people to death.

B.t.w. the training of the marines is quite similar to that of the SS, minus being Nazis ;)
Yes i know they're the good guys. The difference is in the moral background.

Greetings,
Catfish

So your definition of "torture" only includes situations where you end up dead, or where your death is intended?

Fine, let me strap these electrodes to you. Don't worry, I won't use enough juice to kill you, and I'm telling you ahead of time that I have no intention of causing your death, and I'm convinced that if I'm really careful I won't do you any permanent damage.

So I'm assuming you'll be perfectly fine with me jolting your nuts with as much electricity as I like, as many time as I like, for as long as I like, so long as those conditions are met.

Yeah, right.

The GC requires that to be considered torture, it cause "severe" physical or mental harm. That is the definition.

The two techniques described are of course not at all the same (being submerged in water vs having a cloth wetted), but assuming that both nations did "waterboarding" we'd have an equal comparison, so let's downgrade the nazi method described to be waterboarding.

Since waterboarding is NOT lethal done by the US, the GC here is not really in force for physical harm for the US. It IS in force for the nazis, because clearly they'd happily keep pouring until you died.

So in the physical harm category we have the US method NOT ever leaving "severe" physical damage. With the nazis... severe physical damage (death) is quite possible if not likely.

OK, how about severe psychological damage. Here there is certainly a case against it on the US side, we're in agreement. Does it reach the "severe" requirement of the GC? Quite possibly, but then again, the GC was written in an intentionally vague way to allow rough treatment (clearly, or they'd have forbidden ANY harm). What about the nazis? Hmm, since the person being interrogated KNOWS they will kill him without a second thought, the effect of the SAME waterboarding would be FAR more severe mentally. You KNOW they shoot people summarily on the street. You KNOW they torture people to death, wholesale. It then is LIKELY in your mind that they WILL kill you with this.

So, while waterboarding might well be psychological torture, period, it is FAR more likely to reach that benchmark done by people known to torture people to death. Note that Bin Laden's own remarks regarding what AQ could expect as retaliation from the US (pre-9-11) included him saying that the US would likely subpoena them for making an attack. KSM, et al, clearly had a low opinion of US force of will in terms of dealing with them, so I imagine as uncomfortable as the interrogations were, he intellectually did not expect to die.

I had never heard of this before today. Rest in peace, Eileen. :salute:


No less brave or powerful than men. :yep:

Several years ago I played the second PlayStation Medal Of Honor, in which you played the part of a female resistance fighter. I mention it because they included video interviews with several of the 'real things'. It was fascinating watching them talk about their experiences.

In all honesty, knowing myself I will probably forget all about this lady tomorrow, but today I salute her, her bravery, and her service. :rock:

I'm fascinated about this clandestine radio thing.

Anyone know of any books/movies that delve into it?

Check this one out. Nacy "The White Mouse" Wake's autobiography goes into a bit of detail about how these radios were used.

Check this for pics of some of the equipment they used: http://home.ca.inter.net/~hagelin/WWIIClandestine.html
http://www.duxfordradiosociety.org/r...uip/b2/b2.html
There is a bit of techie info about the mini radio receiver's themselves here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33341759/W...Radio-Receiver
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33342244/W...g-instructions

Darn TarJak, you beat me to listing Nacy! Her bike ride was epic!:yep:

All the SOE women and men were the ultra brave. It is hard to imagine now what stress these people had to live under whilst fighting their clandestine war.:salute: This is a potted bio for Nancy: http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/wake.html Hers truly was a ride!

Thanks TJ I will be looking into this when I get the time.

Radios and 'techie' things are one of my interests.

BTW I glanced at the first link and saw caltrops on there :doh:

Pretty funny to see caltrops on a page full of electronic equipment. :haha:

They have done a story on her in the paper here in Sydney.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/the-extr...029-176e1.html

depends on who is on top. they can get forceful. trust me

:salute::salute::salute::salute::salute::salute:

oh, and regarding the torture.
Unless an effective brain washing method could be created, torture would have to continue