taltamir taltamir

A little wikipedia experiment

A little wikipedia experiment

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.

 

14,689 views 36 replies
Reply #26 Top

Found that funny, did ya? lol

Germany has been pushed into meekness for it's past sins.
Germany is watched like the proverbial hawk by its neighbours. Originally, the handbag lady Maggy Thatcher didn't support reunification because she was wary of a strong Germany. A strong Germany with a strong fighting military would send the warning bells blaring really quickly and loudly, especially in France and Poland. Russia - dunno. I hardly think germany would ever attack russia again after the last attempt.. 

So if both the US and Germany follow the rules, the terrorists will go free.
That could be the consequence of not following due process.. makes one shudder. On the other hand, if the verdict is decided before the trial even starts, it would ba mocktrial of sowjet/russian caliber, except that the accussed are actually guilty. It is a challenge, no doubt.

Reply #27 Top

That could be the consequence of not following due process.. makes one shudder.

No. That would be the consequence of following due process.

If the evidence Germany provides is inadmissable, all evidence might be inadmissable if Germany had anything to do with providing it.

 

Reply #28 Top

Because they did not follow due process with the arrest, detention and the rest of it, following due process would mean what you said. What I said referred to the first part - but both mean essentially the same.

The evidence will be admitted - if the consequence of not admitting would be that those men walk free, there is no way that Merkel will hold it back. It would mean the failure of the trial - and since the supreme court ruled that military tribunals are unconstitutional, they would have to be let go and walk free, but I can't see that happening. I don't believe Merkel wants to be responsible for letthing dangerous men like these lose again.

Reply #29 Top

The evidence will be admitted - if the consequence of not admitting would be that those men walk free, there is no way that Merkel will hold it back. It would mean the failure of the trial - and since the supreme court ruled that military tribunals are unconstitutional, they would have to be let go and walk free, but I can't see that happening. I don't believe Merkel wants to be responsible for letthing dangerous men like these lose again.

She wouldn't be. Obama would be.

Military tribunals were never illegal in the past, only now, very suddenly after Obama announced that he doesn't want them.

 

 

Because they did not follow due process with the arrest, detention and the rest of it, following due process would mean what you said.

The Nazi war criminals in Germany were also not arrested in the correct way; unless invading and destroying a country are part of "due process" in a criminal investigation.

 

Reply #30 Top

The ruling that they were unconstitutional for the detainees was under the Bush administration, before Obama.

The Nuremberg trials were a new thing at the time and a response to the dimension of the committed atrocities. 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. It was decided that what the nazis did were "crimes agains humanity" - a phrase coined by the american prosecuter, I think. They arrested the nazi ruling elite  and then presented evidence in the trials and not everybody recieved the deathpenatly, either.

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

LINK to the resource if anybody wants to take a closer look. It is particularly interesting to read the charters, agreements (London agreement) and declarations in the beginning of book 1. They wanted to bring the Nazis to justice and they wanted to do it the right way, from the very first start.

Reply #31 Top

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.

 

Reply #32 Top

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.

Reply #33 Top

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.

 

Reply #34 Top

International criminal court in Den Haag.

Reply #35 Top

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.

Reply #36 Top

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.