Understandable support
There was a fringe candidate for the position as governor in Minnesota (Jonathon Sharkey AKA "The Impaler") who played on his satanic beliefs during his campaign by promising that if he became governor, terrorists wold be impaled, and that there would be harsh physical punishment for any and all crime. [Source]
It is obvious where he got his idea - he even borrowed his nickname from Count Vlad the Third. Better known as Count Dracula. Thankfully, this man was never elected.
But, our story does not end with the vampire wannabe, alas it continues to circles where support of torture simply should not exist. From a devil worshipper I can understand a support for it.
Torture debate
We know that many non-western governments have employed and employ torture. We also know that at least one western nation does the same. The USA.
There has been a heavy debate going on lately about whether or not the technique the US uses is actually torture. Bush insists that it isn't. But let's have a look at the technique.
The technique often leaves no permanent physical damage, but it can kill. It can also cause brain damage, and injuries like broken bones due to the reflex of trying to get free one gets while drowning. [source] [Source] [Source]
I think it is safe to agree with United States Senator and presidential candidate John McCain who was tortured in Vietnam, and describes the technique as "torture", saying it is "No different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank". The senator stated " and can damage the subject's psyche in ways that never heal"
The technique is surrounded by more controversy and hypocrisy, though I will not get into more detail at this time.
Is it legal to perform the action of waterboarding some may ask.
The short answer is no.
The UN Convention Against Torture - where all signed nations agree that they are subjected to explicit prohibition of torture under any condition. The treaty makes it clear that there is no exception to the treaty. It 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".
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also touches the subject. It states: "No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment."
Conclusion
The conclusion to my short musings on the subject of torture and waterboarding has left me with an overwhelming conclusion that not only is it torture, there is no international law that supports or allows it. As such, it is my explicit opinion that the people responsible for employing torture be put to trial for their actions.
There was a fringe candidate for the position as governor in Minnesota (Jonathon Sharkey AKA "The Impaler") who played on his satanic beliefs during his campaign by promising that if he became governor, terrorists wold be impaled, and that there would be harsh physical punishment for any and all crime. [Source]
It is obvious where he got his idea - he even borrowed his nickname from Count Vlad the Third. Better known as Count Dracula. Thankfully, this man was never elected.
But, our story does not end with the vampire wannabe, alas it continues to circles where support of torture simply should not exist. From a devil worshipper I can understand a support for it.
Torture debate
We know that many non-western governments have employed and employ torture. We also know that at least one western nation does the same. The USA.
There has been a heavy debate going on lately about whether or not the technique the US uses is actually torture. Bush insists that it isn't. But let's have a look at the technique.
Waterboarding technique
The technique often leaves no permanent physical damage, but it can kill. It can also cause brain damage, and injuries like broken bones due to the reflex of trying to get free one gets while drowning. [source] [Source] [Source]
I think it is safe to agree with United States Senator and presidential candidate John McCain who was tortured in Vietnam, and describes the technique as "torture", saying it is "No different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank". The senator stated " and can damage the subject's psyche in ways that never heal"
Hypocrisy
The Bush administration's use of this as a technique and claiming it is not torture is very hypocritical. In 1947 the US tried and convicted Japanese officer Yukio Asano for carrying out Waterboarding on a US civilian. Asano's sentence was 15 years of hard labor. The technique is surrounded by more controversy and hypocrisy, though I will not get into more detail at this time.
Legalities
It is safe to call Water boarding torture. It has been described as torture by numerous experts - including a Daniel Levin. Daniel Levin made headlines some time back, when he lost his job because he claimed - after being exposed to the technique - water boarding was torture. [source] And it has lead to the conviction of many people in many nations. Is it legal to perform the action of waterboarding some may ask.
The short answer is no.
The UN Convention Against Torture - where all signed nations agree that they are subjected to explicit prohibition of torture under any condition. The treaty makes it clear that there is no exception to the treaty. It 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".
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also touches the subject. It states: "No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment."
Conclusion
The conclusion to my short musings on the subject of torture and waterboarding has left me with an overwhelming conclusion that not only is it torture, there is no international law that supports or allows it. As such, it is my explicit opinion that the people responsible for employing torture be put to trial for their actions.