Waterboarding Hyprocrisy

[SadisticNature]

Excuse me for chiming in, but is this a thread about the use of torture, or about the sources used?

This isn't university. People here (I speak for myself and those like me) express our prejudices and our beliefs, however well-informed or misguided. I haven't a hope in Hell of accessing any source other than Wikipedia, which serves well enough for discussions here, but I'd hate to be excluded just because my personal library is wanting

My point is that my source is better academically than Wikipedia. I don't mean this as an attack on Wikipedia or the use of it as a source, but rather would politely suggest that those who do choose to use Wikipedia refrain from attacking the quality of other peoples sources (but should feel free to attack arguments based on information from those sources).

[DuncanONeil]

Apparently the song may have had some other reason for being. "In 1902, for example, Albert Gardner, in Troop B of the 1st U.S. Cavalry, composed a would-be comic song dedicated to “water-cure” torture" (http://www.japanfocus.org/-Paul_A_-Kramer/1745) While accurate members of the army in 1902 are hardly driven by the positions of a 20th century person, nor their opponents.
"In WWII, Japanese and German prisoners shown to have participated in waterboarding were executed for warcrimes establishing a legal precedent that the US belives that waterboarding is a warcrime, and also a capital offense. Yet for several years in the 21st century they actively pursued it."
Again the emphasis on waterboarding! Methinks you are angry about something that does not involve history.
Additionally, as described this is not waterboarding. In some respects "waterboarding" can be seen as another method of lying to the prisoner.
If you think "waterboarding was the worst thing the Japanese did to their prisoners you are sorely mistaken!

"While we are on the topic of warcrimes, American generals gave the order to kill everyone over 10. No one was ever charged."
In a war instituted in 1898? I take it then if our troops encounter an AK-47 wielding person of age 10 - 17 in Africa they must not return fire?

The US has a long history of a double standard on waterboarding. They've done it cheerfully in the early 20th century invasion of the Philippines. They've done it somewhat reluctantly in the early 21st century. In the interim they've put people to death for war-crimes when US troops were waterboarded (namely the war-crimes trials in Japan).

One of the standards that would be consistent with US actions would suggest its acceptable to water-board someone as long as they are not white. I don't believe this is the actual case, I think its more likely something like "It's ok for the US to do it, but its not ok for anyone to do it to them."

Regardless the US seems to be rather hypocritical about this.

For the record: Early 20th century US Army song "The Water Cure"

Get the good old syringe boys and fill it to the brim.
We've caught another n!gger and we'll operate on him.
Let someone take the handle who can work it with a vim.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

Chorus:

Hurray. Hurray. We bring the Jubilee.
Hurray. Hurrah. The flag that makes him free.
Shove in the nozzle deep and let him taste of liberty.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

We've come across the bounding main to kindly spread around
Sweet liberty whenever there are rebels to be found.
So hurry with the syringe boys. We've got him down and bound.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

Oh pump it in him till he swells like a toy balloon.
The fool pretends that liberty is not a precious boon.
But we'll contrive to make him see the beauty of it soon.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

Keep the piston going boys and let the banner wave.
The banner that floats proudly o'er the noble and the brave.
Keep on till the squirt gun breaks or he explodes the slave.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

Chorus (variant at end):

Hurrah. Hurrah. We bring the Jubilee.
Hurrah. Hurrah. The flag that makes him free.
We've got him down and bound, so let's fill him full of liberty.
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

For the record the Taft administration worked actively to portray the Filipino's as uneducated African tribesmen, hence the use of the n-word in the song.

American soldiers waterboarding a Filipino was actually on the cover of Life magazine, May 22nd 1902.

While we are on the topic of warcrimes, American generals gave the order to kill everyone over 10. No one was ever charged.

While China has actively protested changes to Japanese history books that downplay their atrocities, the US has largely ignored any protests by the Philippines about their downplaying the atrocities.

In fact despite experts having shown the claims to be outright false, they still describe those killed in the Phillipines as "freedom fighters" and not civilians and vastly reduce the numbers.

In WWII, Japanese and German prisoners shown to have participated in waterboarding were executed for warcrimes establishing a legal precedent that the US belives that waterboarding is a warcrime, and also a capital offense. Yet for several years in the 21st century they actively pursued it.

[DuncanONeil]

Since you included WWII Germans in your evidence set of those punished for "waterboarding" your "non-white"argument is destroyed.
Further more "abuses" are not the reason for the collapse of imperialism!

The leader of the resistance in the Philippines was intent on establishing a democracy based on the US constitution. The US decided they needed to be in charge which meant destroying democracy and putting up a figurehead.

Also, the kind of atrocities committed by imperialist powers are exactly the reason imperialism has largely been abandoned.

And if by some people cannot be reasoned with you mean the Americans in said situation then by all means I'd agree. But the Philippines actively worked to throw off their Spanish oppressors and welcomed the US, in the belief that their Constitution did not support colonialism. The US decided to make the Philippines a colony and put down resistance resulting from this betrayal with orders like "shoot anyone over the age of 10".

I'm not saying other imperialist powers didn't do equally terrible things. I'm just saying the US has a long history of war crimes against non-whites, and tends to consider them as mild offenses, while the same acts against their own citizens are cause for execution.

[DuncanONeil]

Again this is old news! Kind of like saying that African Americans deserve something special, or reparations because of slavery.
No one alive in the US today has any direct contact with being a slave owner.

One of the great successes of conservatism is the ability to completely distort history but since you asked for sources here goes:

1) The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt, 8 Vols (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press) 1951-1954 V254

2) "United States Indian Policy and the Debate over Philippne Annexation: Implications for the Origins of American Imperialism" The Journal of American History 66, no 4 (March 1980) 810-831

3) Eric T. L. Love, Race over Empire: Racism and U.S. Imperialism 1865-1900 (Chapel HIll: University of North Carolina Press, 2004

4) TR, The Winning of the west 4:200

5) Matthew Frye Jacobson, Barbarian Virtues: The United States Encounters Foreign Peoples at Home and Abroad. 1876-1917 (New York: Hill & Wang, 2000).

6) Benevolent Assimilation: The American Conquest of the Phillipines 1899-1903. (New Havety, CT: Yale University Press, 1982).

7) James Blount, American Occupation of the Phillipines 1898-1912 (New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1913).

Along with several others.

As for knowing what people think. There are surviving records in the forms of: (i) Documented Conversations (ii) Collected Letters (iii) Policy Decisions and Documented Statements in support (for example to the senate or congress).

And what sources/evidence is your opinion that this is revisionist history based on? The fact that it doesn't jive with your idea of what America stands for?

[DuncanONeil]

In the time it took me to prepare this page for response the language has been controlled.
However, the claim you make below it totally with out either substance or merit.
It is liberals that have driven the creation of the need for virtually every venue have signage in multiple languages, not the conservative. Such signage does nothing to bring people into the mainstream of the community in which they live, it merely serves to allow the separateness to become entrenched. Conservative position is to have all of the people that desire to come here to become a part of a homogenous whole. Such a whole is much stronger than the sum of its parts. To constantly make effort to display differences prevents the parts from melding into the unique entity it could be.
People are not label Socialist because they disagree, but because they advocate taking from those that produce and giving it to those that do not! Un-American is reserved for those seeking to tear the country down.

The whole: If you disagree with me do it in German, Russian or Chinese on a party message board is exactly the kind of statement conservatives make. Liberals tend to believe that America includes people who according to them are "wrong" or "misguided". Conservatives say if you disagree with them, you're a "socialist" or you're "unamerican".

[DuncanONeil]

So what! All that really means is that the ability to determine a peoples origin was not fully understood!

In page 92 of "The Imperial Cruise" you can see the cover of "Judge" magazine. (Judge magazine went on to become the New Yorker), portraying the Filipino's as Negro's.

Much of the work from the sources I've mentioned comes from there, with properly referenced direct quotes. However, I lack the time to copy them all out for you so I'd recommend reading it.

[DuncanONeil]

It is not a response to Sadistics view on waterboarding, other than the fact that he is choosing to use occurrences from the absolute beginning of the 20th century as proof of how the US is acting and deceiding issues today.

Ok...I basically have zero knowledge of waterboarding in the first place. But this is obviously an explosive topic. So you are responding in a very emotional way, but I am not really sure I know what your views are on waterboarding as much as your views on SadisticNature's views on waterboarding. I am very interested in hearing (or reading as the case may be) your opinions.

[DuncanONeil]

I doubt the "facts of your first paragraph are accurate. And the use of the phrase "concentration camps"is a deliberate attempt to cast them in a light that may not be deserved. As well as being emotionally charged.

To be clear "The Philippines" meant the area outside the concentration camps established by the US within the Philippines so its hyperbolic in the sense that it doesn't mean actually everyone. But it did mean if you were on your property and over 10 you were to be executed.

The US Army was also involved in the systematic execution of 1300 Filipino prisoners of war in one incident in 1902.

To conclude my post a quote from Roosevelt:

"Nineteenth-century democracy needs no more complete vindication for its existence than the fact that it has kept for the white race the best portions of the new world's surface." Theodore Roosevelt, 1897.

[DuncanONeil]

Just pressing the "Thanks" button is insufficient for this posting.
I am pleased to have someone that is calling into question the propensity of the Sadistic method of positing an argument.
Along with stating the consistent refusal of providing supporting data when requested.

This surprises you? You have gone to a lot of trouble NOT to produce your sources. That tells me that you are simply parroting something you have read or been told, without bothering to do your own research to verify the accuracy of the statements. How do you expect someone to produce a "counterclaim" if you refuse to produce your documentation? Handy tactic if you don't really want a discussion. I see it a lot.

Here again you miss the point. You opened the topic, I challenged and asked for your sources. You refused to give them. You are again trying to shift this to a Liberal vs Conservative debate, sure it will distract readers from the fact that you have yet to support your claim, but I hate to break the news to you but a liberal with a healthy dose of common sense sounds a lot like a conservative and vice versa. I on the other hand will quote my resources if and when we actually begin to discuss the subject.



ROFL, Nice try, but that's not what I said, and you and everyone reading knows it. "That's the way it was" is a lot different than "well everyone else was doing it" It is not attempting to justify anything, it just states a fact. You can either accept that, or use the afore mentioned time machine to change history.


News is recent.. as in NEWs and World Events. It is my opinion that this is politics. Its not an issue though, If the moderators feel the thread needs moved they will move it.



I was not attacking your grammar. That's not my style because, as you said, it would not be productive. What I was pointing out was this....

Where you used a lot of punctuation to make it look like you were offering source documents, while producing none at all.

[DuncanONeil]

I found "this" much more informative than "history". Save that "history" showed that waterboarding was never intended to put the subject at risk!

I thank SadisticNature for his original post because it led me to the history of waterboarding...and also this interesting article.

[DuncanONeil]

Again the comparisons in your first paragrah are not appropriate!

The Philippines casualties were comparable in number to the number of US soldiers dying in the pacific in WWII. There is no way that anywhere close to that many people had vital information. Concentration camps were used, and peaceful non-resisters were executed. Race based discrimination was the basis for both these camps and the executions. So I certainly see a strong comparison.

I was referring to Aguinaldo earlier.

Also I have no problem with using The Imperial Cruise as a source. It's certainly better than say Wikipedia (sourcing documents that change over time is problematic at best), given the authors credentials, past work, and the extensive properly sourced material throughout.

[DuncanONeil]

Providing sources? I have had others do this in the past. Provide the title of a complete book. Then complaining when that book is not found and read in order to find the segment that they purport supports their argument.
As example I earlier quoted something from a specific source. The quote is the support, which I followed with data that would allow anyone to seek it out for comparison or analysis.

All you do is present a title of several books each of several hundred pages. See the difference? See the problem in your style of listing supporting documentation?

You are finally starting to show some evidence of this. How about actually articulating your own viewpoint with sources rather than finding ways to avoid actually talking about this.

Instead of having a discussion you attack:
(i) My Sources
(ii) When I provide the sources I used you wanted me to spend the time looking up exact quotes in them.
(iii) My choice of location for posting
(iv) Various little quips and barbs along the way by both of us.

[DuncanONeil]

While she did thank you that was not the purpose of her post!

I lol'd at this thanks but no thanks thing. You're welcome to actually thank the post you know :-).

[SadisticNature]

Kindly support this. I said that there were parallels, and I've drawn some parallels I haven't stated it corresponds exactly to how the US is acting today.

It is not a response to Sadistics view on waterboarding, other than the fact that he is choosing to use occurrences from the absolute beginning of the 20th century as proof of how the US is acting and deceiding issues today.

[SadisticNature]

While she did thank you that was not the purpose of her post!

It's wonderful that you're such a fervent attack dog that you even have to respond to a playful attempt at humor that had nothing to do with you with criticism.

[SadisticNature]

Again the comparisons in your first paragrah are not appropriate!

It's a comparison made by others before me. Others with no source or substantiation tried to claim the situation in the Philippines involved waterboarding a few extremists for information. I pointed out the level of casualties and incidents were so high that that was obviously not the case.

[Saheli]

I think we would get a lot more accomplished in this thread if we would stop talking about each other and start discussing the actual topic...It's fine to ask for sources and question points made, but this is absolutely ridiculous.

[SadisticNature]

Just pressing the "Thanks" button is insufficient for this posting.
I am pleased to have someone that is calling into question the propensity of the Sadistic method of positing an argument.
Along with stating the consistent refusal of providing supporting data when requested.

Or the DuncanONeil method of attacking an argument by avoiding to talk about the material at hand at all, but rather criticizing anything that avoids discussing the material at hand. I have responded to criticism on the sources by first providing source materials (the books involved) and some particular sources as well. You have said nothing relating to the Philippines in approximately 10 consecutive posts in a thread on the Philippines.

You also assert without any source or supporting documents that the ability to determine ones origins (or even ethnic grouping since the matter at hand is black vs asian) was not present in the early 20th century.

You state utterly absurd statements as self-evident and unsupported facts yet chastise people for commenting on historical events when they aren't willing to look up the exact page number and paragraph of a quote that you'll never look up anyways.

[SadisticNature]

I think we would get a lot more accomplished in this thread if we would stop talking about each other and start discussing the actual topic...It's fine to ask for sources and question points made, but this is absolutely ridiculous.

Completely agree, unfortunately, people have started doing this in multiple threads, and if they held themselves to the same standards as they require of those who disagree with them they'd never get anything done.

[TwistedTails]

Well it is a user edited encyclopedia, and some of the stuff off of the beaten path may not be entirely accurate. But, I would think that The Philippines with an English speaking national population of 92 million, a literacy rate of 94.3% of which 24 million have internet access and an additional 11 million Filipinos worldwide, someone may have made an edit if something were not as it should be. If the entry is wrong and you have proof but the author won't change it? Best thing about Wikipedia is if you want to dispute an entry you have to bring your proof, whoever has the best proof wins. It's a real annoyance to revisionists both Private and Government alike.

But you don't have to use it, feel free to link to any resource that you like. Or point out the inaccuracies. (with evidence )

You are finally starting to show some evidence of this. How about actually articulating your own viewpoint with sources rather than finding ways to avoid actually talking about this.

Instead of having a discussion you attack:
(i) My Sources
(ii) When I provide the sources I used you wanted me to spend the time looking up exact quotes in them.
(iii) My choice of location for posting
(iv) Various little quips and barbs along the way by both of us.

I have been citing references, I could cite better if you could narrow down your primal scream of anti Americanism. Was there a US vs Philippines war? Yes its right here.

Philippine American War

No conspiracy exists to hide it. Did the US during that war use a method called "the water cure" Yes, its documented. Did they do it to millions as you imply in another post. No. The number that died from the war then number that died of the plague that erupted during the war? Over a million. It is there. Its not hidden.

Talking about what? Everything coherent you have posted up to this point has been properly noted or rebutted by myself or another poster, except for some rather racist lyrics (and the Taft statement and that's just too easy if you will not post sources for a counter claim.) In fact most of what you have posted was covered under "Yes that's the way it was back then"

If you are going to accuse me of not citing sources You should make sure you are not the one running into the room holding a book screaming believe this! Keep it up and the moderators will move this thread to Religion LOL

(i) My Sources
You didn't provide any.
(ii) When I provide the sources I used you wanted me to spend the time looking up exact quotes in them.
Well, actually someone else said that, but yes I agree. I think it is only fair. This is an open discussion, do you expect everyone to run out and "buy the book" just to participate?
(iii) My choice of location for posting
I gave you my reasoning on this before. It still stands. But again, That's up to the moderators. Let's let them worry about that shall we?
(iv) Various little quips and barbs along the way by both of us.
Me? I have not yet begun to "Quip" I'm a big fan of Don Rickles LOL

[TwistedTails]

I lol'd at this thanks but no thanks thing. You're welcome to actually thank the post you know :-).

Well since you seem to need some thanks, I thanked you for finally providing your reference.

[TwistedTails]

I'm happy to drop the whole liberal vs conservative thing, but when you attack me for doing so I'm going to respond to it. Generally getting someone to drop a line of argument is not done by making further points about it, which is what you were doing that led me to respond.

Who brought it up? I have only responded to you and never labeled you. If you are actually willing to drop the Liberal/Conservative labeling fine. I already stated my feelings on that tactic in a previous post.

[TwistedTails]

You accuse me of trying to change the topic.

Yet you have not mentioned a single thing relevant to the topic in this post. Instead you initiate a bunch of diversions, and when I respond to any of them you accuse me of going off topic. That's quite the double standard.

*looks back up the forum* Hmm, I don't even have to say how wrong that is. Yes I have. You just don't want to see it.

[steelish]

I lol'd at this thanks but no thanks thing. You're welcome to actually thank the post you know :-).

I thanked the post I am quoting here, but I definitely won't thank your original post because I disagree with a majority of it. What I was thanking you for was inducing me to investigate the history of waterboarding.

[TwistedTails]

So what did you want to talk about? You are probably not that interested in Philippine history or you would have called me out about this

after Bonifacios execution by the Spanish for treason?

When he was actually executed by Aguinaldo, or rather the First Republic. Oops, My mistake.

[TwistedTails]

My point is that my source is better academically than Wikipedia. I don't mean this as an attack on Wikipedia or the use of it as a source, but rather would politely suggest that those who do choose to use Wikipedia refrain from attacking the quality of other peoples sources (but should feel free to attack arguments based on information from those sources).

I did not attack your source, In fact I endorsed it. As reading materiel. Not as a gospel. Other books have been written that disagree, but they too were written as reading materiel.

[DuncanONeil]

It's a comparison made by others before me. Others with no source or substantiation tried to claim the situation in the Philippines involved waterboarding a few extremists for information. I pointed out the level of casualties and incidents were so high that that was obviously not the case.

Does not matter how many people say it. The comparrison is not appropriate.

[DuncanONeil]

You also assert without any source or supporting documents that the ability to determine ones origins (or even ethnic grouping since the matter at hand is black vs asian) was not present in the early 20th century.

First of all Filipinos would not be Asian, they are actually quite a mixed lot.
Also far from claiming any credentials I did have an anthropological course that had a section related to human genotypes. During which it was made clear that physical appearance is the worst indicator of said genotype. With this being displayed in the late 20th century it is easy to see how it could be more of an issue just barely out of the 19th!
But a bit of research indicates that the racial term may have been inappropriately to the negritos

[TwistedTails]

except for some rather racist comments

My sincere apologies, this should read "some rather racist lyrics" if a moderator could correct this I would be gratefull.
Again, My apologies.

[TwistedTails]

So I went to see what had been said, and I didn't even get past the third post before I had a question. Mkemse said "Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward (the Trendelenburg position), and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.[1] Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent." If a person was not slanted in such a way, would the person drown? Is that the reason for the slanting, so that it would be more torturous than murderous?

Would they drown without the slant? Probably not. Actually the slant is what does the work, water seeks the lowest level. By angling the subject (or just the subjects head ) water runs into the nose and fills up the back of the throat. Weather it is torturous or murderous is determined by a variety of factors but primarily how much air you are allowed between pouring.