A brief history of waterboarding, told by Keith Olbermann:
***UPDATE***
A reader forwarded me this comment on today’s cartoon that she found on another website:
“Please remind me, how many tens of thousands died on the Guantanimo Death March? What we did was wrong, but to compare it the the Japanese atrocities of WWII is even worse.”
Two answers (since I know some of you probably agree with this sentiment):
(a) Really? A cartoon is worse than our having tortured and murdered prisoners (many of whom we later found to be innocent)? Seriously?
(b) Waterboarding was one of the atrocities for which we prosecuted the Japanese after WW2. It’s a fact that we and the rest of the “civilized” world considered waterboarding to be torture. We considered it to be so inhumane that we included it among all the other acts of barbarism the Japanese committed. It was wedged right in there. Y’know, somewhere in between systematic rape and beheadings.
By the way, the Japanese had a familiar rationalization for the waterboarding and the other torture: they were afraid they were going to be attacked — possibly even with weapons of mass destruction (turns out they had more to fear than a jet flying into a skyscraper). We still didn’t think that was a good enough excuse for their torture of our people.
So maybe when we find ourselves doing something to our prisoners that we used to condemn the Imperial Japanese Army for doing to ours, we might want to reconsider whether it’s the right thing to do.
Is that not a fair point?
Born in the early 60's, heard a lot about the Yellow Peril from WW2 vets who served in the Pacific Theater as I was growing up.
The descriptions of torture were pretty horrible, especially when you had someone describe exactly how they got the scars and what it feels like to drown because water is being poured on your face.
Everyone who supports waterboarding should be submitted to 10 complete sessions past the point of panic where water enters your lungs so they can explain why it isn't torture.
There are two rarely examined issues around the Japanese treatment of Allied POWs in WWII. One is that the Japanese military at the time believed surrendering to be disgraceful; their soldiers would typically fight to the death rather than surrender when faced with overwhelming odds. As a result, they held enemy soldiers who surrendered to _them_ in contempt. I am not saying this to defend their behavior – rather, it shows how dehumanizing your enemy makes it easier to behave inhumanely toward them. Also, they were absolutely convinced, right up until the very end, that they would win, and therefore not be held to account before the world for their conduct during the war.
Now, does THAT ever sound familiar. . .
I enjoy the reasoning that what we do is “good” as long as we can cite someone who behaves worse than we do.
Here’s a good general rule of thumb: if you’re acting anything like the people you accuse of “atrocities” you’re probably an atrocious person.
I appreciated the cartoon, the Olbermann link, and your well-reasoned response to the inane comment. I especially like the guy with the mouthful of cigarettes: "Mfmn!"
Wow. Didn't know that. People in glass houses shoudn't throw stones, so it is said. I guess our country was doing that. I guess Bush didn't read the Bible; OT: DON'T do unto others what you don't want done to you; NT: DO unto others as you want them to do to you.