BF2S Forums Did the US torture it's Navy Pilots?

AussieReaper wrote:

No, I am not saying it is not torture because it was required by their commanders. I am saying it stops being torture the minute the soldiers wants it to end. The same can't be said for those held as enemy combatants.

Of course the logic, procedure and goal of the torture is different between the two. As I said, the goal against the enemy was to break them. The goal against your own soldiers was to reach that breaking point but not cross it. Surely you understand this?

Yes the same can be said for enemy combatants. Enemy combatants can stop it by cooperating. That is also what needs to be done for it to stop in SERE training. You just aren't getting it. The training requires them to submit, completely. In fact some people in training don't get to things like waterboarding because they break sooner. That is the same at gitmo. They do not stop short in training.

AussieReaper wrote:

No you don't. Your reaction might be "stop I've had enough". Guess how differently that scenario plays out for the solider compared to the prisoner. The feelings are different, knowing that this is training compared to not knowing how long the process might continue.

The soldiers had a choice. What choices did the alleged combatants have?

Stop I've had enough... works for the enemy too. Plain and simple. I really don't know how much more I can break it down. It's not done for shits and giggles. What choice Khalid Sheikh Mohammed have? I can think of a few.

AussieReaper wrote:

Those military tribunals were separate to the courts system afforded enlisted US personnel. They were even created, dismantled by Congress and then re-introduced specifically for the alleged combatants. From your own source:

Your claim was that the enemy combatants haven't had fair trials. I asked why so many had been released. They have been given the right to appeal. However, I can't recall any other time that anyone has ever let captured combatant go to court to "sue" for their release. The people who went through SERE training did not have the right to go to court and sue for their treatment. Just discussing it would get them put in prison. .. no appeals in national security/training.

You are confusing what it is with why it is. Again, torture is a method. If someone is simulating drowning, then someone is simulating drowning. If in order to get it to stop you must cooperate, then you must cooperate. Signing up or consenting does not change the actual experience. If during the process you want it to stop in both instances have an out. We've put more Americans through this than enemy combatants. I understand that knowing that people voluntarily commit to doing it probably does not sit well with you. I'm not trying to diminish the experience in either circumstance. You are however.

You might be more sympathetic to the enemy combatants, despite the fact that you can't possibly know what it was that got them there. My question was did the US torture it's Navy Pilots? If waterboarding is torture _{AussieReaper: Torture is defined many ways.} then yes we did.

Haha his letter is a round-about way of saying "hey I was and still am a big fat pussy"

I thought SERE school was only voluntary.

This retire Navy Pilot probably thinks The U.S. Marines water-board their grunts in the helio-dunker: a simulated heliocopter crash in a body of water blindfolded.

loubot wrote:

Haha his letter is a round-about way of saying "hey I was and still am a big fat pussy"

I thought SERE school was only voluntary.

This retire Navy Pilot probably thinks The U.S. Marines water-board their grunts in the helio-dunker: a simulated heliocopter crash in a body of water blindfolded.

You really missed the point of the letter then.

The dunker in Pensicola or is it Mobile is no joke.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

loubot wrote:

Haha his letter is a round-about way of saying "hey I was and still am a big fat pussy"

I thought SERE school was only voluntary.

This retire Navy Pilot probably thinks The U.S. Marines water-board their grunts in the helio-dunker: a simulated heliocopter crash in a body of water blindfolded.

You really missed the point of the letter then.

The dunker in Pensicola or is it Mobile is no joke.

You are right, I originally thought he was fo' reel

When the detainees get a pay check from the US government, voluntarily enter a contract and have the ability to pull out at any time then I'll admit to there being a slight similarity. Until then..... no they are not at all a like, and no the pilots were not tortured.

Sex and rape both consist of intercourse, they both involve the same 'experience' but they are very different.

This US Navy member disagrees.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

As for choice (like choosing to say "I quit, I want to go home"), the detainees had choices, too.

Except many of them were tortured as part of the 'softening up', before they were even asked any questions.

Because you were there, right?

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The number of times is irrelevant. It's about breaking the prisoner.

Then US pilots must be pussies if being waterboarded once breaks them while an Arab can survive 100+.

Because you've been through it and know how many times they have various techniques done to them, right?

Oh...I guess the answer to both questions is no.

Mekstizzle wrote:

FEOS wrote:

As for choice (like choosing to say "I quit, I want to go home"), the detainees had choices, too. Choices that would've stopped the waterboarding or other techniques. That comparison does nothing for the argument it is attempting to support...it does far more to support the counter.

Hmm yeah, their choice was to give up what information they had I suppose. But it's still not anyway near the same as choosing to partake in it. At the end of the day, the US military is still a professional/volunteer military and they can still opt out, it's different than it being done against your will

That's the statement of someone who has never been in a situation where the only way out is to give up on the single most important thing in your life. For those trainees, saying they quit and doing an SIE (self-initiated elimination) is no different than a dude saying "I'll tell you everything I know".

When something is done against your will, even sex, it's always worse...well at least... that's what she said ...

Those trainees aren't asking for that kind of treatment. They have no choice. If they want to continue in the program, they have to go through it.

TBH, KSM and his buddies chose whatever they got when they chose to do what they did...so it's all good.

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

When something is done against your will, even sex, it's always worse...well at least... that's what she said ...

Those trainees aren't asking for that kind of treatment. They have no choice. If they want to continue in the program, they have to go through it.

TBH, KSM and his buddies chose whatever they got when they chose to do what they did...so it's all good.

That logic is absurd, and the difference between your example and the example you quoted is the difference between aspiration and self-preservation. Fighting for your dreams is not illegal. Making other people fight for their lives is.

The whole argument behind this thread is nonsense... it's just more right-wing verbal shuffling in an attempt to justify the use of torture methods. The people who sign up for armed training that involves being subjected to torture techniques enter into this agreement of their own free will, if it happened during the days of conscription then it's a different matter because conscripted soldiers never really had a choice. I would fully understand a conscripted soldier wanting to sue the Government for torture during training, it's bad enough being forced into military service.

Just come out and say it guys... you like torture, you feel it's necessary, you feel it's effective, and you feel it's worth risking a few innocent victims for the advantages it offers. Go on, say it... then we can all stop pretending America is a nation of human rights, freedom, justice and equality.

Braddock wrote:

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Those trainees aren't asking for that kind of treatment. They have no choice. If they want to continue in the program, they have to go through it.

TBH, KSM and his buddies chose whatever they got when they chose to do what they did...so it's all good.

That logic is absurd, and the difference between your example and the example you quoted is the difference between aspiration and self-preservation. Fighting for your dreams is not illegal. Making other people fight for their lives is.

The whole argument behind this thread is nonsense... it's just more right-wing verbal shuffling in an attempt to justify the use of torture methods. The people who sign up for armed training that involves being subjected to torture techniques enter into this agreement of their own free will, if it happened during the days of conscription then it's a different matter because conscripted soldiers never really had a choice. I would fully understand a conscripted soldier wanting to sue the Government for torture during training, it's bad enough being forced into military service.

Just come out and say it guys... you like torture, you feel it's necessary, you feel it's effective, and you feel it's worth risking a few innocent victims for the advantages it offers. Go on, say it... then we can all stop pretending America is a nation of human rights, freedom, justice and equality.

Check my history on the subject. I'm not even saying that this isn't torture. Be careful when throwing around that right wing cultist label. There seems to be some disagreement even among Fox news. I know for a fact there is among righties.

reading some of the replies in this thread reminds me of one of the reasons I hate being a civilian

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

America is still a nation of human rights, freedom, justice, and equality. What happened to those two douchebags does nothing to change that.

There was this one guy who said something a while back about what injustice anywhere represented, and a lot of people seemed to agree with him. Any attempt to justify transgression of human rights and liberal interpretation of justice absolutely does do something to change what a nation represents in those regards. Even if it is just "two douchebags." You can't seriously suggest that a nation should be lauded for its principles if it doesn't stick by them when it's inconvenient or impractical to do so.

So no country should take action against anyone anywhere for any reason at any time?

AussieReaper wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Someone unwilling to grant information is going to be far more willing if they're threatened.

"Name, rank and serial number."

If what you say is true, it sounds like the US training is designed to set you guys up for torture.

thats international law.  nothing to do with US traning standards.