Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Waterboarding

2009-06-19T00:35:30Z

Cakeman:

[[Image:Waterboard.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Waterboarding in Cambodia during the [[Khmer Rouge]] regime. Painting by a former prison inmate, [[Vann Nath]], at the [[Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum]]]]
'''Waterboarding''' is a method of interrogation which simulates the sensation of drowning. A tightly bound prisoner has porous cloth placed over his mouth and nose. Water is poured over his face in such a manner as to convince the prisoner that he is drowning. Its use by American forces against terrorism suspects has been called controversial by some, particularly by (but not limited to) [[leftists]]. Opponents of the practice call it "[[torture]]" and on this basis argue that it is illegal. Supporters of the practice acknowledge its coercive nature but say it is not torture and therefore not illegal. John McCain, a prominent Republican Senator and former 2008 Presidential candidate and POW during the Vietnam WAR, who was tortured during his detention, stated that waterboarding is "torture, not enhanced interrogation".<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNeqKl8oUWk</ref>

The practice dates back to the time of the Spanish Inquisition in the 1500s.

==Legal issues in the 20th century==

In 1901, Major Edwin Glenn was court-martialed and sentenced to 10 years hard labour for waterboarding an insurgent in the [[Philippines]] during the [[Spanish-American War]].<ref name="guardian">http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1933315,00.html</ref><ref>http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1356870</ref> In 1947, Yukio Asano - a Japanese officer - was charged with war crimes and received 15 years hard labour for waterboarding a US civilian. It was declared illegal by US generals in Vietnam and a US soldier was the subject of an investigation, and later cleared, when ''The Washington Post'' (21.1.1968) published a front page photograph of him supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html</ref><ref name="guardian" />

== Controversy over use in the [[War on Terror]] ==

According to 18 [[United States Code|U.S.C.]] § 2340, torture is defined as "an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering."<ref>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html</ref>
The [[United Nations]] Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment classifies torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."<ref>http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm</ref>

The US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in [[San Diego]], [[California]] uses waterboarding demonstrations on its students. On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post published a front-page photograph of a U.S. soldier supervising the questioning of a captured North Vietnamese soldier who is being held down as water was poured on his face while his nose and mouth were covered by a cloth. The picture, taken four days earlier near Da Nang, had a caption that said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." ''The article said the practice was "fairly common" in part because "those who practice it say it combines the advantages of being unpleasant enough to make people talk while still not causing permanent injury.''" <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html Washington Post: Waterboarding Historically Controversial]</ref>

Opponents of the practice call it "[[torture]]" and want official definitions of [[torture]] ''changed'' so as to outlaw the technique.<ref>http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/06/usdom13130.htm</ref> One notable critic of waterboarding is Senator[[John McCain]], himself a victim of torture. Senator McCain believes that it is highly inappropriate and unnecessary. <ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/politics/main3441067.shtml</ref> Writing in ''NewsWeek'' in 2005, Senator McCain wrote: “To make someone believe that you are killing him by drowning is no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank. I believe that it is torture, very exquisite torture”, and said it should remain outlawed. <ref>[http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005\12\08\story_8-12-2005_pg4_13 ‘Torture’ takes on new meaning in post-9/11], [[Reuters]], December 8th, 2005</ref>

Defenders of the practice deny that the suffering it causes is severe enough as to amount to torture, and in any case, used against America's enemies, it has proved to be highly effective. Joseph Farah is an American author, journalist, and editor-in-chief of the conservative website WorldNetDaily said:

<blockquote>
"Americans are simply losing their ability to distinguish right from wrong.

I don't know how else to put it. Up is down, day is night, left is right and right is wrong.

A good illustration of my thesis is the growing political consensus around the idea that the U.S. should stop using any effective interrogation techniques that make our terrorist enemies uncomfortable – even those involved in planning acts of mass destruction and annihilation.

For instance, armchair generals are increasingly referring to "waterboarding" as torture and saying it must be stopped in all cases.

I have no doubts waterboarding is a very unpleasant experience. It must be so because it is considered 100 percent effective and usually induces cooperation within 30 seconds.

The technique of waterboarding involves pouring water on the head of a prisoner with the purpose of triggering a gagging reflex and the panic of imminent drowning.

It was used successfully to learn about terrorist operations planned by two of al-Qaida's top operatives – Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, involved in the planning of the 9/11 attack, and Abu Zubaida, another leader of the terrorist organization.

Apparently both of these mass killers endured many hours of coercive interrogations without talking. But they sung like canaries after a few seconds of waterboarding.

'''In both cases, there is reason to believe planned terrorist attacks were foiled as a result of this technique."'''<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59481 WorldNet Daily: Waterboarding is not torture]</ref>
</blockquote>

Waterboarding has served a "valuable" purpose and does not constitute torture, former Attorney General [[John Ashcroft]] told a House committee. Testifying on the Bush administration's interrogation rules before the House Judiciary Committee, Ashcroft defended the technique while answering a question from Rep. Howard Coble, R-North Carolina.

"Waterboarding, as we all know, is a controversial issue. Do you think it served a beneficial purpose?" the congressman asked.

"The reports that I have heard, and I have no reason to disbelieve them, indicate that they were very valuable," Ashcroft said, adding that CIA Director George Tenet indicated the "value of the information received from the use of enhanced interrogation techniques -- I don't know whether he was saying waterboarding or not, but assume that he was for a moment -- the value of that information exceeded the value of information that was received from all other sources." <ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/ashcroft.waterboarding/ John Ashcroft: Waterboarding serves 'valuable' purpose and does not constitute torture]</ref>

According to news reports:

<blockquote>
"And when it comes to outright torture, the CIA does not believe it produces reliable results and has never used it, reports Ronald Kessler, chief Washington correspondent of [[Newsmax]].com.

The three terrorists who were subjected too waterboarding are Abu Zubaydah, Osama bin Laden’s chief of operations; Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the mastermind of the bombing of the USS Cole; and Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

In these cases waterboarding and other coercive techniques, such as forcing prisoners to stand for hours, succeeded in extracting intelligence that led to the capture of key al-Qaida operative planning terrorist attack against Americans.

'''Despite the media’s focus on waterboarding, it is in reality a “non issue,” said Kessler, author of the book “The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack.”'''

'''“It hasn’t been used since 2003 and won’t be used again. The media is using it as an excuse to bash... President Bush.'''

''“Waterboarding was employed on only three terrorists who were not cooperating, and the information they ultimately provided helped stave off attacks that could have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people.”''<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Waterboard_Not_Torture/2007/12/10/56046.html NewsMax Inside Cover: Waterboarding NOT Torture]</ref>
</blockquote>

Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies is an acknowledged expert on this matter. In the magazine ''National Review'' he stated:<ref>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjhkM2YyZmE5MThjZGNlN2IyMGI4MmE3MWM1OWQ5MjA=&w=MQ== National Review; Waterboarding and Torture]</ref>
{{cquote|Again, we do not know the details of waterboarding as practiced (if, as reported, it is or has been practiced) by the CIA. Yet, we know generally that waterboarding is very rough stuff. It is not especially painful physically and causes no lasting bodily injury; yet, it is intended to create the sensation of drowning in a person who is bound and temporarily suffocated. Administered by someone who knows what he is doing, there is presumably no actual threat of drowning or suffocation; for the victim, though, there is clearly fear of imminent death and he could pass out from the deprivation of oxygen.

The sensation is temporary, not prolonged. There shouldn’t be much debate that subjecting someone to it repeatedly would cause the type of mental anguish required for torture. But what about doing it once, twice, or some number of instances that were not prolonged or extensive?

'''Reasonable minds can and do differ on this. Personally, I don’t believe it qualifies. It is not in the nature of the barbarous sadism universally condemned as torture, an ignominy the law, as we’ve seen, has been patently careful not to trivialize or conflate with lesser evils. The Washington Post and Sen. Edward Kennedy have pointed to a World War II era war crimes prosecution by the U.S. against a Japanese soldier who used what was described as “water torture” on an American civilian. But they’ve failed to note that this was far from the only conduct at issue; the soldier was also charged with having engaged, over a sustained period of time, in “beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; … burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward.” The case hardly stands for the proposition that isolated instances of waterboarding would be torture.'''

Moreover, American military and intelligence services reportedly use (or, at least, have used) waterboarding in their counter-interrogation training programs. Congress carved no exception into torture law for such exercises. '''''Consequently, a conclusion that waterboarding is torture would be tantamount to a finding that our own services are committing a heinous felony, the equivalent of a war crime, against our own operatives — something I believe it is fair to say Congress cannot possibly have intended.'''''}}

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category: War]]
[[Category: Instruments and methods of torture]]

Oliver North

2009-06-19T00:34:03Z

Cakeman:

'''Oliver "Ollie" North''' (born October 7, 1943) is a retired [[US Marine Corps|marine]] [[lieutenant colonel]] who was the official in the [[Ronald Reagan]] White House who coordinated the "arms for hostages" policy of selling weapons to [[Iran]] during its [[Iran-Iraq War|war with Iraq]] and diverting the proceeds to the American allies, the Nicaraguan [[Contras]]. Because of the [[Boland Amendment]], official Treasury funds could not be used to help the Contras, so the roundabout procedure was devised by the CIA. The resulting controversy came to be known as the [[Iran-Contra Affair]].

North was set up as the fall guy for the operation, but his charismatic performance in nationally televised hearings made him the hero to conservatives.
[[Image:Ollie1.jpg|thumb|290px]]

After a long lead-in during the Congressional inquiries, Oliver North was called to testify before Congress in July 1987. North became a popular fixture in American culture based upon his handling of the Congressional inquiry, and his ability to make the committee that was questioning him seem smug and overblown in the eyes of the American people. A special prosecutor indicted North on sixteen counts of felony--for concealing information from Congress. He was convicted of three, but those three were overturned when the appeals court decided North had not received a fair trial.

North ran for the Senate in 1994 in [[Virginia]], but was defeated by the Democratic incumbent in a tight race.

Today North is a political commentator on [[Fox News]] and host of ''War Stories'', a Fox News show which documents famous battles. In 2003, North was an embedded reporter with the [[United States military]] in their initial entering of [[Iraq]].

North admitted shredding government documents related to his Contra and Iranian activities - at [[William Casey]]'s suggestion - when the Iran Contra scandal became public. He testified that [[Robert McFarlane]] had asked him to alter official records to delete references to direct assistance to the contras and that he'd helped.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/irancontra/contra3.htm Hostile Witnesses (Page Three)- The Washington Post]</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://www.foxnews.com/warstories/ War Stories - FOXNews.com]

{{DEFAULTSORT:North, Oliver}}

[[Category: Conservative Commentators]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]

Bill O'Reilly

2009-06-19T00:30:51Z

Cakeman: dear Mr. Schlafly: you fail at wiki-ing

'''Bill O'Reilly''' (also known as Billo, Bill oh really?, Billo the Clown, Bill Orally, Bill O'Lielly, and the Frank Burns of news) is a moderately right-wing (relative to [[Sean Hannity]] and [[Rush Limbaugh]]) <s>blatherer</s> commentator on [[Fox News]] where he presents ''[[The O’Reilly Factor]]''. He is known to be a fan of middle eastern food, particularly falafel (perhaps because of the word's passing resemblance and alliterative relationship to a sex act). He is also notoriously bad at phone sex.<ref>Amann, Joseph & Breuer, Tom. (2006). <i>Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly.</i> New York: Nation Books. Page 49.</ref><ref>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris16.html</ref>

He also leads (from the rear) his legions into battle every [[war on Christmas|December]] against the vile [[secular progressives]] (despite his own sabotage to the cause), in the name of "Traditionalism" (his term).

{{Quote|If you're an act, then ''what am I''?|[[Stephen Colbert]] to his guest O'Reilly on ''The Colbert Report''}}

==Dox==

===Bill O'Reilly phails at law===

{{#ev:youtube|hCSaF4KC3eE|300}}

(@ 1:50+) Bill O'Reilly shows he doesn't understand that money and information are different things, that this is relevant when discussing the First Amendment, and that his  lawyer colleague Megyn Kelly might actually know what she's talking about.

===Bill O'Reilly phails at economics===

{{#ev:youtube|RbX-2X7_h-M|300}}

In a display of conservative values, in 2006 Bill O Reilly claimed that according to the "Paris Business Review" France lost "billions of dollars" due to a boycott (he sees himself as the cause of). Unfortunately this suffers from the slight problem that no such publication exists and was completely made up.<ref>http://mediamatters.org/items/200405020006</ref> Further more, if someone had actually looked over the trade data from that period, the US French imports had actually increased. <ref>http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c4279.html#2006</ref>

===Bill O'Reilly phails at professionalism===

{{#ev:youtube|NxMidi2TofY|300}}

O'Reilly disagrees vehemently with his co-host on ''The Radio Factor'' Lis Wiehl on some stuff about a Congressional hearing, then cuts off her mike and insults her while she can't respond. Classy guy, huh?

===Bill O'Reilly simply phails===

{{#ev:youtube|beJ9yJpR_DA|300}}

O'Reilly gets his ass kicked by a 16 year-old high school junior, who knows how to read transcripts, and calls him out. Epic.

==Footnotes==
<references/>

{{stub}}

War on Christmas

2009-06-19T00:27:11Z

Cakeman: just another minor correction from your friends at you-know-where

The '''War on Christmas''' refers specifically to the controversy surrounding the celebration or acknowledgment of the [[Christmas]] [[holiday]] in government, media, advertising and other [[atheist| secular]] environments. Modern-day controversy occurs around the world, and stems from the holiday's significant annual role in celebrating cultural values in Western society. See ''[[The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought]]''.

[[Atheists]] started the War on Christmas, often feigning concern for the sensitivities of Jews and other religious groups who do not celebrate Christmas, knowing people sympathize with Jews, but rarely ever with atheists. This is typical of the selfishness of atheism.

==As Part of the Culture Wars==

[[Culture War]] is a term used to describe the swaying of what is acceptable in a society between culturally conservative and [[liberal]]. To that end, the War on Christmas is a major skirmish in that war. Each year, more and more secular progressives work to eradicate the right of major retailers to say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Christmas" in favor of the more benign, and ultimately godless "Happy Holidays." When the retailer gives in, they are less likely to begin using the older terms again, and, in order to save money and time, will simply acquiesce to the will of the liberal protesters, saying "Happy Holidays" from that time on.

Conservatives argue that this is a form of censorship by the [[liberal]] minority in society, tasked with the purpose of removing even the smallest mention of the Christmas Holiday. An obvious danger for conservatives is the notion that such an issue will become a [[slippery slope]]. Once the issue is removed from public discourse, the next removal becomes that much easier.

==The Truth==

The War on Christmas is not a real controversy. It is a smokescreen thrown up to distract voters from the issues.

[[category:Liberalism]]

Homosexuality and choice

2009-06-19T00:03:04Z

Cakeman:

[[Image:Decision_screen.gif‎|right|thumb|150px|Given the existence of [[ex-homosexuals]] and given the [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|existence of human cultures where homosexuality has apparently not existed]], the position that homosexuality is ultimately a choice in individuals or at the very least can be a choice in individuals has strong evidential support.]]
'''Homosexuality and choice''' are closely related. When answering the question of is homosexuality a choice one has to consider that homosexual acts between [[consenting adults]] are, by definition, done by choice. Yet the relationship between desire and choice is a matter for debate,<ref>"For the radicals, like the conservatives, homosexuality is definitely a choice. . . . They both react with disdain to those studies that seem to reflect a genetic source for homosexuality." — [[Andrew Sullivan]], "The Politics of Homosexuality," New Republic, May 10, 1993 [http://www.queerbychoice.com/] </ref> and activists often attempt to blur the distinction between having a desire and choosing to act on it.

Given that there are people who state they are [[ex-homosexuals]] and given that the [[Homosexuality and Health|homosexual population has significantly higher rates of many diseases and the homosexual population also has significantly lower rates of various measures of mental health]], it can be strongly argued that engaging in homosexual acts is a bad choice for individuals. Those who make this choice suffer significantly higher rates of [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|domestic violence in homosexual couples]]. In addition, according to experts [[Homosexuality and Murders|homosexual murders are relatively or quite common and often homosexual murders are very brutal]]. Also, the [[Homosexuality and Illegal Drug Use|homosexual population has a greater propensity to engage in illegal drug use]].

A person may have a craving for alcohol so strong that he feels powerless to resist it (see [[Alcoholism]]), yet people are free to choose to seek treatment for this addiction with drugs, therapy, or support groups. Psychiatrists often concede that [[religion|spirituality]] provides the most effective cure for those who are willing to try it. For example, the [[Christianity|Christian]] group [[Teen Challenge]] reported the following:
{{Cquote|Teen Challenge claims of a 70% cure rate for the drug addicts graduating from their program attracted the attention of the U.S. Federal Government in 1973. Most secular drug rehabilitation programs only experienced a cure rate of 1-15% of their graduates. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), part of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, funded the first year of this study to evaluate the long term results of the Teen Challenge program.<ref>http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies2.php</ref>}}

Teen Challenge has a number of studies that indicate the high effectiveness of their drug treatment program compared to other programs.<ref>http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies.php</ref>

Whereas alcohol addiction is generally regarded as a [[disease]] and/or a moral failing, homosexuality in recent decades has come to be seen as normal. It is clear to the vast majority of people that overindulging in alcohol hurts the individual as well as society. For example, [[drunk driving]] contributes to auto accidents by increasing reaction time and reducing alertness. Alcoholism is closely related to [[absenteeism]] and [[domestic violence]]. But a political decision was made in the mid-1970s to drop homosexuality from the official list of mental disorders. In fact, the chief "[[scientific]]" reason given to deny a link between homosexuality and choice is that major American mental health organizations deny the link. In other words, scientists have voted on it, and they disapprove (see [[politicization of science]]).

In addition, a distinction is made between choosing to have homosexual desires and choosing to engage in homosexual sex acts. And there are other aspects of choice to homosexuality. One can decide the following aspects: whether or not to believe that homosexual acts are detrimental to one's immortal soul, emotional well-being or physical health and one can also obviously choose whether to enter into a homosexual relationship or not. Obviously one must use wisdom and also do diligence in regards to these matters. For example, the [[Homosexuality and the Bible|Bible condemns homosexuality]] and sound [[Bible exegesis]] reveals this matter.

A 2003 poll done by Ellison Research of [[Phoenix]], [[Arizona]] stated that 82% of all [[United States|American]] [[Protestantism|Protestant]] ministers agreed with the statement “homosexuality is a choice people make".<ref>http://www.ellisonresearch.com/ERPS%20II/Release%206%20Homosexuality.htm</ref>

The [[Roman Catholic Church]]'s position is that having homosexual desires can be a choice in individuals but having homosexual desires is not a choice in respect to all individuals.<ref name="vatican">http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref><ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html</ref> However, according to the [[Vatican]] individuals should not engage in homosexual acts as they are acts of serious depravity.<ref name="vatican" />

Dr. Nadia El-Awady reflects the view of many adherents of [[Islam]] when he stated the following:
{{Cquote|Much research has been done over the years to discover the scientific origins of homosexuality. Mostly it has been to disprove the fact that homosexuality is a matter of choice.<ref>http://www.unav.es/civil/nsd/nosindebate/elawadi.pdf</ref>}}

[[Edmund White]] wrote:

{{Cquote|When I was a young man, in the sixties, before the beginning of [[gay liberation]], I was always in therapy trying to go straight. I was in love with three different women over a ten-year period, and even imagined marrying two often. But after the [[Stonewall Uprising]] in 1969 . . . I revised my thinking entirely: I decided I was completely gay and was only making the women in my life miserable. Following a tendency that Garber rightly criticizes, I denied the authenticity of my earlier heterosexual feelings in the light of my later [[homosexual identity]]. After reading ''Vice Versa'', I find myself willing to reinterpret the narrative of my own personal history.<ref>Edmund White, [http://www.queerbychoice.com/indirectchoice.html "Gender Uncertainties: Marjorie Garber Looks at Bisexuality"] (review of [[Marjorie Garber]]'s book Vice Versa: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life), from The New Yorker, July 17, 1995, p. 81 </ref>}}

==The homosexual agenda and choice==
One of the goals of the [[homosexual agenda]] is to "indoctrinate children in the nation's public schools by convincing kids that homosexuality is a normal and healthy lifestyle."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=4365</ref> Because schools fail to warn children of the dangers of homosexuality, and because it is taught that homosexuality is not only "normal" but "healthy" as well, homosexuality starts to seem like a good choice to young school children. To supplement this many schools give homosexuals preferential treatment, for instance protecting a homosexual student from teasing in cases where they would not protect a heterosexual student. Homosexuals are also given exclusive clubs that have the goal of recruiting additional students to homosexuality.<ref>http://www.gsanetwork.org/about/index.html</ref>

These are just some of ways that students are tricked into mistakenly thinking that homosexuality is a desirable lifestyle. As people get older and study the [[Bible|word of God]] they become less susceptible to being misled like this. This is the reason the homosexual agenda targets school children for recruitment into homosexuality.

==Optimal Choice==
The optimal choice is never to become involved in homosexual activities, given the [[Homosexuality Research|many undesirable consequences of homosexuality]] and given what the [[Homosexuality and the Bible|Bible states about homosexuality]]. However, there is certainly hope for the individual who wants to [[Overcoming Homosexuality|overcome homosexuality]] by the grace of [[God]].

Furthermore, as there is no link between homosexuality and genetics, it very likely that homosexuals will engage in homosexual activitys not because they were born that way(as some claim<ref>www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=weblog&id=97&wlid=5&cn=55</ref>), but rather because they choose to<ref>http://www.socyberty.com/Gay-&-Lesbians/Proof-That-Homosexuality-is-Not-a-Choice.666271</ref>. It is not completely known why homosexuals will engage in this choice, but some speculations are:
* anger at christianity or religion.
* need for attention.
* to avoid serving in the millitary.

==Choice and Genetics==
Proponents of the [[homosexual agenda]] often claim that homosexuality is unchangeable and has a genetic basis. However, this does not prove that homosexuals do not choose to behave this way. By definition, a consenting homosexual relationship must be made by choice, even if there is a latent homosexual desire. People with homosexual tendencies in their genetics can still resist the [[temptation]] to commit sin, and remain faithful to the teachings of the [[Bible]].

==See Also==
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Causes of Homosexuality]]
*[[Ex-Homosexuals]]
*[[Homosexuality Research]]
*[[Mystery:Why do people choose homosexuality%3F]]

==External links==
*[http://www.queerbychoice.com/feelings.html How can feelings ever be chosen?]
*[http://www.queerbychoice.com/indirectchoice.html What is an indirect choice?]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{homosexualityb}}
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]

Conversion therapy

2009-06-19T00:00:05Z

Cakeman: srry about that last one

'''Reparative therapy''' helps a [[homosexual]] get rid of his unwanted same-sex longings.<ref>Linda Nicolosi wrote, "... their efforts have a demonstrable track record of treatment success." [http://www.narth.com/docs/lcreview.html]</ref>

Joseph Nicolosi wrote:

:The fact that so many men continue to feel "dis-eased" by their homosexuality can be explained in one of two ways. Either society and the [[Judeo-Christian]] ethic have coerced these individuals into thinking they have a problem; or, the homosexual condition itself is inherently problematic. <ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/repair.html</ref>

For those seeking to leave the homosexual lifestyle, [[Exodus International]] is one example of a [[Christian]] group that helps practicing homosexuals by giving them freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ.<ref>http://exodus.to/content/view/736/0/</ref>

* All treatment must overcome some form of resistance against growth. We may say very simply that the treatment of homosexuality is the undoing of the resistance of [[defensive detachment]] from males.

==Opposition to reparative therapy==
In general, the therapeutic community in the United States has refused to consider the possiblity that RT is effective:
{{cquote|"NARTH offered to join with the American Psychological Association (APA) in conducting a detailed study of the effectiveness of reparative therapy. The APA refused to cooperate."<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm#study Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance]</ref>}}

[[Peter LaBarbera]] is the President of [[Americans for Truth]] which is a organization which counters the [[homosexual agenda]]. LaBarbera stated the following regarding Christian ex-homosexuals who reported being transformed by the power of God:
{{cquote|Another factor from my experience as a close observer of the “ex-gay” phenomenon is that many former homosexuals do not linger in “reparative therapy” programs, or participate in them at all. They attribute their dramatic and (relatively) rapid transformation to the power of God, and likely would not show up in a study of this kind. In fact, these “unstudied” overcomers would appear to be the most successful ex-homosexuals because they’ve moved on with their lives — as “reborn” Christians move on after overcoming any besetting sin.<ref>http://www.americansfortruth.com/news/landmark-study-change-for-homosexuals-is-possible.html</ref>}}

Peter LaBarbera's statement above concerning [[Overcoming Homosexuality|overcoming homosexuality]] certainly has [http://www.conservapedia.com/Ex-homosexuals#Reparative_Therapy some evidence supporting it]. In addition, in 1980 a study was published in the ''American Journal of Psychiatry'' and eleven men participated in this study. The aforementioned study stated that eleven homosexual men became heterosexuals "without explicit treatment and/or long-term psychotherapy" through their participation in a [[Pentecostalism|Pentecostal]] church.<ref>E.M. Pattison and M.L. Pattison, "'Ex-Gays': Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 137, pp. 1553-1562, 1980</ref>

The opposition to reparative therapy is sometimes ideologically based, and it directs attention away from the harm that [[gay affirmative therapy]] can cause.
The ''American Journal of Psychotherapy'' published a case study about a client who was supposedly harmed by treating him for "[[internalized homophobia]]".<ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/lcreview.html]</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{homosexualityb}}
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category: Pseudoscience]]

Homosexual Agenda

2009-06-18T23:53:18Z

Cakeman: removing unnecessary silliness

{{Homosexuality}}
The '''homosexual agenda''', or [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] ideology, consists of a set of beliefs and objectives. The ideology and goals, as explained further below, include indoctrinating students in [[public school]], restricting free speech, obtaining special treatment, distorting science, and interfering with freedom of association. Like slavery before it, the homosexual agenda threatens basic freedoms, including the First Amendment.<ref>Adams, Guy (11-8-2008) [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mormon-stars-face-backlash-after-gay-marriage-ban-1003967.html ''Mormon stars face backlash after gay marriage ban''] The Independent</ref>

It is an agenda that [[gay rights]] activists set in the late 1980s, in a book called ''After the Ball,'' where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior â€” in a decade-long time frame:
:"The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior." <ref name="Winn07252003">''After the Ball'' (1989), quoted from Winn, Pete (7-25-2003) [http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm ''Q&A: The Homosexual Agenda''] Citizenlink</ref>

Supreme Court Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] referred to the "so-called homosexual agenda" in ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'', 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (dissenting opinion).

== The Homosexual Agenda ==

A primary goal of the homosexual agenda is to promote the lifestyle in [[public schools]]. This occurred quickly and intensely after gay marriage was imposed in Massachusetts, where homosexual relationships are taught to children as young as kindergarteners, as recounted by the decision of ''[[Parker v. Hurley]]''.<ref>The ''Parker v. Hurley'' decision explained, "In January 2005, when Jacob Parker ("Jacob") was in kindergarten, he brought home a 'Diversity Book Bag.' This included a picture book, Who's in a Family?, which depicted different families, including single-parent families, an extended family, interracial families, animal families, a family without children, and -- to the concern of the Parkers -- a family with two dads and a family with two moms. The book concludes by answering the question, 'Who's in a family?': 'The people who love you the most!' The book says nothing about marriage."</ref>

[[Focus on the Family]] quotes below from a leading book in the homosexual movement which outlines the points of the homosexual agenda:<ref name="Winn07252003"/><ref>Kirk, Marshall K. and Erastes Pill (11-1987) ''The Overhauling of Straight America'' Available at [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/overhauling.htm ''STRATEGIES OF THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT: "The Overhauling of Straight America"'']</ref>

#"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible."
#"Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."
#"Give homosexual protectors a just cause."
#"Make gays look good."
#"Make the victimizers look bad."
#"Get funds from corporate America."

[[United States Supreme Court]] Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote:
{{cquote|Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.<ref>[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102#dissent1 ''LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS''] at findlaw.com</ref>}}

== The Goals ==

The goals of the homosexual movement include:

#Destroying Christian morals
#*Changing the definition of marriage, even if doing so infringes on the religious rights of Christians not to recognize it as anything other than sin <ref>[citation needed - The formerly cited article made no reference to religion, Christianity or morals.]</ref>
#Promote pseudoscience that legitimizes homosexuality, such as claims of a never-identified gay gene<ref>Citation needed - Please do not simply state that a study has been disproved. Instead, directly link to the study that disproves it.</ref>
#*Censoring evidence that the "gay gene" is a hoax<ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/smith_0329/index.html ''Lesbian activists at Smith College riot, shut down Ryan Sorba speech on "The Born Gay Hoax" as police watch. See exclusive videos.''] Mass Resistance</ref>
#Censoring any speech against homosexuality by branding it possible "hate-speech"<ref>[http://www.silencingchristians.com Video:Silencing Christians] [Citation needed - More than one case needed to show the existence of a "movement".]</ref>
#*Censoring biblical statements condemning homosexuality<ref>White, Hilary (04-21-2006) [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/06042105.html ''Court Upholds School Ban on "Homosexuality is Shameful" T-Shirt''] LifeSiteNews.com</ref>
#Establishing affirmative action for homosexuals<ref>The Crimson Staff (10-13-2006) [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514950 ''A Box of Their Own?''] (opinion) The Crimson</ref>
#Expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation<ref>Pelosi, Nancy Office of (09-28-2004) [http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Sept04/HateCrimes092804.html ''Pelosi: "Hate Crimes Prevention Legislation is Right Thing to Do, Long Overdue"''] From the office of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi</ref>
#Ending the military's and Boy Scout's restrictions on homosexuality<ref>''Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale'', 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (Boy Scouts); ''Able v. United States'', 155 F.3d 628(2d Cir. 1998) (military)</ref>
#Corrupt Christian youth<ref>[http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and_research/youth_in_the_crosshairs National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:Youth in the Crosshairs]</ref>
#Promote homosexuality in schools<ref>[[Morrison v. Board of Education]]</ref>
#*In places like Massachusetts and California, where the gay lobby is the strongest, it starts as early as pre-school. They tell seven- or eight-year-old boys, "If you only like boys, there's a chance you may be homosexual," or "If you only like girls, maybe you are lesbian." Well, at that age, all members of the opposite sex "have cooties."
#*You're planting a seed that can totally mess up the normal development process later, when at 12 or 14, kids enter the age of sexual confusion and discovering the opposite sex. <ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm CitizenLink: QA: The Homosexual Agenda]</ref>
#Force businesses to accommodate their lifestyle<ref>[http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/nondiscrimination/ENDA_main_page Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) | National Gay and Lesbian Task Force</ref>
#*Suing an online dating website for discrimination<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,454904,00.html Fox News - eHarmony to Provide Gay Dating Service after Lawsuit]</ref>
#Getting more rights in prison
#*Gay and Lesbian Prisoners in California Allowed Conjugal Visits <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,277137,00.html</ref>
#Legalization of recreational or "party" drugs <ref> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_pills </ref>
#Undermining the [[Essay:Quantifying_Mental_Strength|resolve]] of [[Homosexuality_and_choice#Choice_and_Genetics|latent homosexuals]] so that their will becomes too weak to resist the temptations of homosexuality<ref>http://www.thetaskforce.org/activist_center/resources_and_tools/challenge_exgay</ref>
#Pushing for legalized adoption by gay individuals and couples<ref>http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/parenting_and_family</ref>

The state-by-state push for same-sex marriage can be viewed as a means to the above goals, or a goal in itself.<ref>[[Lewis v. Harris]]</ref> An example of this would be the recent New Hampshire law that makes same-sex civil unions legal<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/01/new_hampshire_law_makes_same_sex_civil_unions_legal/</ref>

=== Psychological Tactics ===

The charge of "[[Homophobia]]" has been increasingly evidenced as being a means of intimidation used in promoting the Homosexual Agenda. Due to what homophobia has been made to denote, that of being a repressed homosexual, or possessing an irrational fear of being approached by such, or of being a bigot persecuting actual victims, the widespread use of the term "homophobic" attaches a powerful stigma to anyone who may even conscientiously oppose the practice of homosexuality, thus silencing many who might otherwise object to it. In relation to such oppression, psychologist Nicholas Cummings, former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), observed, "Homophobia as intimidation is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda." As an example of such fear within the APA, in addressing 100 fellow professionals Cummings related that while writing "Destructive Trends in Mental Health," with psychologist Rogers Wright, a number of fellow psychologists were invited to participate. However, these flatly turned them down, as they feared loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. "We were bombarded by horror stories," Dr. Cummings said. "Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA.<ref>[Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders http://www.narth.com/docs/insiders.html]</ref>

While not all homosexuals agree with such tactics, it has been promoted by leading homosexual activists. In what is widely regarded as the handbook for the â€œgay agenda," Harvard trained marketing experts and social scientists Marshall Kirk (1957 - 2005) and Hunter Madsen advocated avoiding portraying gays as aggressive challengers, but as victims, while making those who opposed them as evil persecutors. As a means of the latter, they promoted â€œjamming,â€ in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the â€œgayâ€ agenda are publicly smeared. â€œIn any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable,â€ they suggested.

â€œJam homophobia (i.e., disagreement with homosexual behaviors) by linking it to Nazi horror,â€ was the strategy of Kirk and Madsen. â€œAssociate all who oppose homosexuality with images of â€˜Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,â€™ â€˜hysterical backwoods preachers,â€™ â€˜menacing punks,â€™ and a â€˜tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.â€™" Thus, "propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths..."<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/sellinghomosexuality.html http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm </ref>

What is seen by some as Kirk and Madsenâ€™s most revealing admission is their statement, â€œ[O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.â€ "...the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not"<ref>After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90â€™s, p. 152-153 (1989, Doubleday/Bantam)</ref>

Marshall Kirk died in 2005 at the age of 48. The cause of death has not been publicly revealed.

Author Robert Bauman additionally records, â€œIt makes no difference that the ads are lies . . . because weâ€™re using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones.â€ <ref>The Gentleman from Maryland: The Conscience of a gay Conservative, by Robert Bauman, 1986, page 163.</ref>

Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein, in his article, â€œThe Gay Agendaâ€ stated, â€œHomophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law.â€

Erik Holland, author of "The Nature of Homosexuality," perceives that homosexuals have become so reckless in labeling others homophobic that "anyone who questions their labeling someone a homophobe himself. Even quoting factual statistics about the connection between homosexuality and AIDS is allegedly homophobic." In addition, according to pro homosexual author Vernon A Wall, "even acceptance of homosexuality can be seen as a form of homophobia, because to talk about the acceptance of homosexuality is to imply that there is something about homosexuality that needs acceptance."<ref>http://www.homosexinfo.org/Homophobia/HomePage</ref>

It may be speculated that if the liberal use of the term homophobia is not primarily a psychological tactic, then it indicates a psychological condition on the part of those who use it, in which they imagine that those who oppose them are fearful of them, or of being one.

===Influence in the Academic World===

Professor Jerry Z. Muller described in an article titled, "First Things" (Aug/Sept. 1993), how the homosexual lobby has gained widespread acceptance in the educational realm.

[Their] strategy has been remarkably successful. With a rapidity largely attributable in large part to a total lack of articulate resistance, homosexual ideology has gained an unquestioned and uncontested legitimacy in American academic life. Within the academy, as within nonacademic elite culture, the definition of opposite to homosexuality as "homophobia - a definition which implies that it is impossible to give good reasons for the cultural disapproval of homosexuality - is the best evidence of the success of this strategy.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=cbfVg_1qhe0C&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq=David+W.+Virtue+scots+college&source=bl&ots=aDW7a615Gn&sig=Y1cLsx5sCQTgUUDJ88b5AKPRkNg&hl=en&ei=8skISpP1AcGktgfi2PzsCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPR14,M1 Homosexuality, by F. Earle Fox, David W. Virtue, p. 12]</ref>

== Opposing Christian Agenda ==

Liberals are critical of Christian groups that oppose homosexuality. These criticisms include Christian activities of:

*Soliciting donations
*Encouraging email activism
*Producing and disseminating gay reform information
*Influencing local media in what stories they produce
*Lobbying local, state and federal government officials to vote in the desired way on pending legislation<ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/about.asp Concerned Women For America] About page</ref>

==Opponents of the Homosexual Agenda ==
Some well known individuals/groups in the [[United States]] who actively oppose the homosexual agenda are: [[Focus on the Family]], [[Peter LaBarbera]]'s American's for Truth, the [[Traditional Values Coalition]] ([[Louis Sheldon]] is a chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition), and [[Matt Barber]] of [[Concerned Women of America]].

== References ==

{{reflist|2}}

==Further reading==
*[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html Homosexuality and the Nazi Party] by Scott Lively. Excellent discussion of the anti-Christian and homosexual origins of the Nazism.
*[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPCollectionNews.asp?ID=131 2008 McDonald's and the Homosexual Agenda], Baptist Press

==See also==
*[[Homosexual belief system]]
*[[Gay rights]]
*"[[Homophobia]]"
*[[Hate speech]], [[Hate crime]]
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category: Liberal Deceit]]

Waterboarding

2009-05-17T03:31:32Z

Cakeman:

[[Image:Waterboard.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Waterboarding in Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge regime. Painting by a former prison inmate, Vann Nath, at the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum.]]
'''Waterboarding''' is a method of interrogation which simulates the sensation of drowning. A tightly bound prisoner has porous cloth placed over his mouth and nose. Water is poured over his face in such a manner as to convince the prisoner that he is drowning. Its use by American forces against terrorism suspects has been called controversial by some, particularly by (but not limited to) [[leftists]]. Opponents of the practice call it "[[torture]]" and on this basis argue that it is illegal. Supporters of the practice acknowledge its coercive nature but say it is not torture and therefore not illegal.

The practice dates back to the time of the Spanish Inquisition in the 1500s.

==Legal issues in the 20th century==

In 1901, Major Edwin Glenn was court-martialed and sentenced to 10 years hard labour for waterboarding an insurgent in the [[Philippines]] during the [[Spanish-American War]].<ref name="guardian">http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1933315,00.html</ref><ref>http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1356870</ref> In 1947, Yukio Asano - a Japanese officer - was charged with war crimes and received 15 years hard labour for waterboarding a US civilian. It was declared illegal by US generals in Vietnam and a US soldier was the subject of an investigation, and later cleared, when ''The Washington Post'' (21.1.1968) published a front page photograph of him supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html</ref><ref name="guardian" />

== Controversy over use in the [[War on Terror]] ==

According to 18 [[United States Code|U.S.C.]] § 2340, torture is defined as "an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering."<ref>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html</ref>
The [[United Nations]] Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment classifies torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."<ref>http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm</ref>

The US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in [[San Diego]], [[California]] uses waterboarding demonstrations on its students. On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post published a front-page photograph of a U.S. soldier supervising the questioning of a captured North Vietnamese soldier who is being held down as water was poured on his face while his nose and mouth were covered by a cloth. The picture, taken four days earlier near Da Nang, had a caption that said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." ''The article said the practice was "fairly common" in part because "those who practice it say it combines the advantages of being unpleasant enough to make people talk while still not causing permanent injury.''" <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html Washington Post: Waterboarding Historically Controversial]</ref>

Opponents of the practice call it "[[torture]]" and want official definitions of [[torture]] ''changed'' so as to outlaw the technique.<ref>http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/06/usdom13130.htm</ref> One notable critic of waterboarding is Senator[[John McCain]], himself a victim of torture. Senator McCain believes that it is highly inappropriate and unnecessary. <ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/politics/main3441067.shtml</ref> Writing in ''NewsWeek'' in 2005, Senator McCain wrote: “To make someone believe that you are killing him by drowning is no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank. I believe that it is torture, very exquisite torture”, and said it should remain outlawed. <ref>[http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005\12\08\story_8-12-2005_pg4_13 ‘Torture’ takes on new meaning in post-9/11], [[Reuters]], December 8th, 2005</ref>

Defenders of the practice deny that the suffering it causes is severe enough as to amount to torture, and in any case, used against America's enemies, it has proved to be highly effective. Joseph Farah is an American author, journalist, and editor-in-chief of the conservative website WorldNetDaily said:

<blockquote>
"Americans are simply losing their ability to distinguish right from wrong.

I don't know how else to put it. Up is down, day is night, left is right and right is wrong.

A good illustration of my thesis is the growing political consensus around the idea that the U.S. should stop using any effective interrogation techniques that make our terrorist enemies uncomfortable – even those involved in planning acts of mass destruction and annihilation.

For instance, armchair generals are increasingly referring to "waterboarding" as torture and saying it must be stopped in all cases.

I have no doubts waterboarding is a very unpleasant experience. It must be so because it is considered 100 percent effective and usually induces cooperation within 30 seconds.

The technique of waterboarding involves pouring water on the head of a prisoner with the purpose of triggering a gagging reflex and the panic of imminent drowning.

It was used successfully to learn about terrorist operations planned by two of al-Qaida's top operatives – Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, involved in the planning of the 9/11 attack, and Abu Zubaida, another leader of the terrorist organization.

Apparently both of these mass killers endured many hours of coercive interrogations without talking. But they sung like canaries after a few seconds of waterboarding.

'''In both cases, there is reason to believe planned terrorist attacks were foiled as a result of this technique."'''<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59481 WorldNet Daily: Waterboarding is not torture]</ref>
</blockquote>

Waterboarding has served a "valuable" purpose and does not constitute torture, former Attorney General [[John Ashcroft]] told a House committee. Testifying on the Bush administration's interrogation rules before the House Judiciary Committee, Ashcroft defended the technique while answering a question from Rep. Howard Coble, R-North Carolina.

"Waterboarding, as we all know, is a controversial issue. Do you think it served a beneficial purpose?" the congressman asked.

"The reports that I have heard, and I have no reason to disbelieve them, indicate that they were very valuable," Ashcroft said, adding that CIA Director George Tenet indicated the "value of the information received from the use of enhanced interrogation techniques -- I don't know whether he was saying waterboarding or not, but assume that he was for a moment -- the value of that information exceeded the value of information that was received from all other sources." <ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/ashcroft.waterboarding/ John Ashcroft: Waterboarding serves 'valuable' purpose and does not constitute torture]</ref>

According to news reports:

<blockquote>
"And when it comes to outright torture, the CIA does not believe it produces reliable results and has never used it, reports Ronald Kessler, chief Washington correspondent of [[Newsmax]].com.

The three terrorists who were subjected too waterboarding are Abu Zubaydah, Osama bin Laden’s chief of operations; Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the mastermind of the bombing of the USS Cole; and Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

In these cases waterboarding and other coercive techniques, such as forcing prisoners to stand for hours, succeeded in extracting intelligence that led to the capture of key al-Qaida operative planning terrorist attack against Americans.

'''Despite the media’s focus on waterboarding, it is in reality a “non issue,” said Kessler, author of the book “The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack.”'''

'''“It hasn’t been used since 2003 and won’t be used again. The media is using it as an excuse to bash... President Bush.'''

''“Waterboarding was employed on only three terrorists who were not cooperating, and the information they ultimately provided helped stave off attacks that could have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people.”''<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Waterboard_Not_Torture/2007/12/10/56046.html NewsMax Inside Cover: Waterboarding NOT Torture]</ref>
</blockquote>

Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies is an acknowledged expert on this matter. In the magazine ''National Review'' he stated:<ref>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjhkM2YyZmE5MThjZGNlN2IyMGI4MmE3MWM1OWQ5MjA=&w=MQ== National Review; Waterboarding and Torture]</ref>
{{cquote|Again, we do not know the details of waterboarding as practiced (if, as reported, it is or has been practiced) by the CIA. Yet, we know generally that waterboarding is very rough stuff. It is not especially painful physically and causes no lasting bodily injury; yet, it is intended to create the sensation of drowning in a person who is bound and temporarily suffocated. Administered by someone who knows what he is doing, there is presumably no actual threat of drowning or suffocation; for the victim, though, there is clearly fear of imminent death and he could pass out from the deprivation of oxygen.

The sensation is temporary, not prolonged. There shouldn’t be much debate that subjecting someone to it repeatedly would cause the type of mental anguish required for torture. But what about doing it once, twice, or some number of instances that were not prolonged or extensive?

'''Reasonable minds can and do differ on this. Personally, I don’t believe it qualifies. It is not in the nature of the barbarous sadism universally condemned as torture, an ignominy the law, as we’ve seen, has been patently careful not to trivialize or conflate with lesser evils. The Washington Post and Sen. Edward Kennedy have pointed to a World War II era war crimes prosecution by the U.S. against a Japanese soldier who used what was described as “water torture” on an American civilian. But they’ve failed to note that this was far from the only conduct at issue; the soldier was also charged with having engaged, over a sustained period of time, in “beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; … burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward.” The case hardly stands for the proposition that isolated instances of waterboarding would be torture.'''

Moreover, American military and intelligence services reportedly use (or, at least, have used) waterboarding in their counter-interrogation training programs. Congress carved no exception into torture law for such exercises. '''''Consequently, a conclusion that waterboarding is torture would be tantamount to a finding that our own services are committing a heinous felony, the equivalent of a war crime, against our own operatives — something I believe it is fair to say Congress cannot possibly have intended.'''''}}

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category: War]]
[[Category: Instruments and methods of torture]]