Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Chippeterson

2009-04-23T02:14:45Z

Jackalope:

{{welcome}}

You've been unblocked. Please feel free to contribute. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:28, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Warning: I consider some of your edits to [[Ted Kennedy]] to have been unsupported and unjustified. This is an encyclopedia and everything must be factual. This is not a political magazine. I had to clean up that entry. Please stick to the facts and avoid any defamation, or it will become necessary to block your account. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Hi Chip, thanks for your efforts in creating and updating articles for Congressmen. Please be aware that Categories beginning in US are being changed to United States, so please don't change them back. If you want to help out, any categories you could change under individual Congressmen from US to United States would be appreciated. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:32, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

:Way to go Chip! ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:04, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Hi Chip, put an asterik "*" in front of each of the entries you've done on your user page and they'll all show up in a row. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:29, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

==Pete Domenici==

Thanks a lot for your work on the [[Pete Domenici]] article! It looks great! --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 17:06, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

== McCain ==

Just wanted you to know I think you have done some very good work adding to and formating the article! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:51, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Speaking of the McCain article, if you're going to revert my edit regarding his lapel pin, then make sure you go ahead and do the same for [[Barack Obama]]. [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 14:07, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::Even though I didn't edit that info into Barack's page. I was trying to be somewhat consistent in the site's treatment of Presidential candidates, since to do so with actual issues 'twould be stamped out like a drunken mutiny (and probably labeled as such...) [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 14:23, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Wikproject:News==

Thanks for volunteering for the Wikiproject:News. I'm just wondering, what is your Political Affiliation? --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:03, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:Well, when I'm 18 I'll definitely join the Republican party. And I'm strongly conservative.

::Ok, thanks for the info. I look forward to your contributions to the news project. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:33, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

You signed up to work on the Wikproject:News. What would you like to do for the project? Are you interested in <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|creating news articles]]</nowiki>, [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted page|wanted pages]] or working on the [[Wikiproject:News/Previous Breaking News|Previous News archives]]? --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:16, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

I notice that there has been no news on this site over the protesters for the upcoming Democrat convention, there are a lot of groups trying to make this like 1968. If there's any major event that's not being covered, I'll tell you Dean.

== Testing for AIDS ==

How is Biden stating he was tested for AIDS a controversial comment? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:09, 25 August 2008 (EDT).

The crowd laughed when he said that Jareddr, because it sounded like they tested for Aids together. Or at least that's what Barack Obama thought.

:I understand the crowd laughed for the way it came out. But how is it c
controversial? And, p.s., it's AIDS--all capital letters, since it's an acronym. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:19, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

controversial - of, relating to, or arousing controversy. When a politician comes off saying that he was tested for AIDS with someone when he wasn't then thats clearly arousing and controversial.

:Except, as was quoted, he DIDN'T say he was tested with Obama. The crowd laugh because it may have sounded that way, but reading the text, that's a pretty far stretch. "I've got tested for AIDS, I know Barack's got tested for AIDS..." Heck, I could say the same thing since I know Barack was tested for AIDS. Of course, that doesn't seem to suggest that we were tested together, nor does it make it controversial. It's a far stretch and I think it doesn't deserve inclusion in the section. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:36, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Barack Obama, and the large crowd all thought that's what it sounded like. And Barack Obama saying that he wanted to make it clear that he was not tested with Biden, then it clearly caused controversy at that debate. Therefor, making it a controversial comment. But go ahead, take it out if that's what you want.

==Wikiproject:News/Suggestions==
Chippeterson, Thanks for contributing news items. When your suggested news items have been completed, they will be archived under <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives#Chippeterson|your name]]</nowiki> so we can keep the suggestions page clear for new items. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 08:20, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Chippeterson, I noticed you want to be first in Wikiproject:News/Suggestions. I have a suggestion for you. I added a new section called <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions#Rewrite_current_headlines|Rewrite current headlines]]</nowiki>. You have a much higher chance of getting the lead if you rewrite some of these headlines. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

==Obama Speech News headline==

I had posted a comment on the Main Talk page regarding the accuracy of the headline you wrote on Obama's speech. DeanS has informed me that he'd prefer a direct response from you before any changes are made, so can you take a look and respond there? Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:26, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== Removing Templates ==

I appreciate your attempt to add templates to the candidate pages. After having taken a longer look at them, they just seem a little out-of-place since they're tailored specifically for president and v.p., and not nominees. I'm going to take them off, but hopefully a sysop will come forward and modify the template slightly so that it can be used for nominations as well. It would only take changing a few letters here and there and it's all set. Hopefully it pulls through b/c it's informative, but just not appropriate the way it's currently designed. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

O.K. Jareddr, but I do hope that a sysop adds template's for Senator's and Governor's. Just make sure that you keep the pictures.

:I absolutely agree templates should be added for those positions (as well as Representatives). Sorry about the pictures, didn't realize they were embedded into the template codes. Thanks for fixing my deletions! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:07, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== New Privileges ==

Congrats on your promotion! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:41, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations Chippeterson. Now you can upload your own photos - (non-AP) of course. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:42, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Wow! Thank you so much! I'm going to have some fun with this.
:You deserve it Chip. Good work! [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:09, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

::I've been following your edits and you certainly deserved the promotion(s). One small request is to remember categories and bolding the main term, but you seem to be getting better about this. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 00:07, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

== Harry Reid Photo ==

Could we use [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Harry_Reid_official_portrait.jpg this picture] instead? It's his official portrait. Thank you --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:36, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

I'd rather stick with the current one.

: That's fine, if it's public domain. Can you please include the source of the all the photos that you upload on their image pages? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:56, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I think I've had that photo saved for 2-3 years. But I'll copy/paste the source of the photo's from now on.

Chippeterson, you can use this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Template:Fair_use fair use template] from now on.

For the previous uploaded photos, add the source info to the image's talk page and I will transfer it to the image's content page. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:12, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

DeanS, I put the source for the photo's on the talk pages. The ones on Harry Reid and Michael Steele I had saved for a long time, so I replaced them with new ones with the fair use template. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] September 11 2008

Glad to see we're now using Reid's official portrait. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:50, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

== Images ==

When uploading images, I think you should be naming them with a more descriptive filename than just a number. Perhaps something like "ReaganBush" for the last one, or "BushMedal" or something that provides more information to the users. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:16, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

== Replacing pages with redirects ==

Chip, in the cases I've replaced on of your new entries with a redirect, it was because the new information was too similar to an existing article. In the case of [[Classes]], I noticed that the information in [[Class]] didn't match the meaning you had written, so I move your content in its place and then moved the previous content to a more specified page. Please be aware that I take into consideration why an article was created before replacing it with a redirect. --[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:29, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

===Categories===

I didn't want to start a new subject header for this. I noticed with your newest edits that you've been avoiding [[:Category:Dictionary]] when you can. This makes me VERY happy :-) Thank you! -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

==Congratulations==
...on getting your ton (if you're not there quite, it can only be a matter of one or two more). You're an inspiration to lazier mortals! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:20, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
I spoke too late! Well done, Chip. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations Chippeterson! In recognition of your superb contributions, you are featured on the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&curid=66589&diff=516845&oldid=516804 Main page news] section. Thanks for your efforts on the wanted articles and the news suggestions. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 21:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks DeanS. It feels really nice to be appreciated. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] September 14 2008

==Privileges==
Chip, I know you have upload rights, but do you have block rights? There's some people putting in nonsense and I can't find anyone who's on to block them. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 22:02, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Sorry Jeffrey, I don't have any block rights. {{unsigned|Chippeterson}}

:Chip, you didn't know it, but you DO have block rights.

:20:18, September 10, 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Chippeterson from Upload to Upload, Block

:Now you can help block these vandals. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:11, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

That's great DeanS. I'll be sure to keep a look out.

Chip, please verify the photo source BEFORE uploading photos. Do not upload anything from AP or Reuters, they do not allow fair use. I deleted one of the photos and another one looks suspicious. See the talk pages. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:51, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

== New pages ==

Chip, please be careful when making new pages. For example, you just created [[honest]], but [[honesty]] already exists. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Then honest shouldn't be on the wanted pages. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] September 20 2008

:If it was on the wanted pages then someone linked to it somewhere, and it needed a redirect. It's no biggie, I'm just trying to save you work in the future. In general we want nouns as the subject of an article, not adjectives. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:07, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Chip, when creating new articles, please watch out for circular definitions. I've seen several of your contributions over the last five days fall into this pattern. It makes the entries only marginally better than a red link. Examples: [[supervision]], [[systemic]], [[curvature]], [[happiness]], [[breakaway]], [[enshrine]], [[negative]], [[descent]], [[honest]], [[enlighten]]. Please take note. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 12:27, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

== Images ==

Chippeterson, you just uploaded an image from Getty Images. We don't allow that unless you have express permission from the owner. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for telling me Aschlafly. I'll find something else. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] Oct 3 2008

When you upload images from whitehouse.gov (or other .gov or public domain images), use this public domain template instead of the fair use template.

Template:Public domain image 
<nowiki>{{Public domain image
|source = <source>
|usernotes = <optional:user notes>
}}</nowiki>

Another user also suggested uploaders use names relative to the image, instead of a bunch of numbers. Like you did with the Cheney image. Thanks for your contributions Chip. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:49, 2 January 2009 (EST)

== Conservapedia Day 2008 ==
{|style="width:300px; height:200px; text-align:center" border="5px #0000BB solid" align="left"
|-
|
[[Image:Champion cup.jpg|175px|center]]
This is to certify that

'''[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]'''

completed ''237 new pages'' and is awarded

'''<big>First place</big>'''

'''<big>News Section - Wanted Pages</big>'''

From Conservapedia, on November 21, 2008
|}

{|style="width:300px; height:200px; text-align:center" border="5px #0000BB solid" align="right"
|-
|
[[Image:Champion cup.jpg|175px|center]]
This is to certify that

'''[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]'''

completed ''33 suggestions'' and is awarded

'''<big>Second place</big>'''

'''<big>News Section - News Suggestions</big>'''

From Conservapedia, on November 21, 2008
|}

{{clear}}

Chippeterson, Congratulations on being the top contributor to the news section wanted pages. You also came in second place for the news suggestions. Your accomplishments are posted on the Main page. Thanks for your many contributions to Conservapedia and the news project. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:30, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Thank you!

== NewsProject - Wanted pages ==

Since you are a member of the news project, I need your help with wanted pages. We now have over 100 wanted pages and I need you to pick a few to work on this coming week. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:30, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Richard Nixon ==

You've been doing a massive about of work! It's looking good, Chip. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:56, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks TK.

== Guard Dog ==

*Don't get mad....Guard Dog has a touch of the rabies, Chip, and simply went mad with the newer version of Wikimedia we are using! I was getting around to unblocking everyone, but a busy day at work....sorry you were caught up in it. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:19, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

No problem TK, I understand the mistake. '''[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]'''

== Unblocking ==

Please do not unilaterally undo another admin's block, but rather e-mail the admin in question and explain the situation to him. This procedure has been set out in the Guidelines by Mr. Schlafly. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 12:01, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

== revert ==
Thank you for your efforts--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:27, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

== Hi ==

Hi, Chip! [[User:Jackalope|Jackalope]] 22:14, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

User talk:DeanS

2009-04-23T02:12:40Z

Jackalope:

Archive:
[[/1|01]]
[[/2|02]]
[[/3|03]]

== please check your email ==

Dear DeanS,

Please check your email.

Sincerely,

Conservative

:This seems important Dean, so you should do so in a short amount of time. [[User:Jackalope|Jackalope]] 22:12, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Deletion bias

2009-04-23T02:05:48Z

Jackalope: added truism

'''Deletion bias''' is the practice of deleting informative entries from encylopedias, dictionaries and [[wiki]]s when the information contradicts, embarrasses or tends to disprove the owner's ideology. Deletion bias is most prevalent in [[liberal]] entities. For example, [[Wikipedia]] is an information source that practices deletion bias.<ref>See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].</ref> Furthermore, [[Conservapedia]] does not practice deletion bias.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Liberalism]]

Waterboarding

2009-04-23T02:04:27Z

Jackalope: placement bias

[[Image:Waterboard.jpg|right|thumb|350px|A wall-painting found at a Vietnamese POW camp illustrating waterboarding being used against an American prisoner]]
'''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 Chapter 18, section 2340 of the United States Legal Code, 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.'''''}}

Top Secret government memos from the Bush era frivolously released by the Obama administration in 2009 reveal that both legal experts and doctors have concluded that waterboarding does not constitute torture, and it has been approved as an enhanced interrogation technique for high value detainees. Many terrorist attacks, including a conspiracy to mimic the 9/11 attacks in Los Angeles, have been prevented through the use of waterboarding.

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

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