AG nominee "unsure" about waterboarding

Status
Not open for further replies.
Out of curiosity are there any studies anywhere that suggest that information obtained under duress is helpful or accurate? How is it that the govt has the best pyschologists money can buy and they have to resort to physical torture?
 
Absolutely it's torture and illegal, just as all simulated executions are.
The issue of torture isn't new to the counterterrorism scene (GIS Battle of Algiers). We know that it can work in the short term and is disastrously counterproductive in the long term.
 
I just finished reading "The Bravest Man" about the US Sub war in the Pacific during WWII. It followed Dick O'Caine through his patrols as XO, to his command and then his capture by the Japanese.

After listenning to the treatment those men recieved I have come to the conclusion we don't even know what torture is given what our politicians seem to describe as torture.
 
Torture of any kind does more long term harm than short term good. Want to create a terrorist? Torture someones brother, or father.

Take the WWII example. Did torture scare the US soldiers, or piss them off and make them fight harder? Ever see the pictures of Japanese women throwing their babies off a cliff and then jumping themselves because they had heard rumors that american soldiers would rape and torture both?

If not using torture puts us at a disadvantage, as a civilised people we have to live with that. Sometimes the ends simply do not justify the means.
 
My simple response to the question of how I feel about waterboarding is...

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

I see it as not being right, nor do I see it as being wrong, but necessary.
 
Take the WWII example. Did torture scare the US soldiers, or piss them off and make them fight harder? Ever see the pictures of Japanese women throwing their babies off a cliff and then jumping themselves because they had heard rumors that american soldiers would rape and torture both?
Click to expand...

By putting these together, you are suggesting that Japanese torture of Americans led to rumors of what Americans would do.

And for the record, the civilians hadn't heard "rumors." Japanese propaganda (as well as Japanese culture) was that Americans would do to captured civilians want the Japanese themselves did to prisoners. Calling those rumors tends to reduce the culpability of the Japanese gov't in those deaths.
 
Buzz, you made the connection that I simply implied. Yes the Japanese govt was culpable, and many people never forgave them the torture, other things yes, that no. Again, the long term effects were extremely negative to the Japanese.

And yes, the fact that the Japanese would torture their enemies made it easy for the Japanese govt to convince their people that the Americans would do the same.

So now we have documented that the US military will torture captured enemies. How hard will it be for an enemy govt to convince their people that the US is barbaric and will torture them in light of the evidence?

Evil done in the name of good is still evil.
 
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Click to expand...

When we had tens of thousands of atomic weapons aimed at us by the Soviets, and every major city in the US and Europe was under threat of atomic destruction on a 45-minute notice, we didn't need to resort to waterboarding, not even against Soviet spies.

When our parents and grandparents faced off against Hitler and Tojo, they didn't resort to waterboarding, either, despite the fact that both those guys had both the declared intent and the means to gain world dominance.

What exactly is it about the current times that makes them "desperate"? The fact that you live in them?

Compared to the threats this nation has faced in the past without resorting to the barbarism of our enemies, the Jihadists are noisy mosquitoes.
 
Our enemy behead innocent people on a fairly regular basis. They plant bombs near/on children as children can get closer to their targets. They routinely fire from civilian locations, hoping return fire will cause "massacres" that they can exploit for public relations purposes.

Arguing against torture on the basis that it will make others torture us is foolish. Our troops are probably the most gentle in their dealings with combatants and civilians of any organization in history. The "outrage" most nations display against us is hilarious when you look back at sanctioned and unsanctioned activities of their troops.

If you want to argue against torture, you have to argue that it is unacceptable from a general standpoint, not because of what it will lead others to do. Don't argue that it's completely ineffective because it's not. There's an officer who was courtmartialed for torturing an insurgent (firing a weapon near his head) and it was undisputed that 1) the insurgent was involved in an upcoming attack, 2) the insurgent gave up the plan as a result of the officer's actions, and 3) lives (Iraqi and American) were saved by the plan being thwarted. Similar "wins" for our side have been credited to waterboarding, including breaking one of Bin Laden's top subordinates if memory serves.

So the question is not whether it makes us hated (the only thing that won't make us hated is surrender and extermination of our side). It's not whether it doesn't work (it often does). It's a question of whether as a people, we it's something we can accept.

The proper answer to that it is unacceptable. We can't allow real torture (not the psychological pressure/sleep deprivation techniques that so many whackos want to call torture these days). Not because we are "civilized" (being such a civilized and restrained people is why we in the boat we are today) but because we are better than 99% of the scum we are fighting and the idiots who complain about us, while working to whitewash their own actions.
 
Ok, so the more complex answer to the question is this...

Yes, these are desperate times, as buzz pointed out, we have an enemy who is not just against our miltary and wanting to torture to gain valuable intel, but one who is torturing because they think we "deserve" it for being a US citizen or a non believer of Islam, or simply to put their little terrorist cell in the MSM to get attention. Were the days of yesterday desperate times? You bet they were, but what would the torture have gained (if it has been proved we didnt), the enemies we sought after years ago were not hiding in the shadows like todays, the enemy was distinct, it was clear who they were, what they wanted, and what we needed to do. Todays enemies are hiding in the shadows, acting like civilians, popping up one day as a terrorist with a homemade bomb and the next day walking to work as a regular citizen. It is no longer "easy" to tell who is who and who is working for the enemy.

Second, I am just an average citizen with access to mainly the major news outlets, do you think that any of us, except those privy to the information, and probably not allowed to discuss it, who know who the US has tortured in the past and to what lengths they were willing to go? This is not some crazy conspiracy, but I assume we dont know everything that happened then and I am sure we dont know to what extent some of our gov't would go to today.

Lastly, this is a VERY slippery slope, if you allow some things as ways to gain intel, where do you draw the line? I know what I feel about this interrogation technique, but on others I dont know.
 
When we had tens of thousands of atomic weapons aimed at us by the Soviets, and every major city in the US and Europe was under threat of atomic destruction on a 45-minute notice, we didn't need to resort to waterboarding, not even against Soviet spies.

When our parents and grandparents faced off against Hitler and Tojo, they didn't resort to waterboarding, either, despite the fact that both those guys had both the declared intent and the means to gain world dominance.
Click to expand...

Let's not fall into the "things were better during prior generation" thing when there is no evidence to support it and plenty to the contrary.

It'll be a long time before we know what we did or didn't do during the Cold War. The plans for assassination of various leaders are only being revealed now.

As for World War II, we interred 120,000+ Japanese-Americans with minimal thought and a lot of prejudice. I seriously doubt anyone would blink about torture. We just don't know that much about it because 1) people didn't care about the enemy, 2) people were a lot more likely not to discuss things that "shouldn't be discussed," and 3) torture and coercion of criminal suspects was not unheard of, so why would anybody give a second thought when it was applied to the enemy?
 
All true Buzz, luckily we have evolved a bit since WWII. I think some of this evolution is because we look at history and see that torture, in the long run, does more harm than good.

In fact, I would argue that the psychic damage that torturing someone does to the torturer is as bad as the damage done to the tortured. I don't want young men who have tortured enemies living in my town. I don't want them dating my daughter, or teaching at my son's school.

As for those who think any current Islamic Jihad is worse than the Nazis, read some books for christ's sake.
 
As for those who think any current Islamic Jihad is worse than the Nazis, read some books for christ's sake.
Click to expand...

Been there, done that. Once you get past the propaganda put out to downplay current event, you'll find that the jihad isn't necessarily worse but 1) it isn't any better by a long shot (due mainly to lack of resources but hey, they are trying) and 2) it has the potential to equal or exceed the worst excesses of the Nazis, if not the Japanese.

What exactly is it about the current times that makes them "desperate"? The fact that you live in them?
Click to expand...

Neither the Germans nor the Japanese had the capability of striking American soil in a major way. Nor did they have a realistic opportunity to acquire and deploy weapons with the ability to do damage all out of proportion to the number of individuals involved.

"Noisy mosquitos" which we know are or are capable of carrying a lethal disease are cause for real concern, not downplaying in order to promote a particular agenda. That's just as bad as touting and overplaying the threat in order to promote the countering agenda.
 
I was wrong

http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/blog...torture-perio/
Click to expand...

Ok, let me say publicly I recant...

After reading the article and thinking about it, I am now against it. I do not mean to flip-flop, but I believe my earlier preconceived notions of torture and the "good" it does for our country is not worth the price of actually going through with it. The article really hit hard and made me think of not why we should do it, but why we shouldnt do it. If we as a nation, are under the impression that it is ok to do this becasue we have had it done to us, that is a sad statement. We, as a nation, have defeated and will continue to defeat our enemies, but not by stooping to their level.

I am sure that this technique works and thats fine, but it is a crime against society as a whole if we allow this to continue. The idea that "if" we get info from this insurgent and can use that to save someone'e life is a HUGE if, what if he really didnt know anything, and you only found that out after torturing him, what now? One of the arguments against it mentioned in the article is that now that we have been on record admitting we do this for information, you can bet it will be used in the future against our troops, because if it works for the U.S. why cant it work for the insurgents.

(Now that I am off the soapbox)
My quick response was premature and ignorant as to all the facts, I encourage everyone to understand this subject before you jump to conclusions as I did.
 
Umm...Buzz???? Pearl Harbor ring any bells??

Seems pretty meaningful to me.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was a meaningful strike against an American territory. By American soil, I was thinking mainland US so as to compare to 9/11. Thanks for the reminding me of that grossly negligent error.

And for what's it worth, there are ways of striking the US that would make Pearl Harbor (and even 9/11) look like flesh wounds. They also don't require the use of exotics. The way our society, infrastructure and economy have changed since WWII have made us far more vulnearable to attacks than in WWII. That's why discounting terrorists and the threat they pose is so dangerous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top