AG nominee "unsure" about waterboarding

[Waitone]

Buzz, thanks for making my point.

There exists a range of conduct that can be declared "torture" depending upon time, location, culture, circumstances, and moral standards. I submit every society at different times and locations will take a big sharpie and draw a line through the continuum and declare the boundary of civilized behavior. Japan's behavior during the run up to WWII implied a line drawn pretty low in the continuum. America's behaviors in some of the more vicious battle of the Pacific war drew the line well-above Japan's but well below where we want to draw the line today.

The battle here and elsewhere seems to be ignoring the continuum and the line. We seem to be fixated on determining whether an action is or ain't acceptable UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. Reality is the line will move up and down the continuum based on circumstances. For instance, we may think waterboarding is unacceptable in our current circumstances. The discussion will no doubt be considerably different when we see several Beslan's in progress on the tube or when we've lost a few cities. One could say we've evolved since <insert time or event of choice>. My response is we can adopt a lower line through the continuum only because we are not in desperate straits. We can afford lofty rhetoric now. Will we use the same rhetoric when it dawns on us that we are in a fight to the death.

 

[buzz_knox]

Buzz, thanks for making my point.

I'm not sure how I did that. Japanese conduct before and during WWII violated every treaty and international convention on the treatment of prisoners and civilians. Ours did not. Rarely, individuals acted in a manner inconsistent with either our legal obligations or general American identity. But on the whole, we acted above board.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The point is beginning made that the moral value of an action is relativistic. That's sometimes not appreciated in the RKBA discussions.

Let's say terrorists of a foreign ilk in the USA decide to do a coordinated wave of school massacres. It would be child's play. The guns they use are found to be purchased at the local gun shows. At the one I went to last weekend, I could have easily outfitted 50 folks with ARs, AKs, SKS, P90s, etc.

While it is true that there is always a black market for firearms and they can be smuggled in and one could use sporting arms (like lever actions Winchester 94s), would expediency lead the torture proponents to support a draconian ban on the sale of new military derivative semiauto long guns? While not perfect, that might slow down the rate of attack?

Or would that not be acceptable as the 2nd Amend is absolute but the use of torture (which would seem absolutely forbidden in the Constitution) is relative?

Arguing the ban isn't effective isn't the point - there is a strong argument that torture isn't effective as we have seen above.

If some propose that such techniques are OK even to use against citizens for expediency - does the BOR mean anything? It's when push comes to shove that you maintain your moral principles or you don't have them?

 

[Justme]

No, I believe in absolute morality

You are wrong, there is no such thing and to state that there is indicates a total lack of knowledge on the subject. In fact, I would go so far as to say that anyone who professes a believe in "absolute morality" should refrain from any discussions of morality due to ignorance on the subject, until such time, of course, that they do something to improve their knowledge base.

Oh well, I needed a month vacation from Legal and Political anyway. Absolute morality? Where do these guys come from?

 

[WhyteP38]

There are more important things than "protecting" us.

I'd like to know what is. The primary purpose of a government is just like the primary purpose of an individual: self-defense. So if our government allows some terrorist to set off a nuke and murder 40,000 - 50,000 people, plus irradiate hundreds-of-thousands of others, plus turn huge tracts of land into an uninhabitable radioactive wasteland, plus the civil unrest that would follow (such as a collapse or near collapse of our financial infrastructure), that's okay so long as we can say, "Well, at least we didn't waterboard anyone"?

Again, for a good reason our military sends certain people through SERE training (at least it did when I was in naval aviation), where some are waterboarded. It trains you in case you are captured and tortured, much the same as the Army shoots live rounds over your head to prepare you for combat. The Navy doesn't actually torture you to prepare you any more than the Army actually shoots you to prepare you. It's close, but it's no cigar.

I don't think I could waterboard someone

Since you are posting on a gun forum, I pressume you believe in armed self-defense. If so, you are willing to take a life to save your own or to save someone else's life. But you're apparently unwilling to do far less than take a life - something that causes no permanent injury - to save the lives of hundreds, thousands, or hundreds-of-thousands. That makes no sense to me.

, and I don't want anyone to do it for me.

Fine. Let 'em do it for me and mine. Just like the military already does for a lot of people who can't be bothered to defend themselves and yet enjoy the fruits of those sacrifices.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Again, for a good reason our military sends certain people through SERE training (at least it did when I was in naval aviation), where some are waterboarded. It trains you in case you are captured and tortured, much the same as the Army shoots live rounds over your head to prepare you for combat. The Navy doesn't actually torture you to prepare you any more than the Army actually shoots you to prepare you. It's close, but it's no cigar.

At least nowadays military service in general is voluntary, and I believe that pretty much any specialty where SERE training would be given was also voluntary even under the draft. In other words, I don't think the military has waterboarded random soldiers involuntarily.

Add to that the idea that having the same act performed on you might have less severe psychological consequences when you know that A) it is only for a limited duration and B) you can likely "tap out" if you can't handle it compared to holding somebody pretty much indefinitely and physically abusing them (with things like waterboarding) against their will.

So yes, you're right in a way: close, but no cigar.

Since you are posting on a gun forum, I pressume you believe in armed self-defense. If so, you are willing to take a life to save your own or to save someone else's life. But you're apparently unwilling to do far less than take a life - something that causes no permanent injury - to save the lives of hundreds, thousands, or hundreds-of-thousands. That makes no sense to me.

Torture can cause very permanent psychological injury, especially depending on the duration and intensity of the treatment.

Also, there is quite a bit of difference between being willing to shoot somebody who poses a direct and imminent threat to myself or another, and being willing to torture somebody who may have information about a possible attack that may happen.

 

[WhyteP38]

pretty much any specialty where SERE training would be given was also voluntary even under the draft. In other words, I don't think the military has waterboarded random soldiers involuntarily.

When I was in (1980s; all-volunteer military), aviation personnel, O's or E's, who might be involved in combat operations were sent through SERE. The spectrum ran from F-14 pilots and RIO's to P-3 pilots, navs, and aircrew.

All aviation slots were voluntary. But SERE for them was not.

Torture can cause very permanent psychological injury, especially depending on the duration and intensity of the treatment.

I don't consider waterboarding torture. But you apparently do. So if waterboarding is torture, it's okay to torture our own military personnel but not terrorists?

 

[JuanCarlos]

All aviation slots were voluntary. But SERE for them was not.

So SERE was voluntary. Unless draftees were sent involuntarily to it.

Logic is fun.

I don't consider waterboarding torture. But you apparently do. So if waterboarding is torture, it's okay to torture our own military personnel but not terrorists?

Okay, I'll repeat myself. Performing a technique on somebody who volunteers for it, in order to train them in case that technique is used later involuntarily, especially if the subject can be reasonably certain that it will be for limited duration, is different that performing same technique involuntarily on somebody for an indeterminate period of time.

This is true of waterboarding, or pretty much any other technique you could name. Except, of course, those that require the involvement of third parties (such as abusing family members), since those third parties would not have volunteered (well, assuming they didn't at least).

If this is not something that is obvious to you, then this entire discussion is probably beyond you.

 

[44 AMP]

You mean waterboarding isn't surfing????

Personally, I believe "torture" is the wrong approach. We should not use torture (as classically defined, NOT as currently used-humiliation and mockery are NOT torture) to obtain information. We should use DRUGS!!!!

We should give captured terrorists the "happy shot" they give you before surgery. Maybe two. Then have someone who appears sympathetic to their aims sit down and just talk to them. I believe that they will gladly tell all, and be happy about it. Then, after they come down, pretend it never happened, mock the Koran (Quaran?), humiliate them, make them uncomfortable, etc (while stopping short of actual torture) all while asking the questions. They'll refuse to talk, and be happy suffering for the greater glory of God's will (or however they think of it). Meanwhile, we already have the information we need, without "torture" for the bleeding hearts to cry about. We win, and they think they win, how can this be bad for us?

These people are not signatories to any of the international agreements on treatment of prisoners, and so we violate nothing by using drugs on them.

And before someone pipes up that the information obtained would not be reliable, neither is the information obtained by traditional (or modern) torture. It is an observed fact that people will either die or confess to whatever the torturer asks, if the torture is harsh enough. Just look at the witch hunts and the Inquisition, among others. By itself, the information is not reliable, so why not use drugs, you get the same result, and it is more "humane".

 

[WhyteP38]

So SERE was voluntary. Unless draftees were sent involuntarily to it.

Logic is fun.

If your statement was logical, it would be fun. However, your statement is not logical. You are creating an endless causal chain.

SERE is one of many conditions in the training of a naval aviator. To say it you volunteered for SERE is to say that you volunteered to stand at attention in the hot sun during a change of command ceremony. You know it's going to happen at some point, it's part of the package, but to say you volunteered for it is stretching the word "volunteer" to cover everything that happens after you make any voluntary choice. To be true to your interpretation, you'd have to back up everything to the first voluntary act you took in your life. Which, of course, is ridiculous.

If you can't see the ridiculousness of your use of "volunteered," you and I will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Unregistered]

I don't think its fair to say you didn't volunteer, if you knew it was part of your training up front. How long were you waterboarded as part of your training?

 

[Justme]

You volunteer, and because you voluteered you -

know it's going to happen at some point

but you didn't volunteer for "it"?

Are you being purposely obtuse or are you really incapable of making causual links?

 

[JuanCarlos]

So SERE was voluntary. Unless draftees were sent involuntarily to it.

Logic is fun.

If your statement was logical, it would be fun. However, your statement is not logical. You are creating an endless causal chain.

I'd not call it endless. If SERE is a training requirement to become an aviator, then having to attend the school is a pretty direct consequence of that decision.

Standing in the sun during a change of command, on the other hand, is something that may or may not happen at some point in the future. I imagine if somebody dedicated themselves to it, it might be entirely possible to never attend such an event without any adverse actions taken against them.

When I enlisted in the Army, you bet I volunteered to go to basic, do pushups, and have drill sergeants treat me like crap. When I volunteered for a combat-arms MOS, I volunteered to do so in an all-male environment and undergo training that would likely be more intense (and was longer) than what many other recruits go through. Because both of these were direct results of that choice.

Now, when I joined the Army I didn't so much volunteer to pull KP on a Wednesday three years later...because that was a detail that was by no means a requirement of enlistment and could very well have been avoided (either accidentally or intentionally).

However, the impression you're giving me regarding aviation (and the impression I get regarding most special ops positions as well) is that SERE (unlike KP) is an explicit requirement: if you volunteer for the position, you will attend the school. Period. If that's an "endless causal chain" to you...well, whatever.

I don't think its fair to say you didn't volunteer, if you knew it was part of your training up front. How long were you waterboarded as part of your training?

Oh, it's especially ludicrous if you knew it was part of training up-front. Even if you didn't, it's still ludicrous if you have the option to resign/drop-out of the school (SERE or aviation in general) upon finding out that it will be part of the training. And it's also voluntary if you have the option to drop at any point during the actual SERE training (though I don't know if this is the case, and wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't) without actual criminal consequences.

 

[WhyteP38]

I'd not call it endless. If SERE is a training requirement to become an aviator, then having to attend the school is a pretty direct consequence of that decision.

What I wrote was “aviation personnel, O's or E's, who might be involved in combat operations were sent through SERE.” Not all aviation personnel are involved in combat ops.

When I was in, the squadron that flew scientists down to Antarctica was a Navy squadron (VXE-6), consisting of specially modified C-130s. That was not a combat billet (a.k.a. warfare designator); thus, those guys typically didn’t go through SERE (they may have previously if transferred in or would go through SERE if transferred out to a combat billet). (FYI, I heard the USAF now has that tasking.)

Standing in the sun during a change of command, on the other hand, is something that may or may not happen at some point in the future. I imagine if somebody dedicated themselves to it, it might be entirely possible to never attend such an event without any adverse actions taken against them.

I don’t know of any naval aviator who didn’t endure an outdoor change of command ceremony either in AOCS (a defunct program now), ROTC, the Academy, flight school, or at their squadron.

When I enlisted in the Army, you bet I volunteered to go to basic, do pushups, and have drill sergeants treat me like crap.

When I was in, the Navy aviation pipeline did not send everyone to a combat billet. Like I wrote above, some folks went to VXE-6 or similar non-combat billets (like the infamous “flying rubber dog-sh*t out of Hong Kong” cargo squadrons). I saw my share of jet-jockey wannabes get sent to props instead, and vice versa. Not every Navy rotorhead wanted to fly helicopters when he joined up. "Needs of the Navy." At times, it was like a box of chocolates: You never really knew what you were gonna get.

So to say that volunteering for aviation meant everything that flowed from that choice was a direct consequence of that decision is not correct. Not unless you ascribe to the endless causal chain idea.

I know of at least two married guys (NFOs) who wanted the “rubber dog-sh*t” squadrons because they wanted to maintain some semblance of family life. They didn’t get what they wanted. Instead, they went into jets and subsequently through SERE. So I guess at least those two were tortured, since they didn’t “volunteer” for SERE.

 

[WhyteP38]

But if you're still uncertain where to draw the line for where "volunteering" begins and ends, the answer is easy: Terrorists volunteer to be terrorists. Thus, anyone who intends to commit mass murder against citizens of the U.S. is volunteering to be waterboarded if they get caught by us at any time. Waterboarded should be a likely, direct consequence of that voluntary choice.

 

[JuanCarlos]

But if you're still uncertain where to draw the line for where "volunteering" begins and ends, the answer is easy: Anyone who intends to commit mass murder against citizens of the U.S. is volunteering to be waterboarded if they get caught at any time. Waterboarded should be a likely, direct consequence of that voluntary choice.

Because we have never, and will never, waterboard (or perform any other such technique on) anybody not guilty of this.

Right. Sure.

I know of at least two married guys (NFOs) who wanted the “rubber dog-sh*t” squadrons because they wanted to maintain some semblance of family life. They didn’t get what they wanted. Instead, they went into jets and subsequently through SERE. So I guess at least those two were tortured, since they didn’t “volunteer” for SERE.

Did they have the option to drop? Not go at all? Yes, obviously this would have serious career implications, and possibly involve a discharge...but was the option for such service members open to simply not undergo this? Without criminal repercussions, of course.

Note that I'm asking, this isn't rhetorical. I don't know how this training worked. I know the military, and it's at least possible that they'd not let you avoid this without a dishonorable discharge or criminal charges (for disobeying an order)...but honestly I do doubt it. And I particularly doubt that this would still be the case today.

Assuming it's possible to opt-out of being waterboarded in the school, even if there are career repercussions, I'd say that choosing to stay in for the treatment qualifies as quite voluntary.

And if it's not possible for trainees to drop out of such treatment, I'd say that abhorrent and something that needs to be changed.

Notice how I brought everything around there, and made my argument consistent no matter how you respond? EDIT: I think that last part was the missing link that was causing the confusion.

 

[WhyteP38]

Torture of any kind does more long term harm than short term good. Want to create a terrorist? Torture someones brother, or father.

Lots of US prisoners were tortured by the Nazis and the Japanese during WWII. I don't recall hearing about waves of them becoming terrorists.

My uncle-in-law was tortured by the NVA. Neither he nor anyone in his family is a terrorist.

I once worked with a guy who was a PFC in Korea and captured right at the beginning of the Korean War. The North Koreans tortured him by cutting a chunk out of his tongue. He was a PFC and didn't know squat, so the torture was simply for torture's sake. No purpose of any kind served, other than perverse entertainment and a way of showing they were superior. To this day, he still has no sense of taste. Neither he nor anyone in his family is a terrorist.

Take the WWII example. Did torture scare the US soldiers, or piss them off and make them fight harder?

Yep, made them fight harder. But it didn't make them into terrorists.

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?

They were killing themselves because their own people convinced them to do so.

If not using torture puts us at a disadvantage, as a civilised people we have to live with that.

Ironic choice of words, given that a lot of people might actually die with that.

 

[Justme]

Yes, it is ironic. Sort of like live free or die, the New Hampshire state motto.

I think the real issue is trying to define "torture" in the first place. Isn't that the govt position ie that waterboarding is not in fact torture? "They" know that the populace would not support torture so they claim that waterboarding is not torture.

As for torture creating a terrorist, I might have been better served by saying that torture would create very motivated enemies. While terrorists are usually very motivated enemies not all very motivated enemies become terrorists. It's still not a good idea to go around creating very motivated enemies, whether they actually go the terrorist route or not.

 

[WhyteP38]

Because we have never, and will never, waterboard (or perform any other such technique on) anybody not guilty of this.

Right. Sure.

If you're looking for perfection, good luck. I suppose we should never bomb a suspected Al Qaeda hideout if there is even the least possibility of accidentally injuring anyone who isn't Al Qaeda. But the harm brought to innocents is on the heads of the terrorists, so long as we perform due diligence to minimize harm to and don't deliberately target non-combatants. There's no other way to do it.

Did they have the option to drop? Not go at all? Yes, obviously this would have serious career implications, and possibly involve a discharge...but was the option for such service members open to simply not undergo this? Without criminal repercussions, of course.

Aviation, like the submarine community, doesn't want anyone who doesn't want to be there. A guy who quits functioning at 35,000 feet (or underwater) isn't someone you want in an airplane (or submarine, respectively). The only repercussion is you might be administratively discharged (unlikely) or sent somewhere else, such as surface warfare (likely). Oh, and you'll lose your hazardous duty pay.

Assuming it's possible to opt-out of being waterboarded in the school, even if there are career repercussions, I'd say that choosing to stay in for the treatment qualifies as quite voluntary.

To think someone is going to drop out at that point is ludicrous because no one ever thought of waterboarding as torture. I never heard of even one guy dropping because of waterboarding.

I think the real issue is trying to define "torture" in the first place. Isn't that the govt position ie that waterboarding is not in fact torture? "They" know that the populace would not support torture so they claim that waterboarding is not torture.

The first I ever heard of anyone considering it to be torture was within the past 2 years or so. Waterboarding isn't new nor was it a secret. For over 20 years that I'm aware of, people knew about waterboarding and didn't think that much of it. So for at least two decades it wasn't a big deal; now it's suddenly hell on Earth.

 

[WhyteP38]

As for torture creating a terrorist, I might have been better served by saying that torture would create very motivated enemies. While terrorists are usually very motivated enemies not all very motivated enemies become terrorists. It's still not a good idea to go around creating very motivated enemies, whether they actually go the terrorist route or not.

While I agree with you in the main, I think people who willingly fly themselves into buildings or who strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up, or who willing seek to kill women and children are already "very motivated enemies."

How much more can you motivate enemies who believe that you must die if you don't convert to their religion, and if they die in the process they go to heaven?

"Hey, Achmed, the Americans waterboarded Omar. Now I'm so mad, I'm going to blow myself up twice!"