Hitchens' voluntary waterboarding

Please, study up on your history. The term 'cruel and unusual punishment' referred specifically to drawing and quartering.

Incidentally, the practice was British, and they often prescribed it for treason. To them, the US revolutionaries wer both traitors and terrorists, so no punishment was too great.
Click to expand...

The practice of drawing and quartering was not addressed by the supreme court until nearly 100 years after the constitution was adopted. My point was that it was deemed an acceptable punishment at the time, i.e. it was not immoral.

An earlier poster said that spies should be treated traditionally, i.e. shot. There are people who think this is immoral. Talk to a quaker and he'll say military service is immoral.

This argument of morality is ridiculous because there isn't anything 'factual' about it. Islamic terrorists think its moral to kill non-muslims because Allah mandates it. Who is to say that their morality is any more valid that yours.
 
Who is to say that their morality is any more valid that yours.
Click to expand...
That is a classic logical fallacy. It essentially tries to define morality out of existence. Logically, all morality is abitrary, however, that is not particularly informative here. Following that logic, we could say: "all, who are we to judge the Nazis in WWII? In their time and place that was not immoral." Obviously that is preposterous.

For the purposes of our culture and context, now and for the last 200 years, torture is and has always been immoral. The fact that drawing and quartering was not addressed right away is not germaine to this argument. the historical context is, and the 'cruel and unusual punishment clause' was a direct result of torture by the British.
 
Logically, all morality is abitrary, however, that is not particularly informative here.
Click to expand...

No its extremely informative. You can't base an argument on "morality" because it has no basis in logic.


Following that logic, we could say: "all, who are we to judge the Nazis in WWII? In their time and place that was not immoral." Obviously that is preposterous.
Click to expand...

Sure, if you wanted to take it to that absurd context. But we don't need to because we have plenty of real examples in todays society. There are people who don't believe we should hold ANY of the detainees. There are people who believe that not letting Osama have access to our courts is immoral. There are people who don't believe this war is moral period.

At the end of the day, all this boils down to is two people saying, "this is wrong... cause" or "this is fine... cause". The "cause" is morality. Its not factually based, its a personal value judgement and its a poor way to run a war.

Thats why we need to argue from the facts. The facts are that this method is effective. The facts are that this method is safe and causes no physical injury. The facts are that people have voluntered for this treatment and have suffered no adverse effects. The facts are that we don't use this indescriminately or as a form of punishment.



For the purposes of our culture and context, now and for the last 200 years, torture is and has always been immoral.
Click to expand...

Not so at all. We as a society generally shun torture as a method, but reserve it for extreme circumstances. Remember the ticking time bomb? As I said before, even the squeamish would advocate breaking a couple of kneecaps if it meant finding the bomb planted somewhere in the city. So torture is not de facto immoral. It is a method only reserved for extreme circumstances.
 
So then we should be able to take every detainee from gitmo out back and send a round through their brain right? After all, they are by definition saboteurs.
Click to expand...

If you can prove them to be spies and saboteurs then yes. At present it is more along the lines of "We think you are one so we are going to do as we please with you."

I find it saddening that the same people who believe America stands for something noble in this world also accept institutionalized torture conducted by the US Gov't.
 
Remember the ticking time bomb? As I said before, even the squeamish would advocate breaking a couple of kneecaps if it meant finding the bomb planted somewhere in the city. So torture is not de facto immoral. It is a method only reserved for extreme circumstances.
Click to expand...

and there is the bogus argument put up time and time again by those in favor of using torture. "What if there were a bomb set to blow up New York City!?!?"

If you want to throw out such an outlandish an outrageous scenario, where only the torture of an individual would allow the saving of millions of lives then I will counter with something built into our COTUS to specifically address actions taken which may be illegal but in hindsight were needed. Presidential Pardon.

If you feel the need for torture to get such information is so critical and the information so valuable for the saving of life then roll the dice with YOUR OWN FREEDOM. Don't go looking for a gov't mandate to torture, if you think you are right and it is so critical then just do it and plead your case to the President and American public. If you really are justified and America thinks it was worthwhile you will get your pardon.

See, our system even accounts for the outlandish "ticking bomb" scenario without resorting to institutionalized torture.
 
If you can prove them to be spies and saboteurs then yes. At present it is more along the lines of "We think you are one so we are going to do as we please with you."
Click to expand...

Sabotage is a deliberate action aimed at weakening an enemy, oppressor or employer through subversion, obstruction, disruption, and/or destruction. A saboteur is one who engages in sabotage. Terrorism is a form of sabotage therefore terrorists are saboteurs.

Now you and I might be fine with killing these folks, but there are plenty of people who aren't. This gets us back to the morality argument. If sabotage or treason doesn't warrant a death sentence, then what does.

As far as your assessment of how we treat these people, I'd like to see some proof. Every investigation out of gitmo has shown that there isn't anything wrong with the conditions there.

Further, the latest stats show that we recapture on the battlefield 10-20% of the folks we've released. That of course doesn't take into account the folks that we've killed and have yet to kill/capture. I dont' know about you but that tells me that most if not all of these folks aren't the maytag repair man.

I find it saddening that the same people who believe America stands for something noble in this world also accept institutionalized torture conducted by the US Gov't.
Click to expand...

You keep saying this but I have yet to see any proof that "torture" is institutionalized. 3 people out of thousands isn't institutional by any means.

Secondly, your argument is fallacious. Its perfectly acceptable to stand for something noble and believe that we should waterboard terrorists. "Noble" doesn't come from actions, it comes from motivation. Again, killing isn't good or bad. It simply is. If I kill the mugger thats a good thing. If the mugger kills its a bad thing.

Torturing pow's in the fashion of the japanese or VC is bad while waterboarding terrorists is not for the same reason. We didn't start this conflict. We don't have any desire to continue it. We take every precaution not to harm those in detention, and we use waterboarding only after other methods have failed.

Its a massive difference that you simply refuse to recognize because then you wouldn't be able to lump everything together in one big package labled "torture".
 
and there is the bogus argument put up time and time again by those in favor of using torture. "What if there were a bomb set to blow up New York City!?!?"
Click to expand...

Its not my argument. However it is relevant to dispel the idea that we are against torture in every situation. We aren't.

Furthermore, if you recall several posts back I explained why the ticking time bomb example is ridiculous because thats not how things work in real life. Attacks against us are months and years in the making. There isn't oen or two people, there are many involved.

Thats why its stupid to support torture in the "ticking time bomb" situation because it doesn't exist in real life, at least where terrorism is concerned.


If you want to throw out such an outlandish an outrageous scenario, where only the torture of an individual would allow the saving of millions of lives then I will counter with something built into our COTUS to specifically address actions taken which may be illegal but in hindsight were needed. Presidential Pardon.
Click to expand...

Don't forget exigent circumstances. Police officers can violate the hell out of your 4th amendment rights in the proper scenario, and no "illegality" is involved. Of course, these folks don't have any "rights" under the constitution, so presidential pardons or 4th amendment exceptions aren't necessary.

However the fact that they are there is yet another example of how certian circumstances require extraordinary actions.


If you feel the need for torture to get such information is so critical and the information so valuable for the saving of life then roll the dice with YOUR OWN FREEDOM. Don't go looking for a gov't mandate to torture, if you think you are right and it is so critical then just do it and plead your case to the President and American public. If you really are justified and America thinks it was worthwhile you will get your pardon.
Click to expand...

I don't need to plead my case. The CIA is doing just fine on its own. Furthermore, there isn't anything patently illegal about waterboarding. If there were we wouldn't be having this debate nor would congress.


See, our system even accounts for the outlandish "ticking bomb" scenario without resorting to institutionalized torture.
Click to expand...

Again, I'd like to see some proof of how torture is institutionalized.
 
It strikes me that with all the hub-bub about waterboarding being torture, we seemingly have no end of anti-torture protesters who will volunteer to be waterboarded. And yet I have never heard of any anti-torture protester who has ever volunteered to have his fingernails ripped out, his fingers broken, his genitals hooked up to electric-shock cables, his face strapped to a rat cage, or any other form of torture that I am aware of.

Clearly, there must be something different about waterboarding when you have dozens (or more) volunteers for waterboarding, and 0 volunteers for the other techniques. So what is that difference? It must be an extremely important difference to cause such a stark disparity.
 
Clearly, there must be something different about waterboarding when you have dozens (or more) volunteers for waterboarding, and 0 volunteers for the other techniques. So what is that difference? It must be an extremely important difference to cause such a stark disparity.
Click to expand...

Ummm, you've got it wrong. It's the PRO-torture people that are volunteering to be water boarded. And they keep coming away saying that yes it is torture. (i.e. they indicate that their initial views were clearly wrong)

Who are you thinking of when you say "anti-torture" volunteers? Maybe you are confusing those that are offering to demonstrate on those that think it is not torture?
 
Clearly, there must be something different about waterboarding when you have dozens (or more) volunteers for waterboarding, and 0 volunteers for the other techniques. So what is that difference? It must be an extremely important difference to cause such a stark disparity.
Click to expand...

There is. Waterboarding causes the sensation of drowning. That why is is still torture...waterboarding is so effective because of the extreme mental distress induced by the sudden onset of the drowning sensation. Torture doesn't need to leave physical marks to still be torture. Go figure.

Not convinced? Try sticking your own head in a bucket and keeping it there. I'll bet you cant do it. Why is that?
 
Ummm, you've got it wrong.
Click to expand...
Ummm, no I don't. There have been anti-waterboarding demonstrators who do public demonstrations of waterboarding as a way of protesting waterboarding. Stuff I've seen on the news like at this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS4sGYmzCuA

Again, if people who are anti-waterboarding will volunteer to be waterboarded as a way of saying that it is torture, why were they not willing in the past to volunteer to have their fingernails ripped out, their fingers broken, etc. to protest those forms of torture? Something must account for a willingness to engage in one but not in the others.
 
Waterboarding is not new. The only thing new is our leaders supporting it. We once had a president by the name of Theodore Roosevelt who had one of his generals court martialed and dismissed from service for waterboarding captives.

Here is a nice quote from Roosevelt on the subject:

“The president desires to know in the fullest and most circumstantial manner all the facts, ... for the very reason that the president intends to back up the Army in the heartiest fashion in every lawful and legitimate method of doing its work; he also intends to see that the most vigorous care is exercised to detect and prevent any cruelty or brutality and that men who are guilty thereof are punished. Great as the provocation has been in dealing with foes who habitually resort to treachery, murder and torture against our men, nothing can justify or will be held to justify the use of torture or inhuman conduct of any kind on the part of the American Army.”


How are things different now? Have we become a nation of cowards so focused on our own survival that we will totally compromise the ideals upon which our nation was founded?
 
Again, if people who are anti-waterboarding will volunteer to be waterboarded as a way of saying that it is torture, why were they not willing in the past to volunteer to have their fingernails ripped out, their fingers broken, etc. to protest those forms of torture? Something must account for a willingness to engage in one but not in the others.
Click to expand...

again...because those methods you describe leave permanent physical disfigurment. Waterboarding does not.
 
That why is is still torture...waterboarding is so effective because of the extreme mental distress induced by the sudden onset of the drowning sensation.
Click to expand...
People have felt such extreme mental distress induced by the sudden loss of money that they have committed suicide or murder. And yet we still allow gambling, overextended credit cards, the stock market, etc. Those can and have also been effective ways of inducing people to succumb to blackmail. But we wouldn't say gambling, credit cards, the stock market, etc. are torture simply because they can induce extreme mental distress.

Also, how many people have actually suffered bodily harm or death resulting from waterboarding v. gambling, overextended credit cards, the stock market, etc.? I have never heard of a single instance of bodily harm or death resulting from waterboarding. However, gambling, overextended credit cards, the stock market, etc. have caused suicides, murders, heart attacks, and untold numbers of injuries (from failed suicides or attempted murders).
 
Waterboarding is not new. The only thing new is our leaders supporting it. We once had a president by the name of Theodore Roosevelt who had one of his generals court martialed and dismissed from service for waterboarding captives.

Here is a nice quote from Roosevelt on the subject:

“The president desires to know in the fullest and most circumstantial manner all the facts, ... for the very reason that the president intends to back up the Army in the heartiest fashion in every lawful and legitimate method of doing its work; he also intends to see that the most vigorous care is exercised to detect and prevent any cruelty or brutality and that men who are guilty thereof are punished. Great as the provocation has been in dealing with foes who habitually resort to treachery, murder and torture against our men, nothing can justify or will be held to justify the use of torture or inhuman conduct of any kind on the part of the American Army.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That's a quote on the subject of torture, but it does not equate torture with waterboarding, so as such it proves nothing and fails to go to the point of the topic. Basically, what you are saying is: "Teddy Roosevelt disliked torture. I think waterboarding is torture. Therefore, Teddy Roosevelt disliked waterboarding." Sorry, but there's no logical connection in what you posted.
How are things different now? Have we become a nation of cowards so focused on our own survival that we will totally compromise the ideals upon which our nation was founded?
Click to expand...
Before our Revolutionary War, to hide behind trees or walls and shoot at soldiers was considered a cowardly way to fight. We now call it "guerilla tactics," and we fight from behind cover and concealment because we value our survival.
 
That's a quote on the subject of torture, but it does not equate torture with waterboarding, so as such it proves nothing and fails to go to the point of the topic. Basically, what you are saying is: "Teddy Roosevelt disliked torture. I think waterboarding is torture. Therefore, Teddy Roosevelt disliked waterboarding." Sorry, but there's no logical connection in what you posted.
Click to expand...

No, thats not right. The quote from Roosevelt was made in reference to his dismissal of a general for using waterboarding.
 
Ummm, you've got it wrong. It's the PRO-torture people that are volunteering to be water boarded. And they keep coming away saying that yes it is torture. (i.e. they indicate that their initial views were clearly wrong)
Click to expand...

Just exactly who are these pro-torture people who have changed their minds?

If anything, I submit that the fact people are willing to try it places it in a category all its own. Its obviously not a prima facie example of torture if people need to actually experience it to figure out whether its that bad.


How are things different now? Have we become a nation of cowards so focused on our own survival that we will totally compromise the ideals upon which our nation was founded?
Click to expand...

Things aren't different. We still don't waterboard or abuse POW's. These folks are not pows and aren't afforded any of the protections thereof.


again...because those methods you describe leave permanent physical disfigurment. Waterboarding does not.
Click to expand...

Which has been a traditional halmark of torture. Show me any historical example of an organization/regime in modern day that tortured people and you won't find any folks that got away with "psychological torture".


Its laughable that some folks here are essentially making the argument that people who indescriminately murder our troops and innocent women and children have a right not to be scared. Thats just phooey. We aren't going to kill you (even though we should) and we aren't going to abuse you (even though you deserve it) but we should be damned if we are going to tip toe around your sensitivities so you aren't afraid.

These folks should be afraid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top