Anyone posting here on the amount of intel. gathered or not gathered by waterboarding on this board is speculating at best for the sake of there beliefs. Nothing more,nothing less. We don`t interrogate P.O.W.`S just for the lack of better things to do. We must get enough intel. out of waterboarding to make it worth our while or we wouldn`t do it. Sure the most intel. is generally gathered off the street but there are times when interogations is a valable means of gathering intel. As for the mindset of alot of GI`S and waterboarding being torture or whether in many situations our military feels they are handicaped in this area I would beg to differ with you Playboy. As far as getting intel. out of a p.o.w. that we know has crucial information on enemies strategies(however we can) being barbaric, call it what you will. Thats the dark but a necessary part of a war. Hard to chat about it and be political correct. To much of the political correct B.S. today anyway.
Is waterboarding torture?
- Thread starter Creature
- Start date
Unregistered
Moderator
So we must compromise the principles of our civilization to preserve our civilization?
Unregisterer, study history. Not the first time we`ve done just that and it won`t be the last. But I will say what is civilized or barbaric to one may not be to another. For instance. to me its much more civilized to interogate someone I know has intel. that will keep alot of my men alive. It would be barbaric and uncivilized not to.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
That part we can agree upon.
Unregistered
Moderator
That almost makes sense. The problem is, how do you know before you torture them that they have intel?
How many people are you willing to interrogate via waterboarding to find the one who may have useful information? 100? 1000?
I realize we have only waterboarded 3 people (according to what has been officially released). But I am distrustful of government, even our own, to remain with the bounds of reason.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Generally, because information gathered via torture (be it pain or distress) is notoriously inaccurate and unreliable. It more often results in wasted manpower and time than not. Plus, it is a practice that is too easily abused.
In these specific cases, I am against it because these are people that have not been convicted of a crime. They have not received due process and establishing a precedent that it is acceptable to torture people without due process opens a Pandora's box. Just knowing (or thinking you know) someone did something wrong does not negate the need for due process and does not validate the non-adherence to willingly signed conduct agreements. Knit picking legalities of such agreements and not living up to the spirit of them also damages our credibility as a nation.
Unregistered
Moderator
Another thing to consider is that it is a slippery slope. Waterboard three foreign terrorists today, and convince people its ok to do, and its much easier to convince them its ok to do on domestic terrorists, criminals, and citizens.
Unregistered
Moderator
I think you have made my point. You are advocating waterboarding US citizens who are suspected of, but have not been convicted of, a crime.
Do you really want to give away your right to a trial, and your protection against cruel and unusual punishment in exchange for a perception of safety?
Shane Tuttle
Staff
If that's what you think will happen....Yes. No good to worry about the preservation of our civilization if we're extinct from the map.
Here's a list of my questions that I posed that still hasn't been answered.
What "character" trumps the will to survive?
What honor is it when our military has both hands tied behind their back (not just waterboarding issues) and still expect to fight the enemy?
What good is honor if we're not here to live to defend it or what's left?
And, one that I've asked more than once that nobody has responded to...
My viewpoint is it's a moot point on this thread. Some here are adament that it can, at times, get desired results quick. Others claim it doesn't do ANY good. What questions I do have to pose is this:
Do you REALLY think if it becomes law to not use waterboarding that our military will necessarily refrain from using it? Do you REALLY think that if it doesn't become law that the military will go hog wild using it on every turn they can?
And what methods do you claim to be effective? I ask because I really don't know and am not up to date on current tactics.
As far as we have come since we started to colonize America, have you really lost faith in our Republic? What tactics do we use today in the battlefield that we use today on an arrested armed robber?
And they shouldn't. It's an act of war. They are enemy combatants, not an armed robber. They don't deserve due process. This is one common denominator that keeps going round and round on this thread. I wish there was a way for some people to realize that you can't mix these two basic differences.
Like I said back in my first post on this thread....I don't have all the answers, but how hard is it to establish rules of usage of waterboarding to specific parameters. If our Founding Fathers were brilliant enough to lay some genious guidelines that made our country so great today, surely we can make some acceptable guidelines pertaining to waterboarding.
And what good then does it do to put it on paper to outlaw it? Do you trust a would-be criminal to obey our laws?
Unregistered
Moderator
Ok help me undertand. Are you saying you would only waterboard domestic terrorists that have been convicted? Or are you saying you would waterboard suspected domestic terrorists, but not waterboard for any other crime.
In either case, you seem to have an extreme disregard for the 8th Amendment of the Constitution which guarantees that citizens (and domestic terrorists are citizens by definition or they wouldnt be domestic) are protected against cruel and unusual punishment.
Would you therefor advocate abolition of the 8th amendment?
Because that is the only way I can see how you are going to get around the whole "cruel and unusual" thing.
You are broadening the argument beyond the scope of this thread. And I don't particularly see how our military has had both hands tied behind its back. Petreaus has gotten just about everything he wanted, and so has the CIA, including permission to waterboard from the president.
What good is life if we have no honor. If we have to become savages to fight savages, we have accomplished nothing... other than we have turned into the very thing we were trying to defeat.
My comment that prompted the above statement was in regard to slippery slope, or the idea that the government will expand any power it is given. Do you disagree with this? When income tax started, I believe the maximum rate was less than 10%. Now its about 38%. When Medicare was started, benefits were moderate. Now look at the Medicare Drug program. When the federal government was given power over education, they became massively intrusive in what should have been a local issue. My point is, of course, that any time we give government more power, or special power, politicians and bureaucrats will tend to expand that power beyond what was originally intended.
I have not lost faith in the Republic, but I have lost faith in our politicians and bureaucrats, many of whom are power hungry authoritarians.
Do you have children? Have you ever asked them to do something, and they still did it anyway? If so, what was the point of telling them not to do it in the first place? I mean, they aren't going to obey your rules, so why have them. Do you just let them run amock?
Of course not. We have rules to keep people in line. If there are at least rules against something then there should at least be some degree of fear that prevents them from immediately breaking the rules.
Why have laws against murder? After all, many people dont obey the law.
Unregistered, again you`re clearly trying to confuse Hawgs comments as he clearly stated due process was the right of every American citizen. I also feel that after that due process and this "domestic terrorist" is found guilty and we feel he holds intel. on a possible plot to do distruction here but will not give up info, that waterboarding should not be out of question. Lets take a scenario that a "domestic terrorist" is caught,goes through due process,found guilty of plotting something similar to 9/11 but the act hasn`t happened yet. We know that this guy is one of the guys directly involved in planning attack but he`s not the only one and attack will be pulled off without him. Would you then condone waterboarding(or any other means of inter.) to stop attack? Before you answer that,stop and think that maybe one of your family members may be working in building about to be blown up. Whats more cruel and unusual punishment, getting this intel. or letting guy sit in jail and watching another 9/11 happen? Also lets not confuse the issue. We weren`t talking about waterboarding a peace time civilian for anything. We`ve been talking about interrogating(waterboarding) "war time" POW`S that where thought to have intel. pertinent to the war we`re in. HUGE DIFFERENCE! IMHO, the terrorist war as we know it today is relatively new to us as we`ve not experienced much of it on our own soil. We`ve also not faced an evil combatant such as we are now for a long time. Alot of these people are brainwashed from childhood to distruct Israel and U.S. Its pretty clear that we`ve got alot more on our plate than to worry about waterboarding. Correct me if I`m wrong but didn`t bin laden make the statement that "they would use our own laws to defeat us". They are doing exactly that. Its clear you and a few others here think waterboarding is torture. I again ask you what forms of interrogation would you use?
Unregistered
Moderator
Even if a domestic terrorist is convicted of terrorism, he remains a citizen and is therefore protected from cruel and unusual punishment by the constitution. There is no way around that without abolition of the 8th Amendment. So I must say that NO, I would not waterboard a US citizen even if he might have useful information.
Secondly, from a practical standpoint, your scenario is unlikely to actually occur. By the time a domestic terrorist is caught, given a fair trial, and convicted of terrorism, months or maybe years have passed. Padilla's case is an example. So it is very unlikely that after he has been convicted, he would still have any timely intel to extract. More than likely, the attack that was being planned would have already occurred.
You also seem to be drawing a distinction between peace time and war time. That is a false distinction, as I do not believe our government will ever declare the war on terrorism to be over. It will wax and wane, but always be there, like the war on drugs, and will always be used as an excuse that desperate times call for desperate measures. Many people, such as yourself shortwave, will fall for this ploy, and give up liberty in exchange for a perception of safety.
Secondly, from a practical standpoint, your scenario is unlikely to actually occur. By the time a domestic terrorist is caught, given a fair trial, and convicted of terrorism, months or maybe years have passed. Padilla's case is an example. So it is very unlikely that after he has been convicted, he would still have any timely intel to extract. More than likely, the attack that was being planned would have already occurred.
You also seem to be drawing a distinction between peace time and war time. That is a false distinction, as I do not believe our government will ever declare the war on terrorism to be over. It will wax and wane, but always be there, like the war on drugs, and will always be used as an excuse that desperate times call for desperate measures. Many people, such as yourself shortwave, will fall for this ploy, and give up liberty in exchange for a perception of safety.
Unregistered, I will say that I am willing to do whatever it takes, however it needs to be done to protect the safety of the U.S. Your absolutely correct on the scenario and the time frame it would take in todays due process. Thats my point exactly. Don`t think for one minute these different groups of terrorist don`t know our laws. Again, quote "we`ll use your own laws to defeat you" This terrorist arrested in scenario sits in jail waiting for due process and our intel. that we`ve gathered tells us a big attack is going to happen. Thats why we arrested him in first place. Are we supposed to wait on due process and let attack happen? Once again you`ve tapped danced around the question I asked. How would you effectively interrogate this guy?
Thanks shortwave. I couldn't have said it any better, probably not as well. Unregistered, I said I didn't have a problem with it(meaning) if it was ever decided to be used on domestic terrorists. I wasn't exactly proposing we do it. You're right the time frame involved would be too lengthy for it to be of any use the way things are now.
Unregistered
Moderator
We would use traditional interrogation techniques. The majority of intel we have acquired in the WOT was obtained using traditional methods, not waterboarding. Plus, use the same techniques that prosecutors today use on criminals: tell the domestic terrorist that he will be charged with treason, which is punishable by the death penalty... but if he talks, we will reduce that to life in prison. Most people would take that.
The only other option would be to abolish the 8th Amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment, and then repeal any federal and state laws that restrict cruel and unusual punishment.
We can't allow the government to operate outside the bounds of the law. You will have to change laws, not just policy, if you want to waterboard citizens.
Shane Tuttle
Staff
Unregistered, I do appreciate your insight and answering some of my questions. Considering many people don't live at their computer and actually log on here I can definitely understand that my questions aren't going to be answered immediately.
However, I think I do ask serious questions that I wish were addressed. (This isn't directed at you, it's members as a whole)
Have you served recently? Do you not see the media spectacle that's going on? Do you think the way the military was operating in WWII is the same way today? Their rules of engagement was different. I'm talking our military then got much more support from home and our soldiers had a looser leash than they have today. So, no, I'm not broadening the argument beyond the scope. I'm tying in the fact that our military needs whatever they need to win and they're not getting it without being under a microscope. If they've used other interrogation tactics that didn't work, then I say let them waterboard to see if they can get intel that's verifiable.
If we become "savages", (which I think is a stretch beyond the imagination), I don't see us tying C4 to ourselves and running into a terrorist camp. At least we would have a life to restore our honor.
I agree with you. However, that's why it's a Republic. Don't like the way our politicians are representing you? Fine. Vote them out. Just because citizens keep voting in the idiots doesn't mean we shouldn't place reasonable laws to allow waterboarding with specific instructions.
I understand your point. My point is that even if you make it law, how do you know the government will follow it? At this point, I'm almost for making it law that you don't waterboard. I'm sure there's special forces units that would use it anyway without us knowing. And to me, I don't care if they do.
However, I think I do ask serious questions that I wish were addressed. (This isn't directed at you, it's members as a whole)
Have you served recently? Do you not see the media spectacle that's going on? Do you think the way the military was operating in WWII is the same way today? Their rules of engagement was different. I'm talking our military then got much more support from home and our soldiers had a looser leash than they have today. So, no, I'm not broadening the argument beyond the scope. I'm tying in the fact that our military needs whatever they need to win and they're not getting it without being under a microscope. If they've used other interrogation tactics that didn't work, then I say let them waterboard to see if they can get intel that's verifiable.
If we become "savages", (which I think is a stretch beyond the imagination), I don't see us tying C4 to ourselves and running into a terrorist camp. At least we would have a life to restore our honor.
I agree with you. However, that's why it's a Republic. Don't like the way our politicians are representing you? Fine. Vote them out. Just because citizens keep voting in the idiots doesn't mean we shouldn't place reasonable laws to allow waterboarding with specific instructions.
I understand your point. My point is that even if you make it law, how do you know the government will follow it? At this point, I'm almost for making it law that you don't waterboard. I'm sure there's special forces units that would use it anyway without us knowing. And to me, I don't care if they do.
Last edited: