Is waterboarding torture?

[Ledbetter]

Didn't vote

Don't care what you call it.

When you're the subject of a 'Holy War" carried out by suicide bombers dressed as ordinary Americans, the old rules don't apply.

As far as I'm concerned, if they tried to kill American soldiers or any nationality of civilian, go ahead and drown them. As Hawg Haggen said, y'all go ahead and feel good about your "compassion and sympathy" for your "fellow man." I'll save mine for my countrymen, as our enemies do.

 

[roscoe]

You seem to think that barbarism is the most efective way to win the conflict. You should look up the history of insurgencies. Overreaction has never been the way to win. In fact, they WANT us to overreact. That is how insurgencies gain popular support. Look at the world after 9-11. We had support the world over, which we have thrown away by overreacting.

Aside from the moral considerations, which may not sway folks who choose not to apply questions of morals to people who are not Americans, the fact is that it is a major strategic mistake to torture. Occasionally we gain intelligence, but at the cost of the cooperation of intelligence agencies and governments around the globe, not to mention the enmity of the populaitons on the ground who we need most to cooperate. Again, this follows the historical pattern of insurgencies.

As can be seen by posts here, some people are so guided by their emotional responses that no other reaction than destruction is acceptable, even if it is ultimately not the smart choice.

 

[Bruxley]

Aside from a few flippant and inarticulate posts I don't see people advocating barbarism as means of resolving a conflict. That is a wild exaggeration of what waterboarding has been used for.

Waterboarding is not and has not been used on soldiers, POWs, or ANYONE affiliated with any nation let alone a Geneva conventions signatory. It has been done 3 times and the total time combined is less then 3 minutes and it effectively yielded intel that stopped terrorist actions and saved unknown numbers of innocent American lives. And at the end of each of the days these people were waterboarded they were not suffering and were uninjured.

I do agree with you that far too many people here are guided by emotional responses.

 

[STAGE 2]

Go right ahead. If you feel your freedom is worth saving the lives of fellow Americans I applaud your sense of duty and responsibility to make a decision to take an action which you know to be illegal and be held accountable for it. If it was the right decision you can always ask for a Presidential Pardon and I would wager you would get it. If it was the wrong decision then you have to pay for it.

Musketeer, I implore you to stop with the false statements. There is no "pardon" issue here because there is no crime. Again, foreign terrorists in foreign nations. They have no rights under the constitution. Please stop pretending like they do.

So then where is Osama Bin Laden?

Again, another fallacy. Whether or not we have found Osama has nothing to do with whether waterboarding produced actionable intelligence that saved lives.

And that is where it gets sticky. How do we define a terrorist? How do we define enemy combatant. Is a suspected terrorist the same as a terrorist? Habeas Corpus is back on life support but does being called a suspected terrorist make it null and void? If so, that's dangerous for us all.

Well here's a novel idea. Don't get caught waging a war against US troops in a foreign nation. Don't get caught with a backpack full of cash and a cell phone full of al quaeda contacts.

And again this argument that if it happens to some guy picked up in downtown kabul it can happen to some guy in Virginia beach is ridiculous. We've already settled this issue with Padilla. The fact that all of the government screwups have been with convicted terrorists doesn't cause me to lose sleep at night.

Torturing and incarcerating them indefinitely is expensive, and also makes us look like savages to the rest of the world. Summary execution to those combatants we think deserve it is not cruel or unusual. It is also quick, and gets them out of the media spot light.

One of the reasons I know that the folks who support waterboarding are in the right is because the folks here who oppose it have to fabricate facts to support their argument. First, we don't torture people indefinitely. Nor do we hold them indefinately (though we probably should because of how many return to the fight). We have waterboarded 3 people. Thats it. Three.

Now I don't know what kind of logic it takes to make the argument that waterboarding 3 people is far more heinous than summarily executing hundreds but its certianly no logic I've ever heard of.

However I do know this. Anyone, and I mean anyone who thinks that Al jazeera or any other sympathetic media would let the fact that we killed these people "get out of the media spotlight" is as naive as they come.

You seem to think that barbarism is the most efective way to win the conflict.

It is when you're dealing with barbarians.

You should look up the history of insurgencies. Overreaction has never been the way to win. In fact, they WANT us to overreact. That is how insurgencies gain popular support. Look at the world after 9-11. We had support the world over, which we have thrown away by overreacting.

Actually its just the opposite. There is only one way to win a war of attrition and thats not by treating people with kid gloves.

Occasionally we gain intelligence, but at the cost of the cooperation of intelligence agencies and governments around the globe, not to mention the enmity of the populaitons on the ground who we need most to cooperate. Again, this follows the historical pattern of insurgencies.

Just more fabricated statements. 3 for 3 isn't "occasionally". Nor do our friends care that we waterboarded these people. That and I'm fairly certian that if the Iraqis are aware that we did waterboard these 3 people, they really could care less about what happens to 2 Saudis and a Paki.

You make the mistake of assuming that we can't win over the people of Iraq while getting information from terrorists. We can easily can because the terrorists are foreign fighters, not iraqis. They are very much disliked by the population over there.

 

[Musketeer]

Musketeer, I implore you to stop with the false statements. There is no "pardon" issue here because there is no crime. Again, foreign terrorists in foreign nations. They have no rights under the constitution. Please stop pretending like they do.

STAGE2, I implore you to show me where we have the right to torture anyone we choose simply because we declare them an enemy? Who has oversight of that?

ROSCOE is 100% on the mark here:

Aside from the moral considerations, which may not sway folks who choose not to apply questions of morals to people who are not Americans, the fact is that it is a major strategic mistake to torture. Occasionally we gain intelligence, but at the cost of the cooperation of intelligence agencies and governments around the globe, not to mention the enmity of the populaitons on the ground who we need most to cooperate. Again, this follows the historical pattern of insurgencies.

We have lost mountains of support around the world and actions like Guantanamo Bay's pyramids of naked prisoners and water boarding have done more to swell the enemy's ranks and harm us internationally than any number of Osama Bin Laden tapes broadcast on Al Jazeera. If your sense of morality is so lacking in development that you condone the conduct of state sponsored torture and abuse of prisoners there is little I can do to change your mind that it is wrong. Perhaps the damage it has done to American prestige and the real impact it has on our relations and ability to gain the assistance of other nations in fighting Islamic Extremists might help change your mind that the benefits of such behavior are far outweighed by the drawbacks.

I doubt that will matter to such individuals though because they most certainly hold the "With Us or Against Us" mentality where TEAM AMERICA can be depended on to unilaterally swoop in and solve all the world's problems.

 

[Bruxley]

Hyperbolized rhetoric like that demonstrated above and 'leaking' of classified information in half-truths knowing the rest of the story can''t be told without further disclosure of classified information are what is causing the effects you proclaim above.

The effort to force the round peg of harsh interrogation into the square hole of torture by hammering it over and over for political gain has the unintended consequence you discribed above. Succefully fitting it into that hole will result in the unintended consequence I eluded to here:

Wouldn't it be cool if countries we had issues with like Iran or China outlawed harsh interrogation. I bet we would have a lot more people willing to risk covert intelligence or other clandestine activities there. Wouldn't be long before we had their whole loaf of bread huh. SWEEEET

You get it?

Reasoned and factual discourse as opposed to hyperbolized rhetoric are what stain topics locally and abroad. How about addressing these facts instead of just being "guided by emotional responses" which is something we agree upon is problematic.

 

[STAGE 2]

STAGE2, I implore you to show me where we have the right to torture anyone we choose simply because we declare them an enemy? Who has oversight of that?

I can see you aren't going to stop with the hyperbole or fabrications.

As far as your question, heres my answer. "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional."

You keep talking about "rights" which these folks dont have and "morals" which are a completely fluid concept. And you top it off with stories of victims who are endlessly "tortured" for doing nothing wrong.

The fact that your position requires all of this fabrication and hedging should tell you something.

We have lost mountains of support around the world and actions like Guantanamo Bay's pyramids of naked prisoners and water boarding have done more to swell the enemy's ranks and harm us internationally than any number of Osama Bin Laden tapes broadcast on Al Jazeera.

Again, more fabrication. Our allies havent changed and al quaedas ranks haven't swelled. By all accounts, they are at their weakest point since 9/11. As far as the 'international community' do you honestly think that the british don't engage in harsh interrogation techniques. What about the Israelis? Care to guess at what they do?

There simply isn't any evidence that the people who are honest about opposing islamic terrorism have changed their positions because we have waterboarded 3 people.

 

[Musketeer]

You get it?

Yes, I see.

So if you think we should hold ourselves to no higher standards than shown by our enemies can we also do away with all those annoying civil rights which get in the way of prosecuting the war on terror, communism, crime, Islamofascism, racism, hate and all the rest? Most of those groups are not hinderred by our Civil Rights so why should we be while fighting to preserve them?

 

[STAGE 2]

So if you think we should hold ourselves to no higher standards than shown by our enemies

But we do. We don't kill innocent people. We only act in self defense. We don't use terror to bring about policy changes. We don't cause people needless harm.

The most ridiculous thing about all of this is that if waterboarding was a heinous as you allege, then the enemy would do it. They don't. They go straight for the rusty knife, the car battery or whatever else. The fact that they don't waterboard their captors should tell you something.

 

[Ledbetter]

What the enemy wants is propoganda.

Roscoe: Waterboarding is not an overreaction. When ignorant persons portray waterboarding as the end of the world, THAT is the over-reaction your enemies are looking to YOU to provide. Congratulations on making them happy.

If all the enemy did was waterboard a few Americans, there wouldn't be the potential for WWIII, which is what they really want. We should all be holding signs that say:

CAUTION: The next American that gets beheaded in this country will cause the sand under your feet to glaze over due to the heat from the blast.

 

[Bruxley]

Yes, I see.

So if you think we should hold ourselves to no higher standards than shown by our enemies can we also do away with all those annoying civil rights which get in the way of prosecuting the war on terror, communism, crime, Islamo Fascism, racism, hate and all the rest? Most of those groups are not hindered by our Civil Rights so why should we be while fighting to preserve them?

No you don't get it.

Should harsh interrogation be too much for terrorist activity or intelligence activities THERE they we would do MUCH more of it as far more people would be willing to take such risk. So we would have their very sustenance with our hands as their sovereignty nor the lives of their civilians is worth harsh interrogation that at the end of the day leaves them UNHARMED.

Should we do that, the same result. MORE members of foreign entities and terrorist entities would be willing to take our sovereignty and the lives of our citizens so their would not be worth exposing people to harsh interrogation that leaves them UNHARMED at the end of the day.

NOW do you get the point? The unintended consequences of unaware third parties going 'oh my god, that's mean and should be illegal' when they are told that people are forcible drowned as a measure to investigate crimes. 'That's torture' is true in the face of misinformation. But tell them that of ALL 3 people water boarded that the grand total of time was less then 3 minutes, that it's a simulation of drowning but is impossible to actually drown the way is was performed, that those people were complete and uninjured and as comfortable 20 minutes later as they were before and that they gave information that stopped terrorist attacks on innocent civilians that were actively planned and in the course of being implemented saving unknown number of lives and the opinion would be quite different. Here and abroad. Unfortunately for those hyperbolizing it and trying to hammer the round peg of waterboarding into the square peg of torture if it was presented accurately Bush may have been applauded for the work and political equity gained by the political opponents of those hyperbolizing the truth.

Do you believe that as an American working outside the authority of the United States but rather as a Jihadist were to go into Brittan or France or Germany (what ever country you think holds the moral high ground we lack) and were to plot the bombing of a population center to the point of having financing, other people organized, target selected, etc. and were caught be MI5 that it would be UNREASONABLE or unlikely you would face some harsh interrogation? Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, restricted movement, sensory deprivation? You bet you would and nobody would cry for your circumstances either. Not there, not here. Because at the end of the day you would be just fine should you be water boarded. All your buddies, financiers, and plans would be revealed and you would spend a LONG time incarcerated in British, Germany, wherever, prison. Probably in isolation.

If your go after a nations security or after the innocent lives of their people for the sole purpose of causing terror, you SHOULD EXPECT harsh interrogation and your family would be relieved if all you received was waterboarding because at the end of that very same day you will be just fine. Uninjured and as well as you were at the beginning of that day.

 

[DaveBeal]

I believe our policy should forbid waterboarding, but with the possibility of the President overriding it on a person-by-person basis.

 

[Bruxley]

That is exactly the existing policy and the policy in which it was done Dave.

 

[Unregistered]

Bruxley, you are saying that Bush personally has given every order to waterboad? Or did he give general directions to the interrogators to use their judgement on who to waterboard?

 

[MeekAndMild]

Yes, its torture, no I don't condone its use. We're better than they are.

 

[divemedic]

All of you who are giving these tools to a Republican President remember that those tools will still be in the Presidential tool shed when a Democrat is in the White House.

Wait until Obama uses waterboarding against gun owners that he has classed as enemy combatants, so they will turn in fellow gunowners for having assault weapons. All it will take is another OKC type bombing by a McVeigh type, and the President will declare all right wing militia gun nuts to be the enemy.

Have you all forgotten the tragedies at Ruby Ridge and Waco?

 

[STAGE 2]

Wait until Obama uses waterboarding against gun owners that he has classed as enemy combatants, so they will turn in fellow gunowners for having assault weapons. All it will take is another OKC type bombing by a McVeigh type, and the President will declare all right wing militia gun nuts to be the enemy.

The rights of american citizens have been firmly established. It is a literal impossibility for waterboarding to lawfully be used on an american citizen.

Have you all forgotten the tragedies at Ruby Ridge and Waco?

Fallacious argument. No one was waterboarded at ruby ridge or waco.

 

[Unregistered]

The rights of american citizens have been firmly established. It is a literal impossibility for waterboarding to lawfully be used on an american citizen.

For the sake of discussion, if its just an interrogation technique, why can't it be used on anyone?

Is it a slippery slope? If we convince people that waterboarding is interrogation, not torture, and is ok to use on foreign terrorists, how much manipulation do you think it would take to get people to be willing to use it on domestic terrorists? My belief is that it would not take much.

The one good thing that seems to be coming out of the current presidential candidates is that both are opposed to torture. Perhaps we will put barbarism behind us in the next administration

 

[Bruxley]

It might even get used by the FBI to get neonazi's to tatle on their fellow hate mongers to prosecute hate crimes and child rapes.

Please. Contorted logic and strained interpretations are evidence of deeper problems.

Are these national security issues or the mass killing of innocent civilians for the purpose of terroizing the population?

Maybe we should make sure those with those intentions don't feel worried about revealing the scope of things or thier cohorts should they be caught before during or after. That would be mean after all.

 

[Unregistered]

Come on. Once we convince people that waterboarding is interrogation and not torture, then it will be easy to convince them its ok to use on domestic terrorists.

It makes no logical sense to draw a distinction between foreign and domestic terrorists. If your primary concern is saving lives, then why would you not support waterboarding the captured accomplice of someone like Timothy McVay if it meant you would save the lives of hundreds in a domestic terrorist attack?