Is waterboarding torture?

Is water boarding torture and do you condone its use?

  • Yes, water boarding is torture and I condone its use.

    Votes: 36 25.7%
  • No, water boarding isnt torture and I condone its use.

    Votes: 33 23.6%
  • Yes, water boarding is torture and I do not condone its use.

    Votes: 68 48.6%
  • No water boarding isnt torture and I do not condone its use.

    Votes: 3 2.1%

  • Total voters
    140
For the sake of discussion, if its just an interrogation technique, why can't it be used on anyone?

For the same reason that while everyone here would agree that sleep depravation is not torture, its still illegal to use on american citizens. Because something is an interrogation technique doesn't mean that its use doesn't violate the rights of american citizens.


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.

Another fallacy. The courts established the proper treatment suspects and criminal defendants can be subjected to long ago. What we do to terrorists has no bearing on this whatsoever.
 
It's ignorant to use in criminal applications. You shift around in what eventually becomes a circle. It has never been used on a criminal suspect or as a tool in a criminal investigation.

Moreover it is not widely used. It is not a ready tool allowed to be used when an interrogator decides it sure would be nice. It has been used only in national security issues. Then only 3 times, and then for a grand total of less then 3 minutes.

I don't know how you see a rampant use threating to get out of control and becoming tolerated for open use on Americans in that.

Again it seems that it takes a strained definition of torture, an exploded view of what the scope of the subject is (prolonged submergence of a soldier head to investigate a crime for example), or the use of a fascist state scenario to try to keep a hold of the hash interrogation=torture sophistry.
 
The rights of american citizens have been firmly established. It is a literal impossibility for waterboarding to lawfully be used on an american citizen.

Why? Scalia himself has said it is not being used as PUNISHMENT. If it is not used to obtain information used to incriminate the victim of the water boarding there is not protection against self incrimination. Finally we have a host of people here stating it is absolutely not torture and that it is done to Americans voluntarily all the time.

Not torture
Not used to prosecute the victim
Not punishment
Not physically disabling

So tell me WHY the BATF would not be able to water board you in order to locate the illegal weapons THEY know you know the whereabouts of so long as any information gained is not used to prosecute you, only to destroy said weapons?
 
Why? Scalia himself has said it is not being used as PUNISHMENT. If it is not used to obtain information used to incriminate the victim of the water boarding there is not protection against self incrimination. Finally we have a host of people here stating it is absolutely not torture and that it is done to Americans voluntarily all the time.

Not torture
Not used to prosecute the victim
Not punishment
Not physically disabling

So tell me WHY the BATF would not be able to water board you in order to locate the illegal weapons THEY know you know the whereabouts of so long as any information gained is not used to prosecute you, only to destroy said weapons?

You keep repeating the same failed arguments. There are plenty of things that we all would agree aren't torture that are not available for use to interrogate american citizens. Thats why the ATF can't use them. My right to remain silent is well established, and the authorities cannot coerce me into giving up this right.

As far as Scalia, the comments of a single justice in a non-judicial setting are not precedent, binding, or anything of the kind. When he's not wearing his robes, his opinion is just that, an opinion.

You keep rolling out the same old stuff and the answer will always be the same. Americans have protections terrorists don't have. Slippery slopes are a fallacious argument especially in light of the settled law regarding people's 4th amendment rights. Waterboarding doesn't have any of the traditional characteristics of torture. Its not used by us indescriminately and when it is used its done in a controlled environment.

Using these facts, there simply is no argument that "it makes us the same as them" or "it will lead to use on citizens". The facts simply don't bear this out.
 
AGAIN....it seems that the fallacious drift into CRIMINAL applications is brought up to form another 'scenario'. Waterboarding has not ever been used in a criminal capacity. In was used in an intelligence capacity to protect national security. Surly you realize that the CIA isn't a law enforcement agency.

How is the leap made to the BATF enforcing, in your example just investigating, a crime?

Is to so difficult to grasp? You realize that intelligence is done for national security period right? Law enforcement is to enforce laws, investigate crimes, and turn people over to the judicial system.

The reason for the urgent need for the information isn't that a conviction is sought, it was to prevent the mass killing of innocent Americans for the sake of terrorizing the population. National security is nothing if not protecting the people of the United States from foreign threat.

Hash interrogation to investigate crimes would be ignorant. Making endless scenarios to fabricate a scope larger then exists in order to make a point sheds light on the fallacy of the premise.
 
This is an interesting article about the history of water boarding. Waterboarding has been used since the inquisition. It was known variously as "water torture," the "water cure" or tormenta de toca. The US has always been hypocritical about the procedure. The US used it as an interrogation method by even police during the early part of the 20th century. One US soldier was convicted for using it during the Spanish-American war, yet President Theodore Roosevelt defended the practice. "The enlisted men began to use the old Filipino method: the water cure," he wrote in a 1902 letter. "Nobody was seriously damaged."

In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

It isn't much of a stretch to think that US law enforcement would use the method. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison.

Stephen Rickard, Washington director of the Open Society Institute, says that throughout the centuries, the justifications for using waterboarding have been remarkably consistent.

"Almost every time this comes along, people say, 'This is a new enemy, a new kind of war, and it requires new techniques,'" he says. "And there are always assurances that it is carefully regulated."
 
Either Buxly or Divemedic is wrong here...

Buxley says: "It has never been used on a criminal suspect or as a tool in a criminal investigation."

Divemdic says: "In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison."


I have found the story of Sheriff James Parker described in a couple of places, and it appears to me that he did use a variation of waterboarding in law enforcement.

So it appears to me that Buxley may be wrong in this situation, but I think he should have a chance to explain his previous statement.
 
My right to remain silent is well established, and the authorities cannot coerce me into giving up this right.

You do NOT have a right to remain silent. You have a right not to be forced to incriminate yourself. If no charges are to be filed against you based on what is learned they can ask you anything and you are required to answer.

If the police ask you the location of a fugitive and you refuse to answer you are obstructing justice.

My example is perfectly valid. The guns you know are hidden are considered a serious threat to the lives of American citizens. The ATF deems that it is more important that they be recovered than to prosecute you. For that reason you are given immunity from prosecution for anything you may reveal as a part of the questioning regarding the location of those arms and anything revealed as a result of their recovery. Once that is done YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. What you had was a right against self incrimination and that has now been ensured, you will not be charged. Using water boarding, which is after all NOT torture as so many here attest, is therefor perfectly reasonable since it is not punishment and is not being used to obtain evidence for use against you.
 
Exeplary example of how completey inaprpriate waterboarding is in law enforcement and how abjectly rejected it is Divemedic. It goes right to what I keep saying (and Muskateer can't/won't grasp) which is that intellegence and law enforcement are totally different animals. I was unaware of this intance but am glad it came out.
The story goes directly to how inapropriate harsh interrogation is in law enforcement activities.

Again it seems that it takes an exploded view of what the scope of the subject is or the use of a fascist state scenario to try to keep a hold of the hash interrogation=torture sophistry.

If your go after a ANY nation's 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.
 
I am a bit barbaric in some things. I have no problem with lining convicted terrorists up and shooting them in the street...or better yet, line them up and let the families of their victims stone them to death.

I am also not above favoring harsh treatment for convicted criminals.

I am however against torture for the means of gathering information used to establish guilt. Torture is not an effective means of gathering reliable information.

Anyone that has ever worked in intel can tell you that information gathered through pain or distress is very, very unreliable and usually a complete waste of time.

Torture is also the number one choice of dictators who use it to justify tyranny. It is one thing to cleanse a village for no reason but another all together if you can capture a few men from the village and then force them into "confessing" to non-existent plans of an assassination attempt.

It could also be very easily abused by our own politicians to justify illegal acts or unjust wars. If they government raided a camp of religious extremists who were hurting no one they would be labeled as monsters, but if they can get "confessions" from members of plotting to bomb a government building or sexual abuse of the children they will be hailed as heros.

The potential for abuse is just way too high to make the small gains worth it.
 
I went to an interesting presentation by a police officer at the American Society for Criminology on how some police departments played very loose with harsh interrogation techniques to obtain convictions and confessions even in today's climate. Mostly with folks without resources who were conviced to take 'deals' and who didn't have dynamic representation.

I easily could see this happening more and with waterboarding if we had more home grown terrorists like McVeighs that one could argue for water boarding his friends and some of the more outspoken 'revolutionaries - Unintended Consequences - will you fight' denizens of the Internet.

Would such preventive water boarding on clearly American citizens to prevent terrorism (even pro 2nd Amend terrorism) be OK with some of you?

Or is only OK with foreign terrorists?
 
Last edited:
Agreed, harsh interrogation has no place in law enforcement, That is the common confusion, intell v. LE. And torture has no place in either.

Defining something that leaves you whole, uninjured, and as well 20 minutes after as were before (esentially frightening them into spilling their guts about he details) requires a very strained definition of torture and facing it for threatening ANY nations national security or for killing their innocent civilians for the purpose of causing terror is hardly unreasonable let alone immoral.

It takes that strained definition of torture, an exploded view of what the scope of the subject is (prolonged submergence of a soldier head to investigate a crime for example), or the use of a fascist state scenario to try to keep a hold of the hash interrogation=torture sophistry.
 
Would it be OK to use in the USA on American citizens to get 'intelligence' of upcoming home grown terrorist attacks? That is my question.

In a time of civil unrest with terrorism - would not the military be involved and the appropriate laws evoked to allow such? Then would we condone them using such techniques in prevention?

Thus, if McVeigh got away and did three more attacks and you were a friend of his - is it OK for the law or military to water you and your wife?

Would it have been OK for the ATF to waterboard a Davidian before the raid to get details to prevent their armed resistance?
 
I don't know how you see a rampant use threating to get out of control and becoming tolerated for open use on Americans in that.

The use of water boarding could very easily become rampant and out of control for two reasons:

1) Simply because it is so effective. Those "famous three" examples that keep getting brought up as "only lasting three minutes" only goes to prove that it is very effective at producing quick results, whether those results are actual actionable intelligence or simply fabricated falsehoods told simply to stop the procedure. Why bother spending all day pulling finger nails, drilling teeth or hooking up a car battery when a rag and a bucket of water will get you something in three minutes or less. Water boarding is THAT BAD.

2) Lets not forget the best reason: Water boarding leaves no lasting PHYSICAL marks that could be used to prove it was used on an individual. This is what makes water boarding so ATTRACTIVE TO INTERROGATORS.​

The use of torture by American forces is such a hot button issue that any interrogator who is concerned about possible future criminal charges would almost certainly be looking for a procedure that makes it difficult or impossible to prove that torture was even employed due to the lack of physical scars or marks. Water boarding, pardon the pun, is a shady interrogator's wet dream.
 
To respond to Glenn I saw law enforcement handle the McVeih/Nichols case just fine. A US person committing an act on US soil is a law enforcement, not national security issue.

As for as a citizen rebellion/insurrection, I believe the prospect of that scenario is covered in the Constitution and the expected response of the Federal Government would be something like what it was during the Civil War.
Such a far fetched scenario would be very difficult to speculate upon. Is this a 'New Confederacy' rebellion such as is widely held by some as eminent or is this a scenario of the Federal Government ceasing the peaceful transition of power and internally over throwing the peoples Government?

Such fascist state scenarios seem to be prolific to try to keep a hold of the hash interrogation=torture sophistry.

If the 'white pride world wide' group are staging a rebellion that is a bit different then the people restoring a constitutional republic that has become a Marxist/Mao dictatorial fascist state.

Scenarios......a tough guessing game.
 
I just do not see how water boarding can be claimed to not be allowed to be used on US citizens for Law Enforcement purposes so long as:

1. It is deemed "Not Torture."

2. Any evidence gained is not used against the person who provided it.

3. The gov't can justify the practice based on the need to protect American lives.

I would have more respect for those claiming it is not torture to buck up and admit its possible use on US citizens so long as the above conditions are met rather than sticking with the current line of it not being torture and not allowed to be done to citizens. At least the position would not be hypocritical.

Nobody has refuted the above except to say "it can't be done to citizens." None of those saying it isn't torture though and supporting its use can point out a plausible reason it wouldn't be allowed if the other two conditions were met.
 
2. Any evidence gained is not used against the person who provided it.
But it is okay to prosecute someone else on false information obtained via distress and pain from another suspect?
3. The gov't can justify the practice based on the need to protect American lives.
So as long as the government says "turst us, we are doing this for your benefit" they can do as they please?
 
If the 'white pride world wide' group are staging a rebellion that is a bit different then the people restoring a constitutional republic that has become a Marxist/Mao dictatorial fascist state.

What? I don't get this. Is the rationale of the rebellious group a pro or con in the deciding whether a technique is morally acceptable?

Seems to be that the argument against torture and/or waterboarding is based on the higher standard of unalienable human rights.

So if the government banned all guns - would it be right to kidnap a government agent and wateboard him or her to get info for the constitutional restoration rebellion?

Some theories of morality would state that the intrinsic properties of the act determine it's acceptability - not what the user group attempts to gain from the act.
 
I just cannot fathom the mindset and lack of reasoning that people have who can get behind the notion that we, as a nation, invade other countries because we feel that "every individual being has the right to live free from tyranny" then turn around as say, out the other side of their mouths, that "these people have no rights because they are not US citizens." The hypocrisy and self-serving convenience of that mindset if just so blatantly evident.
 
Back
Top