Is waterboarding torture?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Did we invade a country recently to free them from tyranny? I seemed to have missed that.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Did we invade a country recently to free them from tyranny? I seemed to have missed that.

It all depends on which day you watched the news as to what reasons were cited.

 

[kraven]

I'm just wondering why someone cares about my opinions when all the truth about torture is out there for anyone to learn, provided they can read and use the dewey decimal system.
After all, I don't make policy for the US.

 

[Musketeer]

Did we invade a country recently to free them from tyranny? I seemed to have missed that.

It was in the speeches after we stopped using WMDs as justification but before we started stressing the prevention of the spread of Islamofascism.

You remember, it was when all we heard about were the atrocities under the old leadership and lots of people with purple fingers.

Playboypenguin said:

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.

More than once I believe we have disagreed but on this point I wholeheartedly agree with you!

 

[Danzig]

Do the ends justify the means?

Men of good conscience for centuries have stated that it does not. I stand with them.

 

[Unregistered]

America will stop being great when America stops being good.

 

[STAGE 2]

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.

Then I submit you have no understanding of the 5th amendment or the caselaw that has construed it. Do yourself a favor and read up on it.

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

No you're not.

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.

Again, you need to read up on the jurisprudence involving what the authorities can do to someone who is detained. It quite clear what the boundaries are whether one is charged or not.

 

[STAGE 2]

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.

This is a completely fallacious argument that has already been put to rest. Traditional methods of torture are unreliable in getting good intelligence. However, regardless of what one thinks of waterboarding it doesn't fit into the traditional category of torture. More importantly, its effectiveness has already been established. It produced actionable intelligence each every time it was used. Three for three is batting 1.000.

Anyone who questions its effectiveness does so in the face of real world evidence. Thats why their arguments are based on theory and indirect assumptions i.e. torture is ineffective, waterboarding is torture, thus waterboarding is ineffective.

Its simply an incorrect argument.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Let's see that real world evidence. I was a 96b for years and each and ever class I ever took on torture, and all the real world applications I witnessed did not support your assertion.

 

[STAGE 2]

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.

And again, I direct you to read up on case law. Your argument is beyond the realm of silly. There is absolutely no way that any american citizen could be lawfully waterboarded period.

Your example of the sheriff (whether its true I don't know) proves this as he was convicted.

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.

No, we already have. You just refuse to see it. Again, there are plenty of interrogation techniques that are not torture that are still illegal to use. The government can only violate my due process rights in extremely limited circumstances. Your little checklist isn't by any means sufficient, and even if it were, waterboarding would still not be available.

Sure if some rogue sheriff wanted to waterboard someone he could. He could also work them over, or take them out back and shoot them. None of these actions, however, are legal. If the potential for abuse is what you are worried about, then you should fear batons far more than waterboarding.

 

[STAGE 2]

Let's see that real world evidence. I was a 96b for years and each and ever class I ever took on torture, and all the real world applications I witnessed did not support your assertion.

And we went over this as well. If I recall correctly, you admitted to having no personal experience with waterboarding in actual use as well as the fact that your stint in intelligence we over long before these issue arose.

As far as the real world evidence, we have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

 

[Bruxley]

Let's see that real world evidence. I was a 96b for years and each and ever class I ever took on torture, and all the real world applications I witnessed did not support your assertion.

If true then waterboarding=torture is obviously falacious to you as it doesn't fit into your training.

Torture is ineffecitive and doesn't yield valuable information etc.............

Occums Razor..........

 

[STAGE 2]

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.

There's nothing hypocritical about it. The people who we have detained and all those waterboarded are not Iraqi's. They are foreign fighters whom the Iraqi's don't like very much either.

As far as the general premise, denying people freedom and beliving in liberty are not contradictory at all. Even in the most free of societies, there are acts which if performed waive one's right to freedom. Being a terrorist is one of those acts. If you value your freedom, don't kill innocent people or build ied's. Not very difficult.

 

[Playboypenguin]

And we went over this as well. If I recall correctly, you admitted to having no personal experience with waterboarding in actual use as well as the fact that your stint in intelligence we over long before these issue arose.

Are you trying to establish that one form of torture is more or less reliable and therefore more acceptable than others?

As far as the real world evidence, we have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

Hardly conclusive evidence and definitely not conclusive enough to invalidate decades of experience and official opinion of the intel community. Which takes the official stance that torture is not reliable or acceptable.

Sometimes a suspects conscience gets the best of them and they confess too, but that is hardly a reliable method to get information.

When you work in intel you will find that it is common knowledge that some countries that provide information are regarded as unreliable simply becuse of the methods they use to gather information.

 

[STAGE 2]

Are you trying to establish that one form of torture is more or less reliable and therefore more acceptable than others?

No, what I'm saying is that if you are to give an honest assessment of waterboarding, it does not fit within the traditional definitions of torture. Therefore it is not valid to use the results of torture as a commentary on waterboarding.

Regardless of what you think it is distinct enough to merit its own evaluation, and thus far the real world results have destroyed the classroom consensus.

Hardly conclusive evidence and definitely not conclusive enough to invalidate decades of experience and official opinion of the intel community. Which takes the official stance that torture is not reliable or acceptable.

Well I'm not quite sure what you consider conclusive. Again, three for three with people who successfully resisted all other forms of interrogation doesn't seem like a statistical anomaly to me.

As far as the "decades of experience" of the intel community, I wonder what kind of experience that is. Have we been waterboarding actual suspects for decades? If so I'd like to see the findings on this. If we haven't and these findings are merely theoretical, then they have been proven invalid.

Sometimes a suspects conscience gets the best of them and they confess too, but that is hardly a reliable method to get information.

So you want me to believe that these men, who made a career out of killing innocent people, who have a hatred for the western world, and who refused to budge under other interrogation techniques, suddenly "got religion" and found their conscience.

Cmon Playboy, you're too smart to be making that argument.

When you work in intel you will find that it is common knowledge that some countries that provide information are regarded as unreliable simply becuse of the methods they use to gather information.

I don't doubt it. But again, thats another example of trying to invalidate the results of waterboarding using indirect and almost unrelated information. Show me some evidence that shows that waterboarding is unreliable in real life when used in real conditions on real suspects.

 

[Bruxley]

Really, so KSMs conscience got the best of him eh. Despite the failure of the other increasingly harsh methods tried, it was waterboarding gave him a conviction of concience......interesting theory but seems like a bit of a stretch.

"Decades of evidence and official opinion of the intel community" for torture....... but they WANT to retain the ability to utilize waterboarding. Seems even more contradiction in the waterboarding=torture sophistry. Looks more and more like your own arguments are presenting a case that waterboarding is NOT torture in that it IS effective, DOES yield valuable intel, and it's continued availability IS desired by the intel community.

Perhaps you have citations that the intel community has 'the opinion and official position' against waterboarding or that it is ineffective or that it doesn't yield valuable information as it does on torture.

Maybe you should start to see past your emotive perspective and utilize what you claim to know about torture and claim to have training in and see that the round peg of waterboarding just doesn't fit the square hole of torture.

Again.......Occums Razor says what?

 

[Playboypenguin]

Really, so KSMs conscience got the beat of him eh. Despite the failure of the other increasingly harsh methods tried waterboaarding gave him a conviction of concience......hardly.

Read AND comprehend...

 

[Playboypenguin]

Well I'm not quite sure what you consider conclusive. Again, three for three with people who successfully resisted all other forms of interrogation doesn't seem like a statistical anomaly to me.

That argument only holds water if only 3 people were ever interrogated in that manner. I have owned two series 80 Colts. One was a complete lemon. Does that mean 50% of all series 80 pistols are lemons?

Regardless of what you think it is distinct enough to merit its own evaluation, and thus far the real world results have destroyed the classroom consensus.

What do you bae this assertion on? Personal experience? professional opinion? Or just opinion?

So you want me to believe that these men, who made a career out of killing innocent people, who have a hatred for the western world, and who refused to budge under other interrogation techniques, suddenly "got religion" and found their conscience.

Like I already said...read AND comprehend.

 

[STAGE 2]

That argument only holds water if only 3 people were ever interrogated in that manner. I have owned two series 80 Colts. One was a complete lemon. Does that mean 50% of all series 80 pistols are lemons?

I agree. However since you are the person contesting its success, then the burden is on you to provide the proof to the contrary. Lets see where the US has waterboarded terrorists and it failed. I'm certianly willing to listen

What do you bae this assertion on? Personal experience? professional opinion? Or just opinion?

The facts. Every treatise and piece of information you have given here speaks of torture generally, with no specific mention of waterboarding. Therefore, there is no evidence that waterboarding was even considered, in addition to the afore mentioned problems with classifying waterboarding as torture.

If the best that you are going to do is tell us that we need to rely on an assumption thats simply not good enough.

Like I already said...read AND comprehend.

I did, and the odds that all three found their conscience at the same time is just not plausible.

 

[Playboypenguin]

I agree. However since you are the person contesting its success, then the burden is on you to provide the proof to the contrary. Lets see where the US has waterboarded terrorists and it failed. I'm certianly willing to listen

You are the one supporting techniques frowned upon by every official branch of the intel community. You are support methods that every official training course I have ever taken puts forth as unreliable and too easily abused. I believe the burden of proof is yours and those that chose to use these methods. The methods themselves are questionable at best and the negative moral implications are not in doubt at all.

The facts.

I think you are confusing facts with opinion. You are making a personal judgement on very limited information fed to you by the people that performed the questionable act.

The facts are that the official stance of the government has always been that we do not torture and that torture is not reliable. I still do not see where you have put forth any information that distinguished waterboarding from any other method of torture.

I did, and the odds that all three found their conscience at the same time is just not plausible.

You are reading, but not comprehending.

On rare occasion criminals confess, that does not mean we can rely on that fact in leu of proper investigation.

On rare occasions, torture can be used beneficially, that does not make it a reliable practive overall.