Is waterboarding torture?

[Musketeer]

So you would have supported the President's position about alowing the attack to take place rather then 'abandon his morals and principles in the name of fear'.

Seems to be what he said, it was clear enough to me. Of course your example is bogus because there is no proof that any worthwhile evidence would have been obtained, believed and acted upon. Plenty of other signs were ignored for YEARS. It would also become standard practice for every time a yokel is dragged in and the authorities think he may know something regarding public safety.

They do not bring in one suspect who has a large tattoo across his chest stating "THIS GUY KNOW ABOUT THE NEXT MAJOR THREAT." Like finding a good pearl in a wild oyster you need to shuck a whole lot of them. It would never have been a case of deciding to waterboard one man, it would have been a case of deciding to waterboard many.

 

[Bruxley]

Those that break into this country are here to do SOMEONES family harm.

Should the intel community only be worried about your family? Or is the entire country thier charge?

You really should just leave. Nothing that person plans tho steal or any harm to anyone inside is worth the moal bankrupcey of pre-emptivly harming or holding against thier will another human being. That person faces a llifetime of trauma for what? Your stereo? NO. Enough jeporizing the liberties of another person for a false sense of security. Just leave and let law enforcement catch up to them and let the judicial system determine what they deserve.

This can go on and on.

Point is Defining something that leaves you whole, uninjured, and as well 20 minutes after as were before (pointng a loaded gun at someone as a diect threat on their life esetially frightening them into given up their plans) requires a very strained definition of torture and facing it for threatening ANY persons home or for killing their innocent family members for ANY purpose is hardly unreasonable let alone immoral.

AND 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.

 

[Musketeer]

You know what, this is pointless.

Some will not be swayed by the harm done to the USA internationally, the lack of support we get in taking actions against terrorists and reduced cooperation we can expect thanks to places like Guantanamo and actions like water boarding.

Some do not believe that those rights which they proclaim stated in the BOR as being innate and derived from their creator, requiring no gov't to grant because they are inherent to all mankind do not apply to some because they are not Americans.

Some believe the use of terror tactics and torture against prisoners is justified.

None of their minds will be changed and somehow they can rationalize their morality based on the convenience of the moment.

Luckily most people who have chimed in here, on a fairly right wing site, oppose this practice. Even more consider it torture, even of some of them still rationalize it as proper to use against a prisoner. Across the nation the practice is even more greatly opposed and despised. Both candidates for President oppose it. Eventually the legislature will get off their duff and pass something to end it.

There is no point arguing further here with those whose morals bend appropriately to fit the needs of the moment. Such a person will warp reality, misrepresent and outright lie in support of their position anyway since their concept of morality is based solely on winning their position.

 

[SilentHitz]

It will end up being used by our enemies to justify torture of our soldiers.

That's almost comical, our soldiers have been tortured and killed in every war we've fought in. The were tortured by germans, japanese, koreans, afgans, Iraqis ect.

Just because we abide by the geneva convention, doesn't mean anyone else does. It works and should be used in my opinion. Our soldiers will continued to be tortured and beheaded even if we put their pows in the freaking Holiday Hilton...open your eyes to the real world.

What we do, or don't do, had no bearing on how our pows are treated...never has, never will.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

No, silly. I am disagreeing with your premise to allow a no-holds barred approach to dealing with people who are hell bent on causing us harm at the cost of our honor as a whole. Just to send a message not to mess with us. I thought I had spelled that out clearly enough for the average sixth grader to understand that your approach does more harm to us than good.

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 it?

My clarification is that the military should be allowed a VERY loose leash. Destroy the enemy. The "send the message" isn't the primary reason to carry out their duty. It's a desireable side effect.

Sorry, my reading comprehension is only at a 3rd grade level. I thought I posed the success of an Englishman being able to walk all of the known world and EVERYONE knows not to mess with him. Why is that? Did his country sweet talk their adversaries into leaving them alone?

Sleep deprivation, in the true sense of the term, is well documented and extremely dangerous.

You mean the style where they're awaken every hour after hour before they are able to get any real level of sleep? Fair enough....kinda like the style of ER doctors going for 36 hours STRAIGHT and still has to put a scalpel to a human being...

Yet you should know it will end. When it is done to the volunteer though it can be repeated again and again and again and they know it. You talk about how there is no harm 20 min later. The prisoner though knows he will be subjected to this over and over again. What is more he might know that death will not even provide escape to the torture. He will just suffer on and on until he tells the captors something they wish to hear.

You really think the military that's trained in retreiving information on the battlefield is just going to pluck someone off radomly and waterboard? COME ON FELLOW GUNOWNERS! WAKE UP!

You think a LE officer is just going to yank a citizen off the street and "interrogate" him to retrieve information about a drug king pin only because he's walking along the Red Light District? NO! They investigate and set up surveillance to gather their intelligence first. They do their homework. I don't think our soldiers would keep themselves from doing the same.

And, the biggest false piece of information that some people aren't getting is the enemy would have the choice to either talk or keep getting waterboarded. SO WHAT if he provides false information. The waterboarding stops, AND THEN the information is VERIFIED. If it were torture, it would commence whether you talk or not until you're dead.

When done "for real" it is more terrifying. What more when it is done for real it will REMAIN terrifying even afterwards.

Just like when I touched that hot stove when I was a tyke. So, does this mean I was permanently scarred mentally? Yep. Physically? NO. Did I ever touch that stove again? NOPE. Am I a nutcase because of it? Contrary to popular belief, no. Should my parents be charged with torturing me? NO. They warned me of the consequences, then under watchful eye they let me rebel. 30 seconds of pain/anguish got the desired results. Through some of you guys' definition of torture, I was tortured. My parents knew the end result of me touching it.

 

[Musketeer]

I thought I posed the success of an Englishman being able to walk all of the known world and EVERYONE knows not to mess with him. Why is that? Did his country sweet talk their adversaries into leaving them alone?

Because the English considered everyone else unimportant. An Englishman's word against an Indian worker was unquestionable. The English got that way by killing all opposition and subjugating native people.

 

[STAGE 2]

Sorry Bruxley but the majority of people here and in the nation overall disagree with you.

Well, the poll here is at about 50-50. Other polls I've seen have have been in support of waterboarding to the rate of 60-40. Hardly what I'd call a consensus or even a majority.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Because the English considered everyone else unimportant. An Englishman's word against an Indian worker was unquestionable. The English got that way by killing all opposition and subjugating native people.

Although I must say that you are certainly right in some regard. However, IIRC, this was not just the case outside his own country. On his own turf, I can see your point that being supported. However, the fact that they were a country to be rekoned with is my point.

 

[44capnball]

If it were torture, it would commence whether you talk or not until you're dead.

That's the wrong test for whether something is torture or not.

The whole Inquisition was about torturing people until they confessed.

It puts the lotion in the bucket or it gets the hose, real simple.

I don't have any sympathy for people who want to bomb our cities and kill innocent civilians. But I have 2 cents to throw in.

STAGE2 and Bruxley are witches, they just haven't admitted it yet. Those boys from North Carolina that worked on Hitchens could get the truth out of them.

In the Soviet gulags they used to throw people in a cage where they couldn't sleep, they were cramped together too close. When they were starting to fall asleep sometimes they'd get awakened on purpose. It was filthy in there. And there were 1000's of bedbugs, so many you'd get bit from head to toe until you couldn't stand it. Bedbug bites don't hurt at first, then they itch something awful. When they were making people sit in the waiting room, the stools had legs too long and no foot rests. None of this is torture according to the pro-waterboarding crowd.

Well a lot of people couldn't take it. They said literally anything, just to make it stop. And stop it did. They confessed to being anti-soviet agitators, and then they got shot. The reds sent quite a cross section to the wall. Peasants, ex-soldiers, even party members.

Not torture. Those were anti-soviet agitators, not ordinary citizens. You have to believe that. Why would the soviet intel services lie. The law protected ordinary citizens. Once you cross the line into anti-soviet agitation, you don't get the protection of the law.

I can imagine STAGE2's response already. That's another country, he'll say. Irrelevant comparison, he'll say. Hmm, sorry that doesn't convince me. I hate terrorists just as much as you do, so don't bother with the sympathetic accusation. It's just that I don't see in black and white.

If you let those boys from NC take a crack at you, using nothing but waterboarding and sleep deprivation, I wager you would confess to being whatever they want you to.

Whether we should use waterboarding on people accused of terrorism, that's where I'm on the fence. Still haven't decided. I lean towards yes.

If the pre intelligence is there, they are pretty sure the guy was a dirt bag, then I say waterboard him. It's just that I don't need to spin the terminology to justify it. Waterboarding is a type of torture, it just doesn't leave marks, and the victim can live to tell about it. If that's what it takes to save a city, then use it, but be darned careful with that. Somewhere a line has been crossed, we need to stay close to that line.

 

[STAGE 2]

If you let those boys from NC take a crack at you, using nothing but waterboarding and sleep deprivation, I wager you would confess to being whatever they want you to.

But the facts have proven the opposite. Each time a suspect was waterboarded they giave up vital actionable information. It was not a matter of them telling us what we wanted to hear.

 

[Playboypenguin]

But the facts have proven the opposite. Each time a suspect was waterboarded they giave up vital actionable information. It was not a matter of them telling us what we wanted to hear.

Really, what vital information was obtained and what attacks did it prevent? How many lives did it save?

 

[Hawg]

It doesn't matter how many lives were saved. If just one was saved it's worth it. Waterboarding is childs play to what I would do but then I'm barbaric according to y'all anyway.

 

[Playboypenguin]

It doesn't matter how many lives were saved. If just one was saved it's worth it. Waterboarding is childs play to what I would do but then I'm barbaric according to y'all anyway.

Putting aside how absurd that statement is (the part indicating it being worth torturing many innocent people to save one life and not the part about being barbaric)...how was even one life saved from waterboarding these three individuals upon which every one seems to be basing their defense of this tactic?

 

[Hawg]

Abu Zubayda broke after 35 seconds of being waterboarded and the information he gave stopped quite a few attacks. So yes IMHO it has saved many lives. BTW, my statement is no more absurd to you than yours are to me.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

That's the wrong test for whether something is torture or not.

My point wasn't that this should be a test of whether it's torture or not. My point was more than likely the type of enemy that we face uses torture not necessarily for extracting information. To those of you that really think these scumbags are really torturing to just extract information I must claim that you're probably naive at best. These vermin are doing it for sick fun and have no thoughts of stop doing it.

Whether we should use waterboarding on people accused of terrorism, that's where I'm on the fence. Still haven't decided. I lean towards yes.

If the pre intelligence is there, they are pretty sure the guy was a dirt bag, then I say waterboard him. It's just that I don't need to spin the terminology to justify it. Waterboarding is a type of torture, it just doesn't leave marks, and the victim can live to tell about it. If that's what it takes to save a city, then use it, but be darned careful with that. Somewhere a line has been crossed, we need to stay close to that line.

With the exception of your view of waterboarding being a type of torture, I must say I'm in the same boat as you. I honestly don't have a formed opinion yet if it is "torture" or not. I would definitely classify it as coercive interrogation.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Abu Zubayda broke after 35 seconds of being waterboarded and the information he gave stopped quite a few attacks. So yes IMHO it has saved many lives. BTW, my statement is no more absurd to you than yours are to me

What attacks did it stop?

 

[44capnball]

My point was more than likely the type of enemy that we face uses torture not necessarily for extracting information

Well I'll admit to that one. They are a rough, cruel bunch. These religions that teach you can just enslave & kill people who aren't of your religion, that's part of the problem.

I could read back to see who said it for sure, but I think it was STAGE2 said that we use waterboarding while they skip right past that and reach for the rusty knife, no hesitation. Well I concede that point as well, it is true. There are some worse things our side could be doing. And the other side just chop people's heads off for no reason, they are pretty sadistic.

I guess some of this debate is about the definitions we're using. And making sure they don't get carried away or start moving the line.

 

[Hawg]

What attacks did it stop?

The information he provided helped capture some of the ones responsible for 911. His talking led to the capture of Razmi bin al Shibh one of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Accomplices in the 911 attack. That's not specific attacks that it stopped but if he hadn't talked these people would have caused the deaths of more people.

 

[Playboypenguin]

The information he provided helped capture some of the ones responsible for 911. His talking led to the capture of Razmi bin al Shibh one of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Accomplices in the 911 attack. That's not specific attacks that it stopped but if he hadn't talked these people would have caused the deaths of more people.

So it helped stop an attack that already happened?

...or is it just that there is no information what-so-ever that indicates they gained any viable information from the practice. They seemed to have captured these three men through traditional methods. What makes us believe that the others were not captured the same way and that they did not truly gain any valuable intel from waterboarding after all?

Are we to just take the administrations word on it with no proof or even any strong indications? The word of the same people that stood in front of the people and said time and time again they were not wiretapping without warrants while they were doing it the whole time.

Seems like a pretty shaky foundation for any argument to me.

 

[Unregistered]

Are we to just take the administrations word on it with no proof or even any strong indications?

Its much easier for some to just take Bush's word on it than think it through themselves.