Waterboarding (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Just to clarify, I would accept the use of torture, including waterboarding (which is certainly a form of torture), under the following conditions:

1. If it can be used to obtain vital information to save lives.

2. If there is no other way to extract that information. (Speed being an important factor here, though not necessarily the dominant factor.)

These conditions may have occurred with regard to KSM. Then again, they may not. Liberals and conservatives offer different, competing facts on this matter, and I don't know which to believe.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Now that you have admitted that waterboarding is torture,

Please find a quote where I admitted that. I have stated in the past and I stand by my opinion - and that's exactly and only what it is - that waterboarding does not reach the level of torture.

Darn it. I was ready to go part way with you, Bronco. I think some of your arguments really do have merit. It may be necessary, despite our agreements, to perform torture in certain extreme situations. I can at least accept a theoretical justification for this. But to try to argue that waterboarding is not torture- that's just silly. Worse, it weakens the rest of your argument and makes it seem disingenous, even though I know it isn't. Why don't you just admit apples are apples and let's move on to the real issues?

Believe what you want, and use it to dismiss the rest of my argument if you so choose. I can't help that. I can't call an interrogation technique torture when the person subjected to it comes out of the ordeal - after being subjected to it well over one hundred times as we have been told several times - and can still look as fit, sound, and unchanged as KSM was when he decided to withdraw his guilty plea at the military tribunal in order to gain the rights to criminal proceedings that this administration offered up on a silver platter to him. I also know that our own finest fighting men have been subjected to waterboarding as a part of their training - and I'd find it difficult to believe that the military would "torture" some of their finest and most valuable assets.I'd sure like to see you answer the question I posed (again) also. Seems like no one wants to step up to the plate and take on the tough question.

 

[timschochet]

Now that you have admitted that waterboarding is torture,

Please find a quote where I admitted that. I have stated in the past and I stand by my opinion - and that's exactly and only what it is - that waterboarding does not reach the level of torture.

Darn it. I was ready to go part way with you, Bronco. I think some of your arguments really do have merit. It may be necessary, despite our agreements, to perform torture in certain extreme situations. I can at least accept a theoretical justification for this. But to try to argue that waterboarding is not torture- that's just silly. Worse, it weakens the rest of your argument and makes it seem disingenous, even though I know it isn't. Why don't you just admit apples are apples and let's move on to the real issues?

Believe what you want, and use it to dismiss the rest of my argument if you so choose. I can't help that. I can't call an interrogation technique torture when the person subjected to it comes out of the ordeal - after being subjected to it well over one hundred times as we have been told several times - and can still look as fit, sound, and unchanged as KSM was when he decided to withdraw his guilty plea at the military tribunal in order to gain the rights to criminal proceedings that this administration offered up on a silver platter to him. I also know that our own finest fighting men have been subjected to waterboarding as a part of their training - and I'd find it difficult to believe that the military would "torture" some of their finest and most valuable assets.I'd sure like to see you answer the question I posed (again) also. Seems like no one wants to step up to the plate and take on the tough question.

I'm sorry, which question is that?

 

[Josie Maran]

Now that you have admitted that waterboarding is torture,

Please find a quote where I admitted that. I have stated in the past and I stand by my opinion - and that's exactly and only what it is - that waterboarding does not reach the level of torture.

Darn it. I was ready to go part way with you, Bronco. I think some of your arguments really do have merit. It may be necessary, despite our agreements, to perform torture in certain extreme situations. I can at least accept a theoretical justification for this.

But to try to argue that waterboarding is not torture- that's just silly. Worse, it weakens the rest of your argument and makes it seem disingenous, even though I know it isn't. Why don't you just admit apples are apples and let's move on to the real issues?

Believe what you want, and use it to dismiss the rest of my argument if you so choose. I can't help that. I can't call an interrogation technique torture when the person subjected to it comes out of the ordeal - after being subjected to it well over one hundred times as we have been told several times - and can still look as fit, sound, and unchanged as KSM was when he decided to withdraw his guilty plea at the military tribunal in order to gain the rights to criminal proceedings that this administration offered up on a silver platter to him. I also know that our own finest fighting men have been subjected to waterboarding as a part of their training - and I'd find it difficult to believe that the military would "torture" some of their finest and most valuable assets.

Seriously dude, this needs like gradeschool level research to figure out.

Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is:

...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

Just because it doesn't leave a mark does not change what it is.

 

[Bronco Billy]

I'm sorry, which question is that?

For the third time now:

It's preferrable to the alternative, isn't it? To protect KSM's rights that are not given to him by our Constitution but that some would give to him, and simultaneously in the same process take away the fundamental right to protection of the lives of thousands of innocent American citizens that our Federal government is directly and unequivocably responsible for would be a travesty and an unconscionable twisting of our Constitution.

Or are you saying that you would willingly sacrifice the lives of thousands of innocents to prevent someone like KSM from being placed in extreme discomfort - knowing full well that the extreme discomfort would not result in any lasting injury to him? Because that was the very real choice presented to the CIA.

 

[timschochet]

It's preferrable to the alternative, isn't it? To protect KSM's rights that are not given to him by our Constitution but that some would give to him, and simultaneously in the same process take away the fundamental right to protection of the lives of thousands of innocent American citizens that our Federal government is directly and unequivocably responsible for would be a travesty and an unconscionable twisting of our Constitution.

Or are you saying that you would willingly sacrifice the lives of thousands of innocents to prevent someone like KSM from being placed in extreme discomfort - knowing full well that the extreme discomfort would not result in any lasting injury to him? Because that was the very real choice presented to the CIA.

I noticed that no one has chosen to address the question in the second paragraph here - and I'd guess that is intentional, since it presents an awfully inconvenient scenario (that again was very real, I might add) to those who would argue against waterboarding of someone like KSM.I'll put it forth again and hope someone will answer this time.

OK, this is what you meant. The answer for me is no. If this was the stark choice for me, then of course I would allow KSM not just to be tortured, but killed to prevent thousands of innocents dying. I might even allow for many innocents to die to prevent greater numbers of others from dying- this, after all, is the moral choice we make everytime we bomb a city. When we dropped bombs on Kabul and Bagdhad, many innocent people were killed, maimed, wounded for life, including women and children. But I can justify that IF more lives were saved by doing so. I can even justify it IF American lives were saved, valuing these lives more than I do the lives of non-Americans. All this being said, though, the burden of proof is on those who commit such actions to demonstrate that these choices are indeed apt to the discusiion. I don't believe we can just abrogate the responsibility to them.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Seriously dude, this needs like gradeschool level research to figure out.

Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is:

...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

Just because it doesn't leave a mark does not change what it is.

Seriously dude, I don't give the UN much credibility, and I know some fairly banal things that fit that definition that most reasonable people would say does not rise to the level of torture.

 

[Bronco Billy]

OK, this is what you meant. The answer for me is no. If this was the stark choice for me, then of course I would allow KSM not just to be tortured, but killed to prevent thousands of innocents dying. I might even allow for many innocents to die to prevent greater numbers of others from dying- this, after all, is the moral choice we make everytime we bomb a city. When we dropped bombs on Kabul and Bagdhad, many innocent people were killed, maimed, wounded for life, including women and children. But I can justify that IF more lives were saved by doing so. I can even justify it IF American lives were saved, valuing these lives more than I do the lives of non-Americans. All this being said, though, the burden of proof is on those who commit such actions to demonstrate that these choices are indeed apt to the discusiion. I don't believe we can just abrogate the responsibility to them.

Okay, I appreciate the candor. Now, did you read post #144? If so, could you put forth your opinion as to whether at least some instances of waterboarding KSM were not only acceptable but the responsible thing to do?

 

[timschochet]

OK, this is what you meant. The answer for me is no. If this was the stark choice for me, then of course I would allow KSM not just to be tortured, but killed to prevent thousands of innocents dying. I might even allow for many innocents to die to prevent greater numbers of others from dying- this, after all, is the moral choice we make everytime we bomb a city. When we dropped bombs on Kabul and Bagdhad, many innocent people were killed, maimed, wounded for life, including women and children. But I can justify that IF more lives were saved by doing so. I can even justify it IF American lives were saved, valuing these lives more than I do the lives of non-Americans. All this being said, though, the burden of proof is on those who commit such actions to demonstrate that these choices are indeed apt to the discusiion. I don't believe we can just abrogate the responsibility to them.

Okay, I appreciate the candor. Now, did you read post #144? If so, could you put forth your opinion as to whether at least some instances of waterboarding KSM were not only acceptable but the responsible thing to do?

I read it. The answer is I don't know. Again, I question whether or not there is a means to extract information which does not involve torture. Its difficult for me to believe that in this day and age with all of the technology and drug use available to our experts, there are no other means of securing this info. But I'm no expert. You have to understand, Bronco- because the USA signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this means that if we choose to torture someone, we are behaving dishonorably as a nation. That does not mean we shouldn't do it necessarily- sometimes we are forced to act dishonorably no matter what people think. But we'd better have a damn good reason for doing so. IF the information you presented is accurate, and IF there was no other means available to save lives, then yes, reluctantly, this is what we had to do. But those are very big IFS and I'm not satisfied like you are that all the conditions have been met.

 

[Bronco Billy]

You have to understand, Bronco- because the USA signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this means that if we choose to torture someone, we are behaving dishonorably as a nation. That does not mean we shouldn't do it necessarily- sometimes we are forced to act dishonorably no matter what people think. But we'd better have a damn good reason for doing so. IF the information you presented is accurate, and IF there was no other means available to save lives, then yes, reluctantly, this is what we had to do. But those are very big IFS and I'm not satisfied like you are that all the conditions have been met.

You don't know. How in the hell can a nation be acting dishonorably if there is a credible terrorist threat against thousands of innocents and it acts to move against the terrorist(s) - even if they use torture on the terrorists (which I dispute waterboarding rises to the level of)?It would be acting dishonorably to allow the terrorists to succeed in their action despite having the means to stop it. How can there be dishonor in preventing the slaughter of innocents targeted by terrorists?

 

[Christo]

Calling this "waterboarding" sounds like an olympic sport. Call it what it is simulated drowning.

Nice job by GOP of word smithing.

Call me when waterboarding = drowning.

What's your number?

7

 

[timschochet]

You have to understand, Bronco- because the USA signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this means that if we choose to torture someone, we are behaving dishonorably as a nation. That does not mean we shouldn't do it necessarily- sometimes we are forced to act dishonorably no matter what people think. But we'd better have a damn good reason for doing so. IF the information you presented is accurate, and IF there was no other means available to save lives, then yes, reluctantly, this is what we had to do. But those are very big IFS and I'm not satisfied like you are that all the conditions have been met.

You don't know. How in the hell can a nation be acting dishonorably if there is a credible terrorist threat against thousands of innocents and it acts to move against the terrorist(s) - even if they use torture on the terrorists (which I dispute waterboarding rises to the level of)?It would be acting dishonorably to allow the terrorists to succeed in their action despite having the means to stop it. How can there be dishonor in preventing the slaughter of innocents targeted by terrorists?

I gave you as honest an answer as I could.

 

[Bronco Billy]

I gave you as honest an answer as I could.

I know you did. I respect that and shouldn't have come back at you the way that I did. Your answer is mindboggling to me because there only seems to be one logical and rational response, but at least you have the cajones to step up and and answer, which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for some others here.

 

[Christo]

You have to understand, Bronco- because the USA signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this means that if we choose to torture someone, we are behaving dishonorably as a nation. That does not mean we shouldn't do it necessarily- sometimes we are forced to act dishonorably no matter what people think. But we'd better have a damn good reason for doing so. IF the information you presented is accurate, and IF there was no other means available to save lives, then yes, reluctantly, this is what we had to do. But those are very big IFS and I'm not satisfied like you are that all the conditions have been met.

You don't know. How in the hell can a nation be acting dishonorably if there is a credible terrorist threat against thousands of innocents and it acts to move against the terrorist(s) - even if they use torture on the terrorists (which I dispute waterboarding rises to the level of)?It would be acting dishonorably to allow the terrorists to succeed in their action despite having the means to stop it. How can there be dishonor in preventing the slaughter of innocents targeted by terrorists?

I gave you as honest an answer as I could.

The problem with your answer is that it's impossible to hold congressional hearings and then put a referendum vote to the citizenry before deciding whether "all of the conditions have been met" with respect to determining what method of interrogation is proper for each and every one of these guys. At some point, we have to trust the people we have trained to make these decisions.

 

[Parrothead]

Had KSM been shot in the head and killed on sight, nobody would have batted an eye..

 

[Harry Manback]

I'm sorry, which question is that?

For the third time now:

It's preferrable to the alternative, isn't it? To protect KSM's rights that are not given to him by our Constitution but that some would give to him, and simultaneously in the same process take away the fundamental right to protection of the lives of thousands of innocent American citizens that our Federal government is directly and unequivocably responsible for would be a travesty and an unconscionable twisting of our Constitution.

Or are you saying that you would willingly sacrifice the lives of thousands of innocents to prevent someone like KSM from being placed in extreme discomfort - knowing full well that the extreme discomfort would not result in any lasting injury to him? Because that was the very real choice presented to the CIA.

Do you want an answer, tough guy?If we violate the fundamental principles on which we are founded then our reason for binding as a nation ceases to exist. I've said it before but apparently you need more clarity: No, I would not violate fundamental human rights, I would not torture, even under your doomsday scenario, because otherwise there is no differentiation between us and them. I'll throw on the additional statement that you never know when you are in the ticking timebomb scenario which you propose and when you're jumping at shadows. But once you start jumping, you have to start jumping at everything, just to be sure.

If you are so certain that it is right to torture, and even kill, in order to save the lives of the people of your own culture there is no difference between you and the terrorists. None.

I'm glad people like you exist, I really am.But I am even more glad that the opposite of you exist, because while not as glamorous or as righteous, it is necessary.

 

[timschochet]

If we violate the fundamental principles on which we are founded then our reason for binding as a nation ceases to exist. I've said it before but apparently you need more clarity: No, I would not violate fundamental human rights, I would not torture, even under your doomsday scenario, because otherwise there is no differentiation between us and them. If you are so certain that it is right to torture, and even kill, in order to save the lives of the people of your own culture there is no difference between you and the terrorists. None.

Matthias, I'm forced to ask you a few hard questions regarding this response:1. Are you OK with strategic bombing in wartime? Everytime we do it, innocent people get harmed and killed. There is no way to avoid this. Every time we bomb a city, whether it's Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Hanoi, Kabul, or Bagdhad, fundamental human rights are violated. 2. Everytime we fight a war innocent people are killed. This means that everytime we fight a war, fundamental human rights are violated. Are you a pacifist, Matthias? Unless you are, there is some inconsistency with your argument, IMO.

 

[timschochet]

[ I'll throw on the additional statement that you never know when you are in the ticking timebomb scenario which you propose and when you're jumping at shadows. But once you start jumping, you have to start jumping at everything, just to be sure.

On the other hand, the argument that Matthias makes here is a good one IMO, and I'm troubled by it, and troubled at how the conservatives here seem to sweep it aside. Oh don't worry, they say: just trust the govt. to know when to use torture. Frankly, I'm as troubled by this notion as I am by the idea that people like Matthias would NEVER use it even to save thousands of lives. This is why I'm torn on this subject. I honestly don't understand how those of you on either side of this can be so morally sure of yourselves. It seems to me that this is a very nuanced topic and there is right and wrong on both sides.

 

[timschochet]

You're talking about the distinction between collateral damage and intentionalism.If you're backing out of your driveway and run over a cyclist that you didn't see, you're still not a murderer even if they die. Ethics are bound into how you choose to live your life not in how things turn out.

What if you know the cyclist is likely there, even if you can't see him?In other words, Dresden? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? There's no specific human targets, but it's hard to call 100,000 + deaths collateral damage.

 

[Parrothead]

So, rather than capturing terrorists alive, what if our military just shot to kill every AQ member they come in contact with? what is more merciful? Killing on sight, or capturing and waterboarding for info, and also saving their life...

 

[Parrothead]

You're talking about the distinction between collateral damage and intentionalism.If you're backing out of your driveway and run over a cyclist that you didn't see, you're still not a murderer even if they die. Ethics are bound into how you choose to live your life not in how things turn out.

What if you know the cyclist is likely there, even if you can't see him?In other words, Dresden? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? There's no specific human targets, but it's hard to call 100,000 + deaths collateral damage.

what about all the Taliban members that we intentionally shot and killed? That stuff makes for positive news headlines.. "Taliban #2 killed!!" etc etc.. The bottom line is, people don't care who we kill, but please don't make them uncomfortable in the interest of national security!!!!

 

[Harry Manback]

You're talking about the distinction between collateral damage and intentionalism.If you're backing out of your driveway and run over a cyclist that you didn't see, you're still not a murderer even if they die. Ethics are bound into how you choose to live your life not in how things turn out.

Really? I'm pretty sure that's still vehicular homicide.

 

[timschochet]

So, rather than capturing terrorists alive, what if our military just shot to kill every AQ member they come in contact with? what is more merciful? Killing on sight, or capturing and waterboarding for info, and also saving their life...

You raise an interesting point. If the highly anticipated HBO show "The Pacific", which airs next week is accurate, they will show plenty of instances of Japanese soldiers surrendering, and American Marines shooting them. Very few prisoners were taken in that war. They may also depict Japanese soldiers being tortured in order to reveal enemy plans and locations. This also occurred at times. It shouldn't have, but it did. If we accept Matthias' morality without any qualification, then these men should be condemned, as should their commanders, and "The Greatest Generation" should be considered "The Worst Generation."

 

[Harry Manback]

So, rather than capturing terrorists alive, what if our military just shot to kill every AQ member they come in contact with? what is more merciful? Killing on sight, or capturing and waterboarding for info, and also saving their life...

You raise an interesting point. If the highly anticipated HBO show "The Pacific", which airs next week is accurate, they will show plenty of instances of Japanese soldiers surrendering, and American Marines shooting them. Very few prisoners were taken in that war. They may also depict Japanese soldiers being tortured in order to reveal enemy plans and locations. This also occurred at times. It shouldn't have, but it did. If we accept Matthias' morality without any qualification, then these men should be condemned, as should their commanders, and "The Greatest Generation" should be considered "The Worst Generation."

I tend to be more of an eye for an eye kinda guy, so considering what their soldiers did to ours, I can understand the brutality exemplified by our Marines.

 

[Parrothead]

So, rather than capturing terrorists alive, what if our military just shot to kill every AQ member they come in contact with? what is more merciful? Killing on sight, or capturing and waterboarding for info, and also saving their life...

You raise an interesting point. If the highly anticipated HBO show "The Pacific", which airs next week is accurate, they will show plenty of instances of Japanese soldiers surrendering, and American Marines shooting them. Very few prisoners were taken in that war. They may also depict Japanese soldiers being tortured in order to reveal enemy plans and locations. This also occurred at times. It shouldn't have, but it did. If we accept Matthias' morality without any qualification, then these men should be condemned, as should their commanders, and "The Greatest Generation" should be considered "The Worst Generation."

which is why nobody takes Matthais seriously

 

[timschochet]

So, rather than capturing terrorists alive, what if our military just shot to kill every AQ member they come in contact with? what is more merciful? Killing on sight, or capturing and waterboarding for info, and also saving their life...

You raise an interesting point. If the highly anticipated HBO show "The Pacific", which airs next week is accurate, they will show plenty of instances of Japanese soldiers surrendering, and American Marines shooting them. Very few prisoners were taken in that war. They may also depict Japanese soldiers being tortured in order to reveal enemy plans and locations. This also occurred at times. It shouldn't have, but it did. If we accept Matthias' morality without any qualification, then these men should be condemned, as should their commanders, and "The Greatest Generation" should be considered "The Worst Generation."

I tend to be more of an eye for an eye kinda guy, so considering what their soldiers did to ours, I can understand the brutality exemplified by our Marines.

To a certain extent I agree with you. And I sympathize with those Marines. Who are we, not being in that hellhole, to judge them?On the other hand, I also agree with Matthias that we must not become like our enemies. That we are better than they are, and that we can defeat them without becoming them.So this is why I'm torn on issues like this one.

 

[Harry Manback]

So, rather than capturing terrorists alive, what if our military just shot to kill every AQ member they come in contact with? what is more merciful? Killing on sight, or capturing and waterboarding for info, and also saving their life...

You raise an interesting point. If the highly anticipated HBO show "The Pacific", which airs next week is accurate, they will show plenty of instances of Japanese soldiers surrendering, and American Marines shooting them. Very few prisoners were taken in that war. They may also depict Japanese soldiers being tortured in order to reveal enemy plans and locations. This also occurred at times. It shouldn't have, but it did. If we accept Matthias' morality without any qualification, then these men should be condemned, as should their commanders, and "The Greatest Generation" should be considered "The Worst Generation."

I tend to be more of an eye for an eye kinda guy, so considering what their soldiers did to ours, I can understand the brutality exemplified by our Marines.

To a certain extent I agree with you. And I sympathize with those Marines. Who are we, not being in that hellhole, to judge them?On the other hand, I also agree with Matthias that we must not become like our enemies. That we are better than they are, and that we can defeat them without becoming them.So this is why I'm torn on issues like this one.

It's definitely a nice, cozy, feel good way to think.It allows you to put yourself on a pedestal, and be morally superior to those around you.But the fact of the matter is war isn't pretty, and the measure that sometimes need to be taken to ensure that your baby girl grows up in a world where she will be free, safe and able to fulfill her full potential aren't always the most popular, or morally appealing.

 

[timschochet]

It's definitely a nice, cozy, feel good way to think.It allows you to put yourself on a pedestal, and be morally superior to those around you.But the fact of the matter is war isn't pretty, and the measure that sometimes need to be taken to ensure that your baby girl grows up in a world where she will be free, safe and able to fulfill her full potential aren't always the most popular, or morally appealing.

I agree, and I don't feel morally superior to anyone reading this.Well, maybe Strike...

 

[timschochet]

This issue has resurfaced this week, with Bush in interviews (and apparently in his book) defending waterboarding, and claiming it has saved thousands of lives. I continue to have two problems with this:

1. It is disingenous for conservatives to continue to claim that waterboarding is not torture. (To be honest, I don't know if Bush has made this claim.) There is no definition of torture that would not easily include waterboarding. I just wish people would own up to this. It is a perfectly legitimate view to hold that torture is necessary to obtain information- why not simply make that argument? But instead, conservatives hide behind this flimsy argument that somehow there is a difference. There isn't.

2. That being said, I can accept the argument that waterboarding was necessary and saved lives- IF there is no alternative. I am not one of those idealists who will tell you that torture can NEVER be accepted no matter what the consequences. But conservatives, Bush, and others who have defended waterboarding have never even bothered to examine if there is an alternative way to gather information that does not involve torture- not to mention that the veracity of information collected under torture has to be in question.

 

[Christo]

This issue has resurfaced this week, with Bush in interviews (and apparently in his book) defending waterboarding, and claiming it has saved thousands of lives. I continue to have two problems with this:

1. It is disingenous for conservatives to continue to claim that waterboarding is not torture. (To be honest, I don't know if Bush has made this claim.) There is no definition of torture that would not easily include waterboarding. I just wish people would own up to this. It is a perfectly legitimate view to hold that torture is necessary to obtain information- why not simply make that argument? But instead, conservatives hide behind this flimsy argument that somehow there is a difference. There isn't.

2. That being said, I can accept the argument that waterboarding was necessary and saved lives- IF there is no alternative. I am not one of those idealists who will tell you that torture can NEVER be accepted no matter what the consequences. But conservatives, Bush, and others who have defended waterboarding have never even bothered to examine if there is an alternative way to gather information that does not involve torture- not to mention that the veracity of information collected under torture has to be in question.

Mancow, the conservative radio host underwent the procedure himself, thinking that after he would be able to confidently convince others that it is not, in fact, torture.

 

[CrossEyed]

Looks like it worked.

 

[mad sweeney]

Looks like it worked.

Was this info gathered via waterboarding?

 

[Mario Kart]

Looks like it worked.

What worked?

Mohammed did not reveal the names while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He identified them many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic.

 

[jon_mx]

This issue has resurfaced this week, with Bush in interviews (and apparently in his book) defending waterboarding, and claiming it has saved thousands of lives. I continue to have two problems with this:

1. It is disingenous for conservatives to continue to claim that waterboarding is not torture. (To be honest, I don't know if Bush has made this claim.) There is no definition of torture that would not easily include waterboarding. I just wish people would own up to this. It is a perfectly legitimate view to hold that torture is necessary to obtain information- why not simply make that argument? But instead, conservatives hide behind this flimsy argument that somehow there is a difference. There isn't.

2. That being said, I can accept the argument that waterboarding was necessary and saved lives- IF there is no alternative. I am not one of those idealists who will tell you that torture can NEVER be accepted no matter what the consequences. But conservatives, Bush, and others who have defended waterboarding have never even bothered to examine if there is an alternative way to gather information that does not involve torture- not to mention that the veracity of information collected under torture has to be in question.

I am fairly confident the US examines its interrogation techniques pretty vigorously and know what works and what doesn't. It was not Bush who came up with the idea of water-boarding. It was a technique our government determined was effective and safe.

 

[NCCommish]

This issue has resurfaced this week, with Bush in interviews (and apparently in his book) defending waterboarding, and claiming it has saved thousands of lives. I continue to have two problems with this:

1. It is disingenous for conservatives to continue to claim that waterboarding is not torture. (To be honest, I don't know if Bush has made this claim.) There is no definition of torture that would not easily include waterboarding. I just wish people would own up to this. It is a perfectly legitimate view to hold that torture is necessary to obtain information- why not simply make that argument? But instead, conservatives hide behind this flimsy argument that somehow there is a difference. There isn't.

2. That being said, I can accept the argument that waterboarding was necessary and saved lives- IF there is no alternative. I am not one of those idealists who will tell you that torture can NEVER be accepted no matter what the consequences. But conservatives, Bush, and others who have defended waterboarding have never even bothered to examine if there is an alternative way to gather information that does not involve torture- not to mention that the veracity of information collected under torture has to be in question.

I am fairly confident the US examines its interrogation techniques pretty vigorously and know what works and what doesn't. It was not Bush who came up with the idea of water-boarding. It was a technique our government determined was effective and safe.

Except it isn't.

 

[timschochet]

This issue has resurfaced this week, with Bush in interviews (and apparently in his book) defending waterboarding, and claiming it has saved thousands of lives. I continue to have two problems with this:

1. It is disingenous for conservatives to continue to claim that waterboarding is not torture. (To be honest, I don't know if Bush has made this claim.) There is no definition of torture that would not easily include waterboarding. I just wish people would own up to this. It is a perfectly legitimate view to hold that torture is necessary to obtain information- why not simply make that argument? But instead, conservatives hide behind this flimsy argument that somehow there is a difference. There isn't.

2. That being said, I can accept the argument that waterboarding was necessary and saved lives- IF there is no alternative. I am not one of those idealists who will tell you that torture can NEVER be accepted no matter what the consequences. But conservatives, Bush, and others who have defended waterboarding have never even bothered to examine if there is an alternative way to gather information that does not involve torture- not to mention that the veracity of information collected under torture has to be in question.

I am fairly confident the US examines its interrogation techniques pretty vigorously and know what works and what doesn't. It was not Bush who came up with the idea of water-boarding. It was a technique our government determined was effective and safe.

Thank you for bringing this post up. It continues to be my position. Your argument that we should simply trust our government "experts" is contradicted by other "experts" many of whom have worked for the government, who have provided a very different answer from that which has been presented by the Bush administration and its defenders.That being said, it will be interesting to find out whether or not the torture of the prisoners was vital to the eventual assassination of OBL.

 

[jon_mx]

This issue has resurfaced this week, with Bush in interviews (and apparently in his book) defending waterboarding, and claiming it has saved thousands of lives. I continue to have two problems with this:

1. It is disingenous for conservatives to continue to claim that waterboarding is not torture. (To be honest, I don't know if Bush has made this claim.) There is no definition of torture that would not easily include waterboarding. I just wish people would own up to this. It is a perfectly legitimate view to hold that torture is necessary to obtain information- why not simply make that argument? But instead, conservatives hide behind this flimsy argument that somehow there is a difference. There isn't.

2. That being said, I can accept the argument that waterboarding was necessary and saved lives- IF there is no alternative. I am not one of those idealists who will tell you that torture can NEVER be accepted no matter what the consequences. But conservatives, Bush, and others who have defended waterboarding have never even bothered to examine if there is an alternative way to gather information that does not involve torture- not to mention that the veracity of information collected under torture has to be in question.

I am fairly confident the US examines its interrogation techniques pretty vigorously and know what works and what doesn't. It was not Bush who came up with the idea of water-boarding. It was a technique our government determined was effective and safe.

Thank you for bringing this post up. It continues to be my position. Your argument that we should simply trust our government "experts" is contradicted by other "experts" many of whom have worked for the government, who have provided a very different answer from that which has been presented by the Bush administration and its defenders.That being said, it will be interesting to find out whether or not the torture of the prisoners was vital to the eventual assassination of OBL.

Tim, it is usually you who likes to trust the government experts. In this case, I know zip about interrogation techniques, so I give them the benefit of the doubt that they probably know a heck of a lot more than we do. It is impossible to say what impact the torture had since it appears most of the info was obtain a couple months after the water-boarding. It could be the threat of being subjected to that made them cave in. We will never have a definitive answer.

 

[jon_mx]

Well forget water-boarding, let's just say that Holder and Obama had their way and we gave constitutional protections to all these prisoners. Would we have gotten the information?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Well forget water-boarding, let's just say that Holder and Obama had their way and we gave constitutional protections to all these prisoners. Would we have gotten the information?

Apparently, yes.

 

[modogg]

Glad to that the people in our country feel it is effective:

(from http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20120808_Delaware_couple_charged_in_waterboarding_daughter.html)



Delaware couple charged in ‘waterboarding’ daughter

By Sam Wood

A Delaware couple was arrested yesterday after authorities learned they were using a form of torture, banned in the United States, to discipline their daughter.

Melvin Morse, 58, and his wife Pauline, 40 were charged with four felony counts of endangering the welfare of a child.

According to Delaware State Police, the couple's 11-year-old daughter was taken to a Child Advocacy Center on Aug. 6 for an interview about an alleged previous assault by her father.

During the course of the interview, the girl said her father had punished her by what he called "waterboarding." On several occasions beginning in 2009, she said, Melvin Morse held her face under a running faucet, causing water to flood up her nose and run over her face, police said.

The girl's mother witnessed several of the incidents and failed to stop them, police said.

The couple was arrested at their Georgetown home, held on $14,500 bail each, and forbidden to have any contact with the 11-year-old and her 5-year-old sister. The two girls are in the care of the state's Division of Family Services, police said.

Waterboarding was outlawed by President Obama in 2009.

Might be a good idea to encourage parenting classes for everyone, I am not sure what an 11 year old girl could do that would make anyone think this would be helpful in raising her correctly.

 

[timschochet]

Water boarding is not torture. It invokes fear and takes you out of your comfort zone. I would rather be waterboarded than flayed.

Given the report that came out today, is this still your opinion?

 

[timschochet]

we can play semantics but this is my point. Im more concerned about getting the right guy responsible for acts of terror. with torture you can get anyone to admit to anything.

Using harsh interrogation methods you can also get hard-core terrorists to give up valuable intelligence information.

We can also get them to tell us what style of panties their wife wears if we carve out their eyeball with a serrated spoon. But some of us like to believe that our country has ethics and standards that are above that. If you want a country that doesn't stoop to anything in the name of defense, pick up and move to Israel or Egypt. Or just become a terrorist yourself. Because at that point, the only difference is the flag that you're flying under.

You may be the most naive person ever. How do you think we won WW I, WW II, etc., by playing nicely? How do you think we won independence in the first place? Luckily for you, there are individuals who do what's necessary to keep you safe. It's for sure that you wouldn't be able to do it yourself.

Does the report that came out today change your mind?

 

[johnnycakes]

Water boarding is not torture. It invokes fear and takes you out of your comfort zone. I would rather be waterboarded than flayed.

Given the report that came out today, is this still your opinion?

Yeah, this is kind of a joke... people back then were saying our soldiers who went through SERE training were typically subjected to waterboarding and, therefore, it could not be torture. Even though there is always a doctor present. Big difference between American soldiers waterboarding American soldiers and enemies waterboarding each other: American soldiers, at the end of the day, know there is a doctor on standby and that fellow soldiers won't, at the end of the day, kill them. So that argument is kind of stupid.

 

[timschochet]

Mancow, the conservative radio host underwent the procedure himself, thinking that after he would be able to confidently convince others that it is not, in fact, torture.

Do you still believe this?

 

[jonessed]

Mancow, the conservative radio host underwent the procedure himself, thinking that after he would be able to confidently convince others that it is not, in fact, torture.

The CIA certainly does. I doubt the Senate majority opinion will sway many.How was the report anyway? That's some serious speed-reading.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Water boarding is not torture. It invokes fear and takes you out of your comfort zone. I would rather be waterboarded than flayed.

Given the report that came out today, is this still your opinion?

I bet you haven't even read the report. Probably not even highlights of it.

 

[timschochet]

Now that you have admitted that waterboarding is torture,

Please find a quote where I admitted that. I have stated in the past and I stand by my opinion - and that's exactly and only what it is - that waterboarding does not reach the level of torture.

I don't think Bronco Billy posts here anymore (unless its tommyboy?- they seem very similar.) If this IS tommyboy, I'd be curious to know if this is still your attitude.

 

[timschochet]

Water boarding is not torture. It invokes fear and takes you out of your comfort zone. I would rather be waterboarded than flayed.

Given the report that came out today, is this still your opinion?

I bet you haven't even read the report. Probably not even highlights of it.

I've only read the 20 highlights that were posted in the other thread. What I'm curious about is whether or not the people that were so strident back then have changed their minds about this issue?

Back then 4 years ago, I hadn't made up my mind. I needed some convincing, not that water boarding was torture- I always believed that- but that torture was unnecessary. I wasn't sure. I don't deserve any credit for my opinion then. However, there were people in this thread who spoke out without reservation against the use of torture and they deserve plenty of credit.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Water boarding is not torture. It invokes fear and takes you out of your comfort zone. I would rather be waterboarded than flayed.

Given the report that came out today, is this still your opinion?

I bet you haven't even read the report. Probably not even highlights of it.

I've only read the 20 highlights that were posted in the other thread. What I'm curious about is whether or not the people that were so strident back then have changed their minds about this issue?

Back then 4 years ago, I hadn't made up my mind. I needed some convincing, not that water boarding was torture- I always believed that- but that torture was unnecessary. I wasn't sure. I don't deserve any credit for my opinion then. However, there were people in this thread who spoke out without reservation against the use of torture and they deserve plenty of credit.

It doesn't look like you're giving "credit" to anyone, just trying to shame others who you've argued with in the past. Typical Doosh Tim. Sorry for not having a wittier insult.

 

[timschochet]

Water boarding is not torture. It invokes fear and takes you out of your comfort zone. I would rather be waterboarded than flayed.

Given the report that came out today, is this still your opinion?

I bet you haven't even read the report. Probably not even highlights of it.

I've only read the 20 highlights that were posted in the other thread. What I'm curious about is whether or not the people that were so strident back then have changed their minds about this issue?

Back then 4 years ago, I hadn't made up my mind. I needed some convincing, not that water boarding was torture- I always believed that- but that torture was unnecessary. I wasn't sure. I don't deserve any credit for my opinion then. However, there were people in this thread who spoke out without reservation against the use of torture and they deserve plenty of credit.

It doesn't look like you're giving "credit" to anyone, just trying to shame others who you've argued with in the past. Typical Doosh Tim. Sorry for not having a wittier insult.

Oh that's OK. With you I don't expect anything else.