My argument for waterboarding

[Atreus21]

I've never made a definite opinion about the procedure the CIA has admitted to using to extract information, but I found myself trying to think it through, and I thought I'd submit it to this forum for input and criticism.

Instead of trying to define torture, I considered the following question: does waterboarding inflict physical damage? Certainly that is at least one major criteria to be met to qualify for torture. If all it does is simulate the experience of drowning, then one would think physical pain is most likely minimal, since drowning doesn't entail or incur any physical damage.

Now, one could certainly conclude that it is psychologically, mentally, and physically unpleasant. Holding your nose for extended periods of time is certainly unpleasant. But that's altogether different, and I would not think that's torture. You could say that reminding the subject of unpleasant past experiences would qualify as torture by this criterion. Hell, you could simply label any interrogation at all as torturous, since certainly the subject will find it unpleasant.

I will not say the ends justify the means, and say that the subject's knowledge makes it worth torturing him, and will save lives. Whether or not that argument has any merit, I will purposefully exclude it from my argument for the time being. I want simply to pay attention to whether or not waterboarding is torture. And based on my rudimentary argument above, I think it is not, solely because it does not inflict physical damage.

I welcome criticism and opposing view points, and hope no one will throw insults at an open-minded search for the truth in this issue.

 

[nageov3t]

being forced to listen to celine dion nonstop for a month wouldn't inflict physical damage, but I'd sure as hell consider it torture.

"physical damage, yes/no" seems like a poor test of whether or not something could be considered inhumane.

 

[Brainonska511]

And I say that what's the point of trying to preserve rights if you're willing to violate other people's rights in the pursuit of protecting said rights?

 

[Robor]

It's torture. Period.

 

[Atreus21]

I suppose an implied point I'm making is that no one can agree on a defined description of what exactly torture is.

It sounds very much so far that any procedure which makes the subject uncomfortable could be construed as torture, and that can't be so. Because by that criterion, simply the act of interrogation can be called torture.

 

[dullard]

Torture isn't about damage, it is about pain. Two different, but related topics.

I could care less if it does damage or if it incurs pain. I am against it for two reasons. (1) It just encourages the enemy to give us false information. We can see where all this wonderful false intelligence led us last time. (2) I don't want it done to us - civilians or military. Anything that I don't want done to my side shouldn't be done to their side.

Thus, I am against it - or any similar procedure - that doesn't reliably give us useful information while encouraging international problems aimed back at us.

 

[Czar]

from wikipedia
"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.."

take note on mental

and waterboarding has been classified as torture for hundreds of years by everyone... why change it now I must ask?

 

[bamacre]

I think the entire issue is dumb. As I have noted in another thread, waterboarding certainly isn't the only procedure the CIA could use, in fact I'd bet money they do a lot worse. I think the spotlight has been put on waterboarding to make the issue of "torture" debatable, and now it is just another wedge issue. Something to divert people's attention from more important problems.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: dullard
Torture isn't about damage, it is about pain. Two different, but related topics.

I could care less if it does damage or if it incurs pain. I am against it for two reasons. (1) It just encourages the enemy to give us false information. We can see where all this wonderful false intelligence led us last time. (2) I don't want it done to us - civilians or military. Anything that I don't want done to my side shouldn't be done to their side.

Thus, I am against it - or any similar procedure.

Okay, fair enough.

But the enemy may give us false information regardless of the interrogation method. The quality of the information yielded by the procedure, to me, is irrelevant for this reason. Secondly, given the nature of the enemy, they'll torture us regardless. But I see your point in this; that is, simply employ the golden rule. If we're the good guys, we don't use the bad guys' weapons.

Frankly, that may be the strongest argument I've heard about this issue. Thanks.

 

[StageLeft]

It has already been defined as torture by the Geneva convention of which the US is ostensible a signatory, but of course in these times of al queda everywhere at all turns eager to kill us it's easy to sell this on people. You use the layman's argument that it's not torture because it's not physical pain. I can only presume that watching my kids die would cause me greater pain than breaking my leg and yet it is not physical either.

I suppose an implied point I'm making is that no one can agree on a defined description of what exactly torture is.

Geneva can, has, and the US is in breach of it. Period.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It has already been defined as torture by the Geneva convention of which the US is ostensible a signatory, but of course in these times of al queda everywhere at all turns eager to kill us it's easy to sell this on people. You use the layman's argument that it's not torture because it's not physical pain. I can only presume that watching my kids die would cause me greater pain than breaking my leg and yet it is not physical either.

I suppose an implied point I'm making is that no one can agree on a defined description of what exactly torture is.

Geneva can, has, and the US is in breach of it. Period.

What is Geneva's definition? I didn't know that.

 

[Czar]

there are a few laws being broken

from wikipedia
"On December 10, 1948 the United Nations General Assembly adopted, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 5 states, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."[8] Since that time a number of other international treaties have been adopted to prevent the use of torture. Two of these are the United Nations Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions III & IV."

 

[StageLeft]

Secondly, given the nature of the enemy, they'll torture us regardless.

I thought the US was defending something better than that?

Open letter to Gonzales

Waterboarding, when used against people captured in the context of war, may also amount to a war crime as defined under the federal war crimes statute 18 U.S.C. § 2441, which criminalizes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions (in international armed conflicts), and violations of Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions (in non-international armed conflicts). Waterboarding is also an assault, and thus violates the federal assault statute, 18 U.S.C. § 113, when it occurs in the ?special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,? a jurisdictional area which includes government installations overseas. In cases involving the U.S. armed forces, waterboarding also amounts to assault, and cruelty and maltreatment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Under the laws of the land, U.S. personnel who order or take part in waterboading are committing criminal acts?torture, assault, and war crimes?which are punishable as felony offenses. The Department of Justice should clarify this to all U.S. personnel, and prosecute violations of the law.

bamacre is right that it's a wedge issue and it doesn't happen often anyway, but I find it a nice indication of where a person is and where this country is, that they're willing to do what has been defined long term as torture and pretend it's anything but. Others readily admit it's torture but don't care, in effect willing the US to go back a couple of centuries in how it deals with prisoners. In their effort to solve the problem of the terrorist boogey man they readily give up all that this country stands for and yet pretend they're patriots for it.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It has already been defined as torture by the Geneva convention of which the US is ostensible a signatory, but of course in these times of al queda everywhere at all turns eager to kill us it's easy to sell this on people. You use the layman's argument that it's not torture because it's not physical pain. I can only presume that watching my kids die would cause me greater pain than breaking my leg and yet it is not physical either.

I suppose an implied point I'm making is that no one can agree on a defined description of what exactly torture is.

Geneva can, has, and the US is in breach of it. Period.

What is Geneva's definition? I didn't know that.

Actually I have to say I cannot find in Geneva a really tight definition of torture...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I've never made a definite opinion about the procedure the CIA has admitted to using to extract information, but I found myself trying to think it through, and I thought I'd submit it to this forum for input and criticism.

Instead of trying to define torture, I considered the following question: does waterboarding inflict physical damage? Certainly that is at least one major criteria to be met to qualify for torture. If all it does is simulate the experience of drowning, then one would think physical pain is most likely minimal, since drowning doesn't entail or incur any physical damage.

Now, one could certainly conclude that it is psychologically, mentally, and physically unpleasant. Holding your nose for extended periods of time is certainly unpleasant. But that's altogether different, and I would not think that's torture. You could say that reminding the subject of unpleasant past experiences would qualify as torture by this criterion. Hell, you could simply label any interrogation at all as torturous, since certainly the subject will find it unpleasant.

I will not say the ends justify the means, and say that the subject's knowledge makes it worth torturing him, and will save lives. Whether or not that argument has any merit, I will purposefully exclude it from my argument for the time being. I want simply to pay attention to whether or not waterboarding is torture. And based on my rudimentary argument above, I think it is not, solely because it does not inflict physical damage.

I welcome criticism and opposing view points, and hope no one will throw insults at an open-minded search for the truth in this issue.

It is torture, period. There is no question. The mental pain that is incurred by waterboarding is so severe that it has been known to cause post traumatic stress disorder in those who have endured it. That's a pretty good sign of extreme mental pain and torture as defined under the Geneva Convention is mental or physical pain.

Damage to the body is not a very good indicator either, as there are tons of things you can do to people that will cause them excruciating pain without damaging their body. You can put someone in solitary confinement or deprive them of sleep until they literally go insane, but that would not be torture under your definition as their body is not damaged.

The only people I have seen attempting to argue that waterboarding is not torture are people directly associated with the white house. They have an obvious reason to at least muddy the issue, as if they didn't a fair number of people would be facing a nontrivial chance at being sent to federal prison for a good amount of time. I know of no other national or international body that does not consider waterboarding torture.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I've never made a definite opinion about the procedure the CIA has admitted to using to extract information, but I found myself trying to think it through, and I thought I'd submit it to this forum for input and criticism.

Instead of trying to define torture, I considered the following question: does waterboarding inflict physical damage? Certainly that is at least one major criteria to be met to qualify for torture. If all it does is simulate the experience of drowning, then one would think physical pain is most likely minimal, since drowning doesn't entail or incur any physical damage.

Now, one could certainly conclude that it is psychologically, mentally, and physically unpleasant. Holding your nose for extended periods of time is certainly unpleasant. But that's altogether different, and I would not think that's torture. You could say that reminding the subject of unpleasant past experiences would qualify as torture by this criterion. Hell, you could simply label any interrogation at all as torturous, since certainly the subject will find it unpleasant.

I will not say the ends justify the means, and say that the subject's knowledge makes it worth torturing him, and will save lives. Whether or not that argument has any merit, I will purposefully exclude it from my argument for the time being. I want simply to pay attention to whether or not waterboarding is torture. And based on my rudimentary argument above, I think it is not, solely because it does not inflict physical damage.

I welcome criticism and opposing view points, and hope no one will throw insults at an open-minded search for the truth in this issue.

It is torture, period. There is no question. The mental pain that is incurred by waterboarding is so severe that it has been known to cause post traumatic stress disorder in those who have endured it. That's a pretty good sign of extreme mental pain and torture as defined under the Geneva Convention is mental or physical pain.

Damage to the body is not a very good indicator either, as there are tons of things you can do to people that will cause them excruciating pain without damaging their body. You can put someone in solitary confinement or deprive them of sleep until they literally go insane, but that would not be torture under your definition as their body is not damaged.

The only people I have seen attempting to argue that waterboarding is not torture are people directly associated with the white house. They have an obvious reason to at least muddy the issue, as if they didn't a fair number of people would be facing a nontrivial chance at being sent to federal prison for a good amount of time. I know of no other national or international body that does not consider waterboarding torture.

If your statistics are true, then I'll concede that waterboarding is torture.

Then my next question is the question I was deliberately ignoring in the original post: Is torture ever permissable? Is there ever a situation so dire that the information must be obtained at any cost, even torture?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I will not say the ends justify the means, and say that the subject's knowledge makes it worth torturing him, and will save lives.

And there's the gaping chasm in your logic. You have no way of "knowing" what the subject of your torture knows until you extract it by torture, and you have no way of knowing whether your subject is telling the truth or just giving you anything he hopes will stop the torture.

So far, the only thing you've tortured is logic. Stop while you're ahead. :thumbsdown: :|

 

[StageLeft]

Is there ever a situation so dire that the information must be obtained at any cost, even torture?

For me, sure, but this is an academic question. If you had a guy who knew the code to defuse a nuke that was about to go off, what would you do? Obviously whatever you could, but in reality and real life we never know beforehand what a person knows and in some cases torture still won't get to it anyway. Your question is similar to "If you knew that some guy killed your wife and got away because the court rendered the wrong decision and you knew this with certainty, would you go vigilante on him?" And the answer is probably yes, and yet we have a court system for a reason and it must be followed. We have laws against torture for the same reason.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
drowning doesn't entail or incur any physical damage

If that were true, people wouldn't die from drowning. Just because the effects aren't visible doesn't mean they don't exist. Read up a little bit on drowning and tell me it doesn't cause any physical damage.

 

[Moonbeam]

If you are like your enemy it does not matter who wins.

Nobility of mind and spirit are dying because people are so afraid and so small. Nobody should dare disturb you when you are about your sacred duty to shop. Kill whatever scares me, please, and where I won't see.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I think you need to think about a few more problems with allowing torture:

1. As said above, you will get a lot information from torture. The problem with that is that you have NO idea if you got factual information, or false information (or both). It seems that almost all interrogation experts say most people will confess to anything and everything to stop the suffering. So what do you do then? Torture another person to "corroborate the information"? That's how the old USSR would get lots of people admitting to all sorts of (made-up) crimes.

2. If you allow torture, that means it becomes an allowable action. What rules are you going to put on WHO can be tortured? Only people captured on the "battlefield"? Suspected "terrorists"? Mass murders? Rapists? Just how are you going to determine who gets tortured?

3. What are you going to do when you torture someone, and find out that you just tortured an innocent man? This has happened already, the CIA kidnapped a German citizen in Europe and took him to Afghanistan to torture him for like 6 months before realizing they had an innocent person whose name was the same as a terrorist. Will you just say sorry to the guy/gal and dump him in the street? "Whoops, our bad, sorry about that" ?

4. Just because someone else does it doesn't mean we should. Since when did two wrongs make a right? Torture has been outlawed for a long time by civilized nations, why are we doing a 180 on it now? Just because someone did it to us? I don't think many parents raised their children to believe in that idea.


To me, number 4 is the most important reason why we shouldn't torture. Our country has always been the "good guys", and good guys don't break the law. Yes, that means things like this happen to us, but we don't stoop to their level.

If we allow torture, it's a slippery slope to start using it on other people. Every politician uses the "think of the children" line to get stupid laws passed, how soon before someone decides to torture a suspected child kidnapper? I mean, a child's life in in danger, how can you not torture the guy to find out where the kid is? And again, what do you do when you find out that the person you just tortured doesn't know anything (ie is innocent)?

I would really like to hear how people that support torture answer these questions, because I suspect they haven't thought it through.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I suppose an implied point I'm making is that no one can agree on a defined description of what exactly torture is.

Your supposition is incorrect.

torture Also found in: Legal, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia, Hutchinson

tor·ture (tôrchr)
n.

1. • a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
     b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
   
3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.
   
   tr.v. tor·tured, tor·tur·ing, tor·tures
   1. To subject (a person or an animal) to torture.
      
   2. To bring great physical or mental pain upon (another). See Synonyms at afflict.
      
   3. To twist or turn abnormally; distort: torture a rule to make it fit a case.
   
   Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquere, to twist; see terkw- in Indo-European roots.
   
   tor'tur·er n.

1. 
   
   The first link following Also found in:, above links to this definition from A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.:
   
   

   TORTURE, punishments. A punishment inflicted in some countries on supposed criminals to induce them to confess their crimes, and to reveal their associates.

   • 2. This absurd and tyrannical practice never was in use in the United States; for no man is bound to accuse himself. An attempt to torture a person accused of crime, in order to extort a confession, is an indictable offence. 2 Tyler, 380. Vide Question.

   
   If you want to pursue it further, click the other links. Anyone who still thinks waterboarding is not torture, per se, should volunteer as a subject to test that theory.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I've never made a definite opinion about the procedure the CIA has admitted to using to extract information, but I found myself trying to think it through, and I thought I'd submit it to this forum for input and criticism.

Instead of trying to define torture, I considered the following question: does waterboarding inflict physical damage? Certainly that is at least one major criteria to be met to qualify for torture. If all it does is simulate the experience of drowning, then one would think physical pain is most likely minimal, since drowning doesn't entail or incur any physical damage.

Now, one could certainly conclude that it is psychologically, mentally, and physically unpleasant. Holding your nose for extended periods of time is certainly unpleasant. But that's altogether different, and I would not think that's torture. You could say that reminding the subject of unpleasant past experiences would qualify as torture by this criterion. Hell, you could simply label any interrogation at all as torturous, since certainly the subject will find it unpleasant.

I will not say the ends justify the means, and say that the subject's knowledge makes it worth torturing him, and will save lives. Whether or not that argument has any merit, I will purposefully exclude it from my argument for the time being. I want simply to pay attention to whether or not waterboarding is torture. And based on my rudimentary argument above, I think it is not, solely because it does not inflict physical damage.

I welcome criticism and opposing view points, and hope no one will throw insults at an open-minded search for the truth in this issue.

Son, the definition of torture is to inflict pain, not physical damage.

And since it is, none of the rest of your drivel even matters.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I suppose an implied point I'm making is that no one can agree on a defined description of what exactly torture is.

Your supposition is incorrect.

torture Also found in: Legal, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia, Hutchinson

tor·ture (tôrchr)
n.

1. • a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
     b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
   
3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.
   
   tr.v. tor·tured, tor·tur·ing, tor·tures
   1. To subject (a person or an animal) to torture.
      
   2. To bring great physical or mental pain upon (another). See Synonyms at afflict.
      
   3. To twist or turn abnormally; distort: torture a rule to make it fit a case.
   
   Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquere, to twist; see terkw- in Indo-European roots.
   
   tor'tur·er n.

1. 
   
   The first link following Also found in:, above links to this definition from A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.:
   
   

   TORTURE, punishments. A punishment inflicted in some countries on supposed criminals to induce them to confess their crimes, and to reveal their associates.

   • 2. This absurd and tyrannical practice never was in use in the United States; for no man is bound to accuse himself. An attempt to torture a person accused of crime, in order to extort a confession, is an indictable offence. 2 Tyler, 380. Vide Question.

   
   If you want to pursue it further, click the other links. Anyone who still thinks waterboarding is not torture, per se, should volunteer as a subject to test that theory.

1. 
   
   There is no question if waterboarding is torture, it is.
   
   The punishment for those involved would and should be left to the Haag court because torture is a war crime.
   
   There are no ways around this one except the regular bullshit, i don't care who they are, even it i was found guilty of it, i'd go to Haag, we have one court, let's fucking respect it or forget all about it and all the punishments they ever handed out.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
And based on my rudimentary argument above, I think it is not, solely because it does not inflict physical damage.

You and me are in total agreement then. For the same reason. Thank'you for having an open mind, and not rushing in at the first chance to call America evil.