Waterboarding: sometimes it's necessary

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is generally accepted as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks..

Of course, when you refer to our roster of high-value detainees and start doing the math, the dozen or more people we waterboarded my have provided conflicting information . . .

So who knows ??? Other than destroying the reputation of the Land Of The Free, waterboarding has not brought us the prize:

Osama bin Laden

The NeanderCons continue their special brand of Bush Derangement Syndrome. . . .

You assume OBL actually has any power lol

Fool.

you'd be a fool to assume he doesn't. and if he didn't have any power and torture was so effective, why do you think torture hasn't given us bin laden yet? don't you think people would figure, "fuck, it's only bin laden... as if he actually has any power," and cough him up?

i'm done with you and this thread. all you're doing is contradicting yourself and posting questions to answers that were JUST GIVEN. it's like talking to a brick wall, except the brick wall's got a higher iq.

Thank God.

/wave

And thanks for playing!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Isn't there room for fighting evil without slipping towards BEING evil? This isn't about the terrorists, it's about us. I don't think we should be "nice" to them, but I also don't think terrorism is a good excuse to throw our principles overboard. Basically, I think the whole "post 9/11" mindset is silly. These are not different times, and I see no reason we can't face this threat in an upright and civilized manner. And in this case, I find "but they are bad guys too!" to be a particularly dumb argument. Of course they are bad guys, they are terrorists...isn't one of the things we're allegedly fighting them for is to "preserve western civilization"? If so, it would seem essential to highlight the many ways in which we ARE civilized. I'm not equating waterboard with beheading, but even moving in that direction a little bit costs us the moral high ground...sure they might be worse, but we're not exactly upright citizens either. And while a lot of folks could care less about the moral high ground, I think there is a real cost to that.

In this case the waterboarding got results. So regardless of all the claims that such torture doesn't work it did this time. The boy began singing and it helped us uncover other plots and stop some attacks.

I don't see anywhere it says that in the article, and I especially don't see any argument that less extreme methods wouldn't have worked just as well. I never argued that waterboarding people wouldn't get them to talk, I'm just saying the cost isn't justified by the questionable benefits. The means justifying the ends is a pretty immoral argument to begin with, but when the ends aren't even all that impressive, the argument is even worse.

You have to read it to see it. First page, 4th paragraph:

"From that day on, he answered every question," Kiriakou said. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."

That was my bad, I did read the article, but I don't remember that part. In any case, I still don't see anything saying torture was necessary to extract that information.

As far as our moral ground, gimme a break. We've never dealt with an enemy such as this. Drastic actions require drastic response. Thats why the whole following Geneva Conv thing is assinine. It only applies to enemies who also recognize it. No one else.

Playing any other way than dirty when dealing with an enemy who wants nothing more than you dead, period, requires nothing short of brutality. The truth is hard to swallow, but nice doesnt work here.

Nah, I think YOU should be giving ME a break. The threat posed by terrorism has been DRAMATICALLY overstated, to an almost ridiculous extent. "We've never dealt with an enemy such as this" is silly, terrorists are a sideshow compared to the various enemies we've successfully dealt with in the past. They do not represent a "drastic" threat to the United States, and I don't think the Jack Bauer approach to terrorism is necessary or smart.

The truth is that people like an epic struggle, so they are willing to accept the moronic idea that we're somehow engaged in a war for the free world with a bunch of goat herders from the Middle East.

 

[blackangst1]

Sorry, Rains, but when I say no other enemy like this, can you tihnk of another attack on US soil in recent history as blazen and deadly as 9/11? The only one that comes close is Pearl Harbor, and even then 2400 or so died. and look at our reaction to that.

Our push to minimize the world of this type of thinking and action against us, or our allies, is justified. As has been mention a hundred times before, it's not as easy as attacking a country that attacked us. It's a mindset and an organization. We havent dealt with an enemy like that before.

Or am I missing something?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Sorry, Rains, but when I say no other enemy like this, can you tihnk of another attack on US soil in recent history as blazen and deadly as 9/11? The only one that comes close is Pearl Harbor, and even then 2400 or so died. and look at our reaction to that.

Our push to minimize the world of this type of thinking and action against us, or our allies, is justified. As has been mention a hundred times before, it's not as easy as attacking a country that attacked us. It's a mindset and an organization. We havent dealt with an enemy like that before.

Or am I missing something?

Nice Plan. Increase Terrorism Around the World

It's working.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Sorry, Rains, but when I say no other enemy like this, can you tihnk of another attack on US soil in recent history as blazen and deadly as 9/11? The only one that comes close is Pearl Harbor, and even then 2400 or so died. and look at our reaction to that.

Our push to minimize the world of this type of thinking and action against us, or our allies, is justified. As has been mention a hundred times before, it's not as easy as attacking a country that attacked us. It's a mindset and an organization. We havent dealt with an enemy like that before.

Or am I missing something?

Nice Plan. Increase Terrorism Around the World

It's working.

youre right I guess. We should just let it be. Unanswered.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Sorry, Rains, but when I say no other enemy like this, can you tihnk of another attack on US soil in recent history as blazen and deadly as 9/11? The only one that comes close is Pearl Harbor, and even then 2400 or so died. and look at our reaction to that.

Our push to minimize the world of this type of thinking and action against us, or our allies, is justified. As has been mention a hundred times before, it's not as easy as attacking a country that attacked us. It's a mindset and an organization. We havent dealt with an enemy like that before.

Or am I missing something?

I will certainly agree that the threat is DIFFERENT, but the idea that it's WORSE is overstated. Small groups of non-state actors have an easier time pulling off headline grabbing attacks, but the actual threat they pose is much less. The threat only seems magnified because terrorist organizations are more likely to want to pull off such attacks.

Judging an enemy based on single events is difficult, because the real threat they pose is how much damage they can do over the length of the conflict. While Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are similar in terms of life lost, the importance of each is dramatically different. Pearl Harbor severely damaged our Pacific fleet and shifted the balance of power in the Pacific towards the Japanese. This meant that they could potentially operate with impunity in that region of the world, and eventually reach our shores. Pearl Harbor itself was NOT why the Japanese were a threat, they were a threat because of what they could and might do AFTER Pearl Harbor.

9/11, on the other hand, was the pinnacle of the terrorists operations. It took years to plan and while it was a damaging attack, there is no way to seriously harm this country by staging a 9/11 size attack every few years. It would certainly be harmful and disruptive, but the reason terrorists are trying to cause terror is that they don't have the means to cause damage. 9/11 was a perfect terrorist option on those terms, because it has caused Americans as a whole to view terrorists as the gravest threat to our country in our entire history. Which is pretty impressive considering we spent almost 50 years before that facing an enemy who could end every single life in this country with a push of a button.

 

[blackangst1]

The only problem with your argument Rains, which I believe is significant, is your comment "the idea that it's WORSE is overstated". Again, the enemy you dont know is always more dangerous. With a country (N Korea for example) its easy to keep tabs on them. Shit, we can do that from 1000's of miles away. The fact that an an organization is mobile, makes them more unpredictable, therefore more dangerous.

Maybe we disagree on this, and thats fine. But you certainly cant deny the vigor in which these wackos come at us. Sure, the other dozen or so attacks on the US by Muslim extremists is small in the way of lives lost, but again, their unpredictability is what's dangerous. The first attack on the world trade center we got lucky. It should have been MUCH worse.

You cant apply sanctions against an organization. You cant make treaties. Nothing. Realistically, all you can do is hunt them down, try to catch them, get what you can out of them HOWEVER you can, and either kill them or send them away to Gitmo for eternity. Im not sure why so many people think these groups are capable of compromise.

 

[Specop 007]

Its a tool in the toolbox. Nothing more, nothing less. They do far worse to others when they capture them.

Yes, I'm a "end justifies the means". They can waterboard one of these asshats till he needs a pine box for all i care as long as it saves one more American life.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Its a tool in the toolbox. Nothing more, nothing less. They do far worse to others when they capture them.

Yes, I'm a "end justifies the means". They can waterboard one of these asshats till he needs a pine box for all i care as long as it saves one more American life.

You, like blackangst1, are a piece of garbage. Of course you feel that way. As an American, you're a worthless piece of shit.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Im not sure why so many people think these groups are capable of compromise.

You know the term bleeding heart liberal. They hate us and sympathize with our enemy, whomever it may be. A generality yes, but oh so very common is it not? They want us in jail for war crimes, and want flowers and roses for our killers.

Maybe I take that too personally, but they keep making their hatred of us over this issue sound as personal as it can get.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Fair enough, I used that phrase because it's good marketing at the expense of making a better argument. I have no reason to believe you are "pro-torture", so in the interest of fairness, let's call you "pro-choice" on the torture issue

Now then, how about not playing the dodging the question game either? Whatever you call your position, the fact is that you guys present the interrogation alternatives like so...

1. Waterboarding
2. Pampering them at a 5 star hotel
3. ???

That must sound ridiculous even when you're writing it, but damn it all if you guys don't make that same argument every time this topic comes up. To borrow your phrase, you're better than that.

It's a rhetorical response to the seeming, erm, pro-kindness to terrorists (couldn't think of anything else that fit ) crew who get all bent out of shape because we used an interrogation technique that causes physical discomfort and mental distress. Sure, I personally wouldn't want to be subjected to it. Then again, I don't go around planning the purposeful mass murder of innocent people. These guys are brutal. I don't have any qualms about treating them brutally right back, particularly if it means we can save many lives in the process.

In this case the waterboarding got results. So regardless of all the claims that such torture doesn't work it did this time. The boy began singing and it helped us uncover other plots and stop some attacks.

Abu Zubaydah survived the process. Apparently while he was prepared to die for the glory of Allah he wasn't willing to do it by drowning.

Another worthless piece of garbage.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Its a tool in the toolbox. Nothing more, nothing less. They do far worse to others when they capture them.

Yes, I'm a "end justifies the means". They can waterboard one of these asshats till he needs a pine box for all i care as long as it saves one more American life.

You, like blackangst1, are a piece of garbage. Of course you feel that way. As an American, you're a worthless piece of shit.

Fuck off Moonie

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Isn't there room for fighting evil without slipping towards BEING evil? This isn't about the terrorists, it's about us. I don't think we should be "nice" to them, but I also don't think terrorism is a good excuse to throw our principles overboard. Basically, I think the whole "post 9/11" mindset is silly. These are not different times, and I see no reason we can't face this threat in an upright and civilized manner. And in this case, I find "but they are bad guys too!" to be a particularly dumb argument. Of course they are bad guys, they are terrorists...isn't one of the things we're allegedly fighting them for is to "preserve western civilization"? If so, it would seem essential to highlight the many ways in which we ARE civilized. I'm not equating waterboard with beheading, but even moving in that direction a little bit costs us the moral high ground...sure they might be worse, but we're not exactly upright citizens either. And while a lot of folks could care less about the moral high ground, I think there is a real cost to that.

I'd like to think that fighting evil without being evil yourself is possible. Realistically I'm not sure it's possible.

As an example, back in the early 80s I was at a concert in Nuremburg with a few friends. It was held at the stadium where you see Hitler standing in front of this stone podium in a lot of the famous old films on him. I stood at that podium watching Twisted Sister and Meatloaf. Anyway, while Motorhead was playing we were milling around and suddenly we all see this guy just smacking the crap out of his girlfriend. He was wailing on her. She's screaming and crying and nobody is doing a damn thing. So one of my buddies runs right over and just lays this dude out with a single punch. He gives the guy some of his own medicine, then stood over him telling him not to get up, and got the attention of the Polizei.

I guess in that case you could say that evil was met by evil. To this day it still brings a smile to my face though.

I don't see anywhere it says that in the article, and I especially don't see any argument that less extreme methods wouldn't have worked just as well. I never argued that waterboarding people wouldn't get them to talk, I'm just saying the cost isn't justified by the questionable benefits. The means justifying the ends is a pretty immoral argument to begin with, but when the ends aren't even all that impressive, the argument is even worse.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3978231&page=1

"The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate," said Kiriakou in an interview to be broadcast tonight on ABC News' "World News With Charles Gibson" and "Nightline."

"From that day on, he answered every question," Kiriakou said. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: chucky2

And that's my point: Why are we taking off the table something that works - and works in a very timely fashion - simply because it causes mental duress to some bad dude?

I don't dispute waterboarding is torture (although really it's mental instead of physical), or that it should be a last resort type of thing.

Chuck

This seems short sighted, and relegates mental harm to some lesser realm than physical. You think the shell-shocked soldiers coming back from Vietnam who have nightmares the rest of their life and flashbacks, and visions of friends being blown up, that's not so bad because it's merely mental? I think those guys would trade a few bullet wounds and some beatings for a lifetime of fear.

To compare Vietnam vets who have battle induced PTSD to some hardcore terrorist POS, who's goal in life is to kill us, and make the argument that the terrorist POS might develop some mental anguish over being waterboarded...that's perhaps one of the craziest things I've ever heard. Ever.

And what about when we are able to simply stimulate pain receptors in the brain directly, without causing any physical damage at all? It will be purely the perception of pain (unending, constant, excruciating) without any bruising to the body...acceptable because it's mental?

Acceptable in certain circumstances? Yes. Would they be very special circumstances? Yes.

I.e. in a sci-fi book called Altered Carbon, the protagonists consciousness is downloaded into a computer where he is tortured horribly. He's put into the body of a young girl who is systematically beaten and raped in a cell. They insert a soldering iron into her vagina and slowly heat it up. This goes on again and again for days. When he finally gets released back into the real world, there's not a mark on his body. How does the mental/physical differentiation have any application at all here?

Well, since that's make believe, and not real world, it has no application here. Try and come up with a less sensational example trying to tie waterboarding to systematic beatings and rape and I'll give it another go...

You have to make a stand and draw a clear bright line on what is ok, and what is not. And you don't do it by rating individual torture techniques on a scale of 1 to 10. You do a moral calculation and determine policy from there. And you listen to your lifelong interrogators' advice.

I agree with that. And my moral compass says when dealing with hardcore nutjobs who are out to kill me and mine, and I've either exhausted all options or I've tried "nice" options but have run out of time, I'd rather take an us or them approach and have us come out ahead and them be in mental discomfort for 35 seconds, 35 minutes, or 35 years (they chose this life, they chose not to give up the easy way, ie. they chose)....than to keep playing the game they end up winning. It sucks for everyone involved....it just sucks less for us.

Chuck

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: chucky2

And that's my point: Why are we taking off the table something that works - and works in a very timely fashion - simply because it causes mental duress to some bad dude?

I don't dispute waterboarding is torture (although really it's mental instead of physical), or that it should be a last resort type of thing.

Chuck

This seems short sighted, and relegates mental harm to some lesser realm than physical. You think the shell-shocked soldiers coming back from Vietnam who have nightmares the rest of their life and flashbacks, and visions of friends being blown up, that's not so bad because it's merely mental? I think those guys would trade a few bullet wounds and some beatings for a lifetime of fear.

To compare Vietnam vets who have battle induced PTSD to some hardcore terrorist POS, who's goal in life is to kill us, and make the argument that the terrorist POS might develop some mental anguish over being waterboarded...that's perhaps one of the craziest things I've ever heard. Ever.

And what about when we are able to simply stimulate pain receptors in the brain directly, without causing any physical damage at all? It will be purely the perception of pain (unending, constant, excruciating) without any bruising to the body...acceptable because it's mental?

Acceptable in certain circumstances? Yes. Would they be very special circumstances? Yes.

I.e. in a sci-fi book called Altered Carbon, the protagonists consciousness is downloaded into a computer where he is tortured horribly. He's put into the body of a young girl who is systematically beaten and raped in a cell. They insert a soldering iron into her vagina and slowly heat it up. This goes on again and again for days. When he finally gets released back into the real world, there's not a mark on his body. How does the mental/physical differentiation have any application at all here?

Well, since that's make believe, and not real world, it has no application here. Try and come up with a less sensational example trying to tie waterboarding to systematic beatings and rape and I'll give it another go...

You have to make a stand and draw a clear bright line on what is ok, and what is not. And you don't do it by rating individual torture techniques on a scale of 1 to 10. You do a moral calculation and determine policy from there. And you listen to your lifelong interrogators' advice.

I agree with that. And my moral compass says when dealing with hardcore nutjobs who are out to kill me and mine, and I've either exhausted all options or I've tried "nice" options but have run out of time, I'd rather take an us or them approach and have us come out ahead and them be in mental discomfort for 35 seconds, 35 minutes, or 35 years (they chose this life, they chose not to give up the easy way, ie. they chose)....than to keep playing the game they end up winning. It sucks for everyone involved....it just sucks less for us.

Chuck

You have no moral compass. You are the hardcore nut job. You wouldn't know what sucks is because you are garbage.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Its a tool in the toolbox. Nothing more, nothing less. They do far worse to others when they capture them.

Yes, I'm a "end justifies the means". They can waterboard one of these asshats till he needs a pine box for all i care as long as it saves one more American life.

You, like blackangst1, are a piece of garbage. Of course you feel that way. As an American, you're a worthless piece of shit.

Fuck off Moonie

Yeah, it's annoying to learn that you're nothing but garbage when you thought you were so real. You're a moral leper and a coward who has no faith in real the true meaning of America. Why don't you join the opposition. You're the same kind of scum they are.

 

[First]

Exceptions don't prove the rule. Torture may work in some instances, as dark as that sounds. But it shouldn't be policy for two reasons; it's morally abhorrent and it doesn't work most of the time.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Exceptions don't prove the rule. Torture may work in some instances, as dark as that sounds. But it shouldn't be policy for two reasons; it's morally abhorrent and it doesn't work most of the time.

Maybe it doesn't work most of the time, and by saying "most", you are agreeing that it does work some of the time. Which means the times you need it to work, which are the hopefully few times you actually need to employ it, the possible benefit (obtaining valuable information you'd never have got/never have got in a timely manner otherwise) outweighs the downside (actually having to resort to that treatment of another human ((can we really call POS terrorists that want to kill civilians human though???)) in that manner).

Which nows brings us right back to the thread title....

Chuck

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I'd like to think that fighting evil without being evil yourself is possible. Realistically I'm not sure it's possible.

If we're not making them beg for death to end their suffering, I really fail to match my definition of evil up to the same one that we are called.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Exceptions don't prove the rule. Torture may work in some instances, as dark as that sounds. But it shouldn't be policy for two reasons; it's morally abhorrent and it doesn't work most of the time.

Maybe it doesn't work most of the time, and by saying "most", you are agreeing that it does work some of the time. Which means the times you need it to work, which are the hopefully few times you actually need to employ it, the possible benefit (obtaining valuable information you'd never have got/never have got in a timely manner otherwise) outweighs the downside (actually having to resort to that treatment of another human ((can we really call POS terrorists that want to kill civilians human though???)) in that manner).

Which nows brings us right back to the thread title....

Chuck

Can we really call POS Americans that torture people human? Of course not. Human garbage, yes. You can call them that.

It's always amusing to see how fast people become garbage themselves when faced with other garbage. 'That guy's a piece of shit so I'm going to be one too. Every piece of shit is convinced that everybody else is a piece of shit too, and that's what he sets out, and usually manages, to prove. Every moron on earth bows to the terrorists demand that you be a moron too. This thread if full of just such worthless morons, people without a brain that functions or a backbone to hold themselves straight. Scum that succumbs to scum.

 

[Moonbeam]

Chicken: "I guess in that case you could say that evil was met by evil. To this day it still brings a smile to my face though."

M: Your moral compass is goofy. What was done wasn't evil. It put a stop to evil. Justice was done. That's it. If you smile that justice was done, meh, but if you're gloating it's sick, no?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Exceptions don't prove the rule. Torture may work in some instances, as dark as that sounds. But it shouldn't be policy for two reasons; it's morally abhorrent and it doesn't work most of the time.

Maybe it doesn't work most of the time, and by saying "most", you are agreeing that it does work some of the time. Which means the times you need it to work, which are the hopefully few times you actually need to employ it, the possible benefit (obtaining valuable information you'd never have got/never have got in a timely manner otherwise) outweighs the downside (actually having to resort to that treatment of another human ((can we really call POS terrorists that want to kill civilians human though???)) in that manner).

Which nows brings us right back to the thread title....

Chuck

No, we know it doesn't work most of the time, it's highly ineffective according to the vast majority of interrogators I've heard from and read about. But I'm sure it's limited applications have yielded important information. But to have to resort to that is inhuman, period. Terrorists are terrorists, but they're human too whether you like it or not. Hard to excuse that away.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Its a tool in the toolbox. Nothing more, nothing less. They do far worse to others when they capture them.

Yes, I'm a "end justifies the means". They can waterboard one of these asshats till he needs a pine box for all i care as long as it saves one more American life.

You, like blackangst1, are a piece of garbage. Of course you feel that way. As an American, you're a worthless piece of shit.

How in the holy hell is this not considered a presonal attack? Jesus shit, I've gotten warning PM's for much less then this.

Why am I not suprised....... isgust;

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Chicken: "I guess in that case you could say that evil was met by evil. To this day it still brings a smile to my face though."

M: Your moral compass is goofy. What was done wasn't evil. It put a stop to evil. Justice was done. That's it. If you smile that justice was done, meh, but if you're gloating it's sick, no?

Justice? Using the logic that you an others are employing in this case what he did was just as bad as the guy wailing on his girlfriend and therefore makes him just as evil.

Would it be more acceptable to you if we did the same thing to Abu Zubaydah that he did to others? How about we place him between 100 tons of concrete and begin crushing him instead, maybe with a few rods of glowing hot steel thrown in for good measure? T'would have been justice, no?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Its a tool in the toolbox. Nothing more, nothing less. They do far worse to others when they capture them.

Yes, I'm a "end justifies the means". They can waterboard one of these asshats till he needs a pine box for all i care as long as it saves one more American life.

You, like blackangst1, are a piece of garbage. Of course you feel that way. As an American, you're a worthless piece of shit.

How in the holy hell is this not considered a presonal attack? Jesus shit, I've gotten warning PM's for much less then this.

Why am I not suprised....... isgust;

Maybe the mods subscribe to the legal theory of truth being a defense to libel.