Waterboarding

[Aisengard]

I know Republicans love the idea of torture against not only terrorists, but accused terrorists and pretty much anyone Bush and Co thinks could be a threat, but do we really want to become like our enemies?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

According to that Washington Post article, a Japanese soldier was given 15 years for using waterboarding as a torture tool. The same article also said that while it got:

Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the prime plotter of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, to begin to talk and provide information..."not all of it reliable," a former senior intelligence official said.

So while waterboarding is morally wrong, it also produces unreliable information. So basically it's useless. So why do Republicans continue to support such a useless and morally reprehensible act? You don't have to mention the irony of them supporting such useless and morally reprehensible leaders.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Torture by itself produces information.

A person will provide info that they to stop the torture.

When time is of the essence, slow and acceptable methods of obtaining information will not succeed.


Some of the info may be reliable, some may be not. Much depends on what can be corroborated.

Waterboarding and other methods can create a breaking point with different time-lines.

 

[GoPackGo]

Would making them watch "She's the Sheriff" reruns be considered torture?

 

[bamacre]

They have moral standards?

 

[steppinthrax]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
I know Republicans love the idea of torture against not only terrorists, but accused terrorists and pretty much anyone Bush and Co thinks could be a threat, but do we really want to become like our enemies?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

According to that Washington Post article, a Japanese soldier was given 15 years for using waterboarding as a torture tool. The same article also said that while it got:

Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the prime plotter of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, to begin to talk and provide information..."not all of it reliable," a former senior intelligence official said.

So while waterboarding is morally wrong, it also produces unreliable information. So basically it's useless. So why do Republicans continue to support such a useless and morally reprehensible act? You don't have to mention the irony of them supporting such useless and morally reprehensible leaders.

I'm a die hard democrat all the way. But one thing I do support is the idea of torture. If one person is holding information that is needed within a very short amount of time which holds the lives of millions of Americans. We need some way to extract this data from this person. We must disregard the likely hood and if neccessary life of one person to save the lives of millions. I do believe if torture is carried out before it is done we must make the person understand by verbal means of course that what we will do. It must also be used the the extream of situations. We must have absolute proof that this person has this data that we need. It can't be used anytime we choose.

As far as torture not being effective. An experienced torturer would know when it is too much and when to torture. Also he/she needs to know what type of torture to use and various variables to influce people. It all boils down to this. If you are die hard on holding information and you are being tortured. You are in so much pain you forget all about your basic primative defence and spit the information out in-voluntarily.

 

[Arkaign]

State-sanctioned torture is wrong. Not a little bit wrong, but absolutely wrong.

We used to prosecute those who engaged in such disgusting actions.

Now we have become what we said we were defending the world against.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
State-sanctioned torture is wrong. Not a little bit wrong, but absolutely wrong.

We used to prosecute those who engaged in such disgusting actions.

Now we have become what we said we were defending the world against.

It depends what your definition of torture is.

 

[palehorse]

I just wish that everyone would call this technique by its more accurate name: "The Fear of Drowning Approach."

PS: IMO, it's not torture.

 

[Feldenak]

Torture is a notoriously unreliable method of obtaining accurate information. Subject will make up anything to get the torturers to stop.

 

[jjzelinski]

I think our nation was founded with noble intentions, our ideological foundation shouldn't be hypocrisy and fear. Funny thing is, by compromising the values our country was founded upon we're letting the enemy win. Terrorism is meant to communicate through fear, to subvert through attrition; I think it's safe to say that's exactly what we've let happen.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: Aisengard
I know Republicans love the idea of torture against not only terrorists, but accused terrorists and pretty much anyone Bush and Co thinks could be a threat, but do we really want to become like our enemies?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

According to that Washington Post article, a Japanese soldier was given 15 years for using waterboarding as a torture tool. The same article also said that while it got:

Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the prime plotter of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, to begin to talk and provide information..."not all of it reliable," a former senior intelligence official said.

So while waterboarding is morally wrong, it also produces unreliable information. So basically it's useless. So why do Republicans continue to support such a useless and morally reprehensible act? You don't have to mention the irony of them supporting such useless and morally reprehensible leaders.

I'm a die hard democrat all the way. But one thing I do support is the idea of torture. If one person is holding information that is needed within a very short amount of time which holds the lives of millions of Americans. We need some way to extract this data from this person. We must disregard the likely hood and if neccessary life of one person to save the lives of millions. I do believe if torture is carried out before it is done we must make the person understand by verbal means of course that what we will do. It must also be used the the extream of situations. We must have absolute proof that this person has this data that we need. It can't be used anytime we choose.

As far as torture not being effective. An experienced torturer would know when it is too much and when to torture. Also he/she needs to know what type of torture to use and various variables to influce people. It all boils down to this. If you are die hard on holding information and you are being tortured. You are in so much pain you forget all about your basic primative defence and spit the information out in-voluntarily.

Aside from your pitiful language skills, I don't believe that you know what you are talking about. We have substantial evidence that points to evidence gathered under torture as 'unreliable' at best. You have also failed to take into account additional factors, such as 'leading' the subject into saying certain things, which may or may not be even true. Additionally, the subject may indicate or give false information on purpose, such as to delay or obfuscate the mission purposefully. Example; 'the man in control is X, who was in X city on X date, and will be heading to X to deliver X.' Following up on false leads can consume thousands of man-hours, and enormous budget considerations.

In the final equation, I choose to view it philosophically. By lowering our national standards to agree with torture (we already accept civilian deaths by the truckload, so long as they're not ours ..... yet), we become no better than what we once defended against. Indeed, irregardless of motive, torturing human beings is wrong. Even if evidence gathered under torture conditions were 100% reliable, which is a far cry from reality, it serves no purpose to throw away all moral conduct in the pursuit of these criminals.

If humanity has 'advanced' so far as to view torture as morally acceptable by the nation which has previously chastised others for the practice, then it's a sad descent from this point. All kinds of justifications can be used from this breakdown in logic, once it is acceptable to throw all morality out the door in exchange for a desired result.

Don't want political dissent? Torture those who don't agree with the ruling party, and execute those who refuse to convert.

Don't want certain minorities participating in society who bring less to the table in terms of tax dollars? Sell them as slaves or dissasemble them for raw profit (organs, plasma, blood, bone marrow, etc).

Are educated and free thinking individuals a threat to national security? Mandate partial lobotomies so as to reduce them to single-purpose worker drones. Disassemble the failed operations for parts.

We don't need torture in a society that wishes to be a beacon to the world. By turning our backs on morality, we shine the light of hate upon the world, and shame ourselves deeply.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I just wish that everyone would call this technique by its more accurate name: "The Fear of Drowning Approach."

PS: it's not torture.

Explain why we procecuted foreign soldiers who used the practice on US soldiers previously?

Was it torture back then, and not now?

Is it only torture if it involves a US citizen? A white man? A soldier?

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I just wish that everyone would call this technique by its more accurate name: "The Fear of Drowning Approach."

PS: it's not torture.

It's not torture?

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
tor?ture /'t?rt??r/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tawr-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -tured, -tur?ing.
?noun
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or ***mind***; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or ***anguish***.
?verb (used with object)
6. to subject to torture.
7. to afflict with ***severe pain*** of body or ***mind***: My back is torturing me.
8. to force or extort by torture: We'll torture the truth from his lips!
9. to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.
10. to distort or pervert (language, meaning, etc.).

So it seems pretty clear that when you convince a person that they are being murdered so as to induce a state of utter panic, that's torture. Unless you think being drowned is fun. Perhaps it's akin to harsh language to you? And just in case you're not convinced, we sentenced several soldiers to jail for instilling mortal fear into their prisoners. How is that any different?

Can you say to yourself that what happened to our prisoners in Vietnam was bad but what we're doing present day is good? The only thing that's different is which side of the table our soldiers are on.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I just wish that everyone would call this technique by its more accurate name: "The Fear of Drowning Approach."

PS: it's not torture.

Explain why we procecuted foreign soldiers who used the practice on US soldiers previously?

Was it torture back then, and not now?

Is it only torture if it involves a US citizen? A white man? A soldier?

IMO, The FOD Approach is never torture. period.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I just wish that everyone would call this technique by its more accurate name: "The Fear of Drowning Approach."

PS: it's not torture.

It's not torture?

correct.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I just wish that everyone would call this technique by its more accurate name: "The Fear of Drowning Approach."

PS: it's not torture.

It's not torture?

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
tor?ture /'t?rt??r/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tawr-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -tured, -tur?ing.
?noun
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or ***mind***; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or ***anguish***.
?verb (used with object)
6. to subject to torture.
7. to afflict with ***severe pain*** of body or ***mind***: My back is torturing me.
8. to force or extort by torture: We'll torture the truth from his lips!
9. to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.
10. to distort or pervert (language, meaning, etc.).

So it seems pretty clear that when you convince a person that they are being murdered so as to induce a state of utter panic, that's torture. Unless you think being drowned is fun. Perhaps it's akin to harsh language to you? And just in case you're not convinced, we sentenced several soldiers to jail for instilling mortal fear into their prisoners. How is that any different?

Can you say to yourself that what happened to our prisoners in Vietnam was bad but what we're doing present day is good? The only thing that's different is which side of the table our soldiers are on.

By those definitions I am tortured every day.

 

[steppinthrax]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: Aisengard
I know Republicans love the idea of torture against not only terrorists, but accused terrorists and pretty much anyone Bush and Co thinks could be a threat, but do we really want to become like our enemies?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

According to that Washington Post article, a Japanese soldier was given 15 years for using waterboarding as a torture tool. The same article also said that while it got:

Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the prime plotter of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, to begin to talk and provide information..."not all of it reliable," a former senior intelligence official said.

So while waterboarding is morally wrong, it also produces unreliable information. So basically it's useless. So why do Republicans continue to support such a useless and morally reprehensible act? You don't have to mention the irony of them supporting such useless and morally reprehensible leaders.

I'm a die hard democrat all the way. But one thing I do support is the idea of torture. If one person is holding information that is needed within a very short amount of time which holds the lives of millions of Americans. We need some way to extract this data from this person. We must disregard the likely hood and if neccessary life of one person to save the lives of millions. I do believe if torture is carried out before it is done we must make the person understand by verbal means of course that what we will do. It must also be used the the extream of situations. We must have absolute proof that this person has this data that we need. It can't be used anytime we choose.

As far as torture not being effective. An experienced torturer would know when it is too much and when to torture. Also he/she needs to know what type of torture to use and various variables to influce people. It all boils down to this. If you are die hard on holding information and you are being tortured. You are in so much pain you forget all about your basic primative defence and spit the information out in-voluntarily.

Aside from your pitiful language skills, I don't believe that you know what you are talking about. We have substantial evidence that points to evidence gathered under torture as 'unreliable' at best. You have also failed to take into account additional factors, such as 'leading' the subject into saying certain things, which may or may not be even true. Additionally, the subject may indicate or give false information on purpose, such as to delay or obfuscate the mission purposefully. Example; 'the man in control is X, who was in X city on X date, and will be heading to X to deliver X.' Following up on false leads can consume thousands of man-hours, and enormous budget considerations.

In the final equation, I choose to view it philosophically. By lowering our national standards to agree with torture (we already accept civilian deaths by the truckload, so long as they're not ours ..... yet), we become no better than what we once defended against. Indeed, irregardless of motive, torturing human beings is wrong. Even if evidence gathered under torture conditions were 100% reliable, which is a far cry from reality, it serves no purpose to throw away all moral conduct in the pursuit of these criminals.

If humanity has 'advanced' so far as to view torture as morally acceptable by the nation which has previously chastised others for the practice, then it's a sad descent from this point. All kinds of justifications can be used from this breakdown in logic, once it is acceptable to throw all morality out the door in exchange for a desired result.

Don't want political dissent? Torture those who don't agree with the ruling party, and execute those who refuse to convert.

Don't want certain minorities participating in society who bring less to the table in terms of tax dollars? Sell them as slaves or dissasemble them for raw profit (organs, plasma, blood, bone marrow, etc).

Are educated and free thinking individuals a threat to national security? Mandate partial lobotomies so as to reduce them to single-purpose worker drones. Disassemble the failed operations for parts.

We don't need torture in a society that wishes to be a beacon to the world. By turning our backs on morality, we shine the light of hate upon the world, and shame ourselves deeply.

You?re stating an extreme view of what we discussed. Torture is to be used only for the purposes of obtain information, not for what you mentioned above. Terrorist that come into the United States to terrorize know our legal system is the highest extent of pussyfication. They know once their arrested there is a due process and they are treated so well they get away with completing their objective.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I just wish that everyone would call this technique by its more accurate name: "The Fear of Drowning Approach."

PS: it's not torture.

Explain why we procecuted foreign soldiers who used the practice on US soldiers previously?

Was it torture back then, and not now?

Is it only torture if it involves a US citizen? A white man? A soldier?

IMO, The FOD Approach is never torture. period.

So if would be perfectly okay if someone did this to you? Your family? Your child?

Btw, should be exonerate and pay reparations to the Japanese soldier that we convicted of using this same practice? Should we prosecute the people who charged him with something that, according to you, isn't torture?

 

[jjzelinski]

What if someone put a gun to a family members head (wife, child, mom, dad) and pulled the trigger. You just saw them murdered.

However, after suffering through the anguish of their loss you later learn that it was a hoax; they're ok. Is that torture?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: Aisengard
I know Republicans love the idea of torture against not only terrorists, but accused terrorists and pretty much anyone Bush and Co thinks could be a threat, but do we really want to become like our enemies?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

According to that Washington Post article, a Japanese soldier was given 15 years for using waterboarding as a torture tool. The same article also said that while it got:

Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the prime plotter of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, to begin to talk and provide information..."not all of it reliable," a former senior intelligence official said.

So while waterboarding is morally wrong, it also produces unreliable information. So basically it's useless. So why do Republicans continue to support such a useless and morally reprehensible act? You don't have to mention the irony of them supporting such useless and morally reprehensible leaders.

I'm a die hard democrat all the way. But one thing I do support is the idea of torture. If one person is holding information that is needed within a very short amount of time which holds the lives of millions of Americans. We need some way to extract this data from this person. We must disregard the likely hood and if neccessary life of one person to save the lives of millions. I do believe if torture is carried out before it is done we must make the person understand by verbal means of course that what we will do. It must also be used the the extream of situations. We must have absolute proof that this person has this data that we need. It can't be used anytime we choose.

As far as torture not being effective. An experienced torturer would know when it is too much and when to torture. Also he/she needs to know what type of torture to use and various variables to influce people. It all boils down to this. If you are die hard on holding information and you are being tortured. You are in so much pain you forget all about your basic primative defence and spit the information out in-voluntarily.

Aside from your pitiful language skills, I don't believe that you know what you are talking about. We have substantial evidence that points to evidence gathered under torture as 'unreliable' at best. You have also failed to take into account additional factors, such as 'leading' the subject into saying certain things, which may or may not be even true. Additionally, the subject may indicate or give false information on purpose, such as to delay or obfuscate the mission purposefully. Example; 'the man in control is X, who was in X city on X date, and will be heading to X to deliver X.' Following up on false leads can consume thousands of man-hours, and enormous budget considerations.

In the final equation, I choose to view it philosophically. By lowering our national standards to agree with torture (we already accept civilian deaths by the truckload, so long as they're not ours ..... yet), we become no better than what we once defended against. Indeed, irregardless of motive, torturing human beings is wrong. Even if evidence gathered under torture conditions were 100% reliable, which is a far cry from reality, it serves no purpose to throw away all moral conduct in the pursuit of these criminals.

If humanity has 'advanced' so far as to view torture as morally acceptable by the nation which has previously chastised others for the practice, then it's a sad descent from this point. All kinds of justifications can be used from this breakdown in logic, once it is acceptable to throw all morality out the door in exchange for a desired result.

Don't want political dissent? Torture those who don't agree with the ruling party, and execute those who refuse to convert.

Don't want certain minorities participating in society who bring less to the table in terms of tax dollars? Sell them as slaves or dissasemble them for raw profit (organs, plasma, blood, bone marrow, etc).

Are educated and free thinking individuals a threat to national security? Mandate partial lobotomies so as to reduce them to single-purpose worker drones. Disassemble the failed operations for parts.

We don't need torture in a society that wishes to be a beacon to the world. By turning our backs on morality, we shine the light of hate upon the world, and shame ourselves deeply.

You?re stating an extreme view of what we discussed. Torture is to be used only for the purposes of obtain information, not for what you mentioned above. Terrorist that come into the United States to terrorize know our legal system is the highest extent of pussyfication. They know once their arrested there is a due process and they are treated so well they get away with completing their objective.

Excuse me?

(A)- Information gathered under torture is borderline useless, and probably a waste of resources in the end.

(B)- Our legal system is *not* the highest form of weakness, as you so childishly proclaim. Your blatant disregard for due process speaks volumes of the fascism that you would thrive in. You probably ache to be part of Himmler's SS, or perhaps an Einsatzgruppenfuhrer. Oh, to be a German bully during Hitler's reign!

(C)- Withholding from torture does not mean that we cannot totally incapacitate any captured terrorists. I have no qualms with punishing convicted terrorists with life sentences in the most basic conditions (food, water, no amenities whatsoever), or indeed even supporting execution for those found irrevocably guilty of murder. Choosing not to torture means that we are BETTER than the terrorists. Not weaker. Weakness is falling to the level of your enemies. That gives them far too much credit. Terrorism is the inneffectual desperate tantrum of a side that has lost utterly in the big picture. Overreacting to terrorism (changing our laws, our society, our very structure as a country) lets THEM WIN. We give up both liberty and ideals in exhance for some illusory safety and toughness? What kind of pedantic tripe is that?

We need to send the message loud and clear that we are NOT afraid of the terrorists. In fact, their useless and wasteful tactics are unworthy of more than token attention. But if we catch you on our soil, or engaging in violent acts against our people, you will never see the light of day again. If you have actually killed any of our citizens, we will hang you summarily. Oh, and by the way, after developing an alternative energy platform, our economy will no longer be chained to your backwards-arse shitholes you call your countries. We have no interest in lowering our standards to accomodate trash like you.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
So if would be perfectly okay if someone did this to you? Your family? Your child?

yes, IF we(they) have been vetted to be beyond the scope of the simpler interrogation techniques, AND we (they) are involved, or suspected of being involved, in terrorist activities. In fact, I'd much prefer the FOD approach than the knife-through-your-throat approach every time.

Btw, should be exonerate and pay reparations to the Japanese soldier that we convicted of using this same practice? Should we prosecute the people who charged him with something that, according to you, isn't torture?

I tend to live in the here-and-now. If I were him, I'd certainly appeal to be exonerated, and I'd make a damn good case of it... but I'm not him, nor do I care about his personal trials and tribs.

I also do not put much faith in the general public discussing or deciding upon issues that they barely understand.

Ask yourself this: in a day and age when the primary goal of our intelligence gathering aparatus is to streamline the processes and define the methodologies which are the most effective, why would the REAL experts lobby for the use of techniques that are truly "useless"? Presuming as much defies logic and reason.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Arkaign
So if would be perfectly okay if someone did this to you? Your family? Your child?

yes, IF we(they) have been vetted to be beyond the scope of the simpler interrogation techniques, AND we (they) are involved, or suspected of being involved, in terrorist activities. In fact, I'd much prefer the FOD approach than the knife-through-your-throat approach every time.

Btw, should be exonerate and pay reparations to the Japanese soldier that we convicted of using this same practice? Should we prosecute the people who charged him with something that, according to you, isn't torture?

I tend to live in the here-and-now. If I were him, I'd certainly appeal to be exonerated, and I'd make a damn good case of it... but I'm not him, nor do I care about his personal trials and tribs.

Well, I do not agree with your interpretation, but I applaud your clarity in stating your stance. You are free to your opinion. I am of the side that views this as giving the terrorists too much credit and response within our standards. In any case, cheers, and I sincerely hope that our standards do not erode further than this point.

 

[Rainsford]

I think Aisengard's question has been answered well enough by the responses to his posts. It's not so much a matter of lowering our moral standards as not having any to begin with. The responses of the various pro-torture folks indicates a very utilitarian mindset...things are only "right" or "wrong" in the greater scheme of things, presumably situations exist in their minds where the most terrible things can be justified. If waterboarding is an acceptable general intelligence gathering method when we have a reluctant prisoner who we THINK might have valuable information of some sort, does that justify slowly flaying someone with a sharp knife if we KNOW it would save a lot of lives? Am I the only person who sees the danger of throwing aside traditional morality in favor of expediency?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: Aisengard
I know Republicans love the idea of torture against not only terrorists, but accused terrorists and pretty much anyone Bush and Co thinks could be a threat, but do we really want to become like our enemies?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

According to that Washington Post article, a Japanese soldier was given 15 years for using waterboarding as a torture tool. The same article also said that while it got:

Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the prime plotter of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, to begin to talk and provide information..."not all of it reliable," a former senior intelligence official said.

So while waterboarding is morally wrong, it also produces unreliable information. So basically it's useless. So why do Republicans continue to support such a useless and morally reprehensible act? You don't have to mention the irony of them supporting such useless and morally reprehensible leaders.

I'm a die hard democrat all the way. But one thing I do support is the idea of torture. If one person is holding information that is needed within a very short amount of time which holds the lives of millions of Americans. We need some way to extract this data from this person. We must disregard the likely hood and if neccessary life of one person to save the lives of millions. I do believe if torture is carried out before it is done we must make the person understand by verbal means of course that what we will do. It must also be used the the extream of situations. We must have absolute proof that this person has this data that we need. It can't be used anytime we choose.

As far as torture not being effective. An experienced torturer would know when it is too much and when to torture. Also he/she needs to know what type of torture to use and various variables to influce people. It all boils down to this. If you are die hard on holding information and you are being tortured. You are in so much pain you forget all about your basic primative defence and spit the information out in-voluntarily.

careful your in danger of being thrown out of the party. ala Liberman

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
If waterboarding is an acceptable general intelligence gathering method when we have a reluctant prisoner who we THINK might have valuable information of some sort, does that justify slowly flaying someone with a sharp knife if we KNOW it would save a lot of lives?

do you at least recognize the strawmanic nature of that statement? The Detainee Act lists specific methods which are allowed, thus eliminating the need for every interrogator to interpret the GC's themselves; as it was until the Act was passed. It effectively prevents them from "going too far."

Don't we WANT interrogators to know their limits? If so, then it's just a matter of disagreeing on where the lines should be drawn.

After all, I consider waiting in long lines or listening to hardcore rap torturous...