Waterboarding

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

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. It effectively prevents them from "going too far", such as the technique in your extreme example.

Don't we WANT them 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...

Yes, you're right, the current law does draw a clear line. And although I disagree with where the current line is drawn (obviously), if I thought it would stay there I might not object too strongly. But here's the thing (and this was the point I was trying to make in my post), the kind of logic I see justifying the CURRENT line could very easily justify extending it just a little bit further, and just a little bit farther after that...until we end up looking just like what we're fighting against. I realize that this could be a slippery slope fallacy, but I see nothing inherent in the pro-waterboarding argument that would limit things there... That's what I'm really concerned about, the same mindset that can justify waterboarding sounds a lot like a mindset that could justify almost anything if given the right circumstances.

Now maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm totally misreading you folks. Maybe your moral compass is just a little bit different than mine and waterboarding is the farthest you'd go no matter WHAT the circumstances...but nothing I've heard from the people justifying it makes it sound that way. And you know what the biggest thing missing is? ANYONE saying something along the lines of, "Look, nobody likes treating prisoners this way, but sometimes it's a necessary evil to save lives."

 

[maluckey]

And you know what the biggest thing missing is? ANYONE saying something along the lines of, "Look, nobody likes treating prisoners this way, but sometimes it's a necessary evil to save lives."

Funny, that is exactly what I have always said. Torture is horrible and tragic, but sometimes every great once in a while, it saves many lives, though the life of the torture victim will NEVER be the same.

So long as there are peole willing to go to any length to include dying for their beliefs, there MUST be someone available to help them achieve their goals. Sick, but true. If we rise to that morally superior and in my opinion ultimate state of grace, does this mean that our enemy will simply give up? NOT ON YOUR LIFE!

Would I torture someone to find the name of a drug dealer? NO would I personally torture a man for a code to disarm an armed nuclear weapon in New York City? You betcha! Would I be scarred over it? Likely, but thousands would live.

If it meant saving myself would I torture? NO, not even for the life of my own child or wife. To gain your life and lose your soul out of selfishness.....worthless.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: steppinthraxBut 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.

Even ignoring the inherent moral problems with torture, there remain just a couple of itty, bitty little problems with this philosophy:

How do you know that the person you are about to torture holds information that can save "millions of Americans?" Magic? Or do you just torture everyone that's the least bit suspicious and hope for the best?

And how do you know when to STOP torturing a person? That is, how do you know that a person you're torturing has supplied all the critical info they have (assuming there's any in the first place)? More magic? Or do you just keep torturing them indefinitely, just in case there's something (more) to learn?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

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.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. WATERBOARDING is, by the very definition of torture, is, well torture, just because you say it isn't doesn't mean a thing. Your slant is beyond tilted.
It's disgusting that someone who supposedly wears the uniform of my country doesn't see WATERBOARDING as torture. You don't deserve to wear a cub scout uniform let alone a military one.

 

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: steppinthraxBut 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.

Even ignoring the inherent moral problems with torture, there remain just a couple of itty, bitty little problems with this philosophy:

How do you know that the person you are about to torture holds information that can save "millions of Americans?" Magic? Or do you just torture everyone that's the least bit suspicious and hope for the best?

And how do you know when to STOP torturing a person? That is, how do you know that a person you're torturing has supplied all the critical info they have (assuming there's any in the first place)? More magic? Or do you just keep torturing them indefinitely, just in case there's something (more) to learn?

These are important points. I understand why some people are willing to allow "mild" torture, but the fact is it is not as simple as just making them suffer a little and then they give us the information.

I am fairly certain that there is never really going to be a situation where thousands of lives hang in the balance and the US government knows that torturing some of the people they have arrested will save those thousands of people.

Why do I think people are OK with waterboarding? Two reasons. Fear is the first one. People would rather let the government use an "acceptable" level of torture if it means they can stay safe. The second reason is because they don't have to see it. Why should Americans care if some faceless suspect is tortured?

Edit: And the fact that waterboarding is largely psychological torture does not make it any less torture, palehorse. Maybe they should have just done it to every member of congress briefly, before they voted on it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Torture is ripping someone?s flesh off. Rubbing salt in their wounds and causing as much pain as possible.

Water boarding, although near the limit, is certainly not torture and is FAR less treatment than the terrorists give us.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Torture is ripping someone?s flesh off. Rubbing salt in their wounds and causing as much pain as possible.

Water boarding, although near the limit, is certainly not torture and is FAR less treatment than the terrorists give us.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1353449

 

[Vaktathi]

One quick mention here for those in favor or waterboardin and torture.

The United States, as a signatory to the Genevea Conventions, is prohibited from engaging in certain acts, and though our enemies may be non signatory, may have broken the conventions, may not qualify as PoW's, they are still reserved certain rights, such as freedom from "outrages upon personal dignity" and the torture.

what this means is, the most we can do to people who are "illegal combatants" is bring them up before a fair trial in a speedy manner. they are still protected from torture, extended periods of confinement, etc...

don't believe me? read it yourself.

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

persons who have laid down their arms includes those who have been captured btw for those that may miss that.

Also, anyone being prosecuted under US law, meaning anyone in US territory or under its jurisdiction, is granted the protections under the constitution. READ the constitution, it provides those protections to all PERSONS/PEOPLE, nowhere does it state CITIZENS in the entirety of the amendments. nice that so many people are trying to tear down what we are fighting for in order to achieve some vague form of victory.



Just some things to keep in mind.

 

[sandorski]

Those who Torture deserve a worse fate. It makes me angry that the idea is even being discussed in the context that it is. It makes me sick who is entertaining this slippery slope.

 

[maluckey]

Oddly enough, we support killing criminals, mutilating and dismembering fetuses, but we cringe at pulling the fingernails off someone for critical information that could save lives.

Just one terrorist with information, aught the day before 9/11 could conceivably have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. If there were Air Marshals waiting for the remaining hijackers, the United States might never have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. Think about that.

Torturing for information by anyone other than a trained information gatherer would likely as counterproductive as productive. A trained interviewer never goes into an interview without knowing something as a control. That way you have facts that aren't in dispute, though the subject doesn't know that you know.

 

[Aisengard]

Not many here support dismembering fetuses. And the ones who support killing criminals are usually the ones who support torture as well. Nice try, but you're not fooling anyone.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Oddly enough, we support killing criminals, mutilating and dismembering fetuses, but we cringe at pulling the fingernails off someone for critical information that could save lives.

We don't pull fingernails off; the WORST case which we only rarely use is to make them think their drowning. One day we?re going to get bemoaned for so much as looking at them cross. How dare we make unfavorable eye contact!

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Those who Torture deserve a worse fate. It makes me angry that the idea is even being discussed in the context that it is. It makes me sick who is entertaining this slippery slope.

QFT.



There are so many truly sick beings in this thread supporting something that as Americans we should never even consider.

Traitors to their nation all of them.

Shame!

:thumbsdown:

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Those who Torture deserve a worse fate. It makes me angry that the idea is even being discussed in the context that it is. It makes me sick who is entertaining this slippery slope.

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by: palehorse74
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.

Or to be even more accurate *Fear of Dieing Approach*
You could also dangle the alleged terrorist by their ankles off a bridge and call it * The Fear of Falling Approach*
Think I saw a video of Saddam doing the same thing (and letting go). So this would really be effective

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: maluckey

And you know what the biggest thing missing is? ANYONE saying something along the lines of, "Look, nobody likes treating prisoners this way, but sometimes it's a necessary evil to save lives."

Funny, that is exactly what I have always said. Torture is horrible and tragic, but sometimes every great once in a while, it saves many lives, though the life of the torture victim will NEVER be the same.

So long as there are peole willing to go to any length to include dying for their beliefs, there MUST be someone available to help them achieve their goals. Sick, but true. If we rise to that morally superior and in my opinion ultimate state of grace, does this mean that our enemy will simply give up? NOT ON YOUR LIFE!

Would I torture someone to find the name of a drug dealer? NO would I personally torture a man for a code to disarm an armed nuclear weapon in New York City? You betcha! Would I be scarred over it? Likely, but thousands would live.

If it meant saving myself would I torture? NO, not even for the life of my own child or wife. To gain your life and lose your soul out of selfishness.....worthless.

Yeah, but you don't count. He obviously meant "anyone in power, from GWB on down". BTW, after reading this post, I hereby nominate you to replace Donny Rumsfeld.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

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?

We will never win the war against terrorism specifically because we refuse to stoop to their level. When the enemy is willing to happily engage in tactics that we won't even consider, we automatically lose.

They kill innocent people and celebrate. They kill their own and say it's the will of Allah. They cut off heads and post the event on the internet shouting praises to their god.

We are ashamed to tacitly admit that we inflict pain to gain information. (Forget that we don't cut their heads off) In their eyes, we're pvssies.

If you want to wrestle with the pig you have to get in the mud and we're terrifed of getting dirty. The only way to beat them is to make them believe that we are as ruthless and cold as they are and we don't give a crap what anyone else thinks.

 

[Czar]

the word game seems to be continuing, you just redefine the meaning of words to fit your agenda.. just to justify it for yourself because you cant comprihend that you are supporting such acts

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Czar
the word game seems to be continuing, you just redefine the meaning of words to fit your agenda.. just to justify it for yourself because you cant comprihend that you are supporting such acts

I didn't change any definitions... I stated a cold fact. Are you trying to say that our behavior is worse than theirs?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Czar
the word game seems to be continuing, you just redefine the meaning of words to fit your agenda.. just to justify it for yourself because you cant comprihend that you are supporting such acts

I didn't change any definitions... I stated a cold fact. Are you trying to say that our behavior is worse than theirs?

So, you volunteering to fly planes into some Middle Eastern building?

 

[imported_Aelius]

Those who try to redefine torture or support it do not have the moral fortitude that defined the Constitution and your nation.

So current laws don't apply eh?:

The Geneva Convention, US War Crimes Act and Federal Anti-Torture Statue says it does.

Direct Quote next block of text only:

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. "

"Torture or inhuman treatment of prisoners-of-war (Geneva III, arts. 17 & 87) or protected persons (Geneva IV, art. 32) are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and are considered war crimes (Geneva III, art. 130; Geneva IV, art. 147). War crimes create an obligation on any state to prosecute the alleged perpetrators or turn them over to another state for prosecution. This obligation applies regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator, the nationality of the victim or the place where the act of torture or inhuman treatment was committed (Geneva III, art.129; Geneva IV, art. 146)."

"The War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. War crimes under the act include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. It also includes violations of common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits ?violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; ?outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."

"A federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted in 1994, provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S., commits or attempts to commit torture. Torture is defined as an ?act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.? A person found guilty under the act can be incarcerated for up to 20 years or receive the death penalty if the torture results in the victim?s death. "

Source for the above.

"Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.
State Parties Signature Ratification / Accession 1) Reservation / Declaration 2)

United States of America 12.08.1949 02.08.1955 02.08.1955. (text)"

"1) Ratification : a treaty is generally open for signature for a certain time following the conference which has adopted it. However, a signature is not binding on a State unless it has been endorsed by ratification. The time limits having elapsed, the Conventions and the Protocols are no longer open for signature. The States which have not signed them may at any time accede or, in the appropriate circumstances, succeed to them.
Accession : instead of signing and then ratifying a treaty, a State may become party to it by the single act called accession."

Source for the above.

I bolded what matters the most.

Also nowhere does it state in the Constitution that you can or should cart people off to be tortured. It does however state, several times, that people should not be deprived of life or liberty without due process.

The end.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Czar
the word game seems to be continuing, you just redefine the meaning of words to fit your agenda.. just to justify it for yourself because you cant comprihend that you are supporting such acts

I didn't change any definitions... I stated a cold fact. Are you trying to say that our behavior is worse than theirs?

then is waterboarding torture?
are all those in gitmo terrorists?

 

[Czar]

and not forgetting the biggest one of them all the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which the US is violating

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

every country in the world is a signature to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

and there are more articles there which the US is violating

 

[theblackbox]

quick poll, how many people here have been tortured or seen actual torture, not some hollywood semblance or from a book. it's one thing to talk about the wrongs of the world from behind a computer in a comfortable chair, but it's another to have seen or been a victim of a violation of human rights.

Czar, every country may be a signature, but very few read what they were signing.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: theblackbox
quick poll, how many people here have been tortured or seen actual torture, not some hollywood semblance or from a book. it's one thing to talk about the wrongs of the world from behind a computer in a comfortable chair, but it's another to have seen or been a victim of a violation of human rights.

Czar, every country may be a signature, but very few read what they were signing.

It's not a question of reading it. It's a question of following it, or lack thereof. Like the Constitution.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Czar
the word game seems to be continuing, you just redefine the meaning of words to fit your agenda.. just to justify it for yourself because you cant comprihend that you are supporting such acts

I didn't change any definitions... I stated a cold fact. Are you trying to say that our behavior is worse than theirs?

then is waterboarding torture?
are all those in gitmo terrorists?

Of course it is. How many people die from water boarding? How many people survive beheadings? You're missing my point.

We sit here debating whether or not it's right to inflict pain and fear into someone in an effort to gain information.

Meanwhile, the people we are fighing don't even bother with the formality of pain, they just kill. Indiscriminately... They don't even care who they kill. They kill us, they kill their own, and when they have a really sensational death scene they post it on the internet and praise their god.

How can we win a war against an enemy like this when we are unwilling to sink to their level because of some arbitrary sense of honor? We can't. To boil it down to it's base, this is a gross-out contest. The other kid will happily eat the worm and we wont. We lose.