I now accept waterboarding

[Upchurch]

If that is the case, why is waterboarding used?

Because we've been lax in keeping our government under control?

 

[corplinx]

Question for you: Does the above justify the use of torture?

Does a single case where we extracted useful information justify the use of psychologically anguishing torture in that case or in general?

In the case of the single case of KSM, I would answer something along the lines of: "the ends do not justify the means and if i was to provide a justification of the waterboarding of KSM it would not be based on outcome"

In the case of a general approval I would say it is too small a sample to determine whether or not it should be used widely.

If we can verify it so readily, doesn't that suggest to you that there might be alternate ways to obtain the information?

We know he has operational knowledge of the network. He was after all the man behind the 911 attacks. If he shares no knowledge of the network with us after using those methods, then where do we go? What is our escalation? What if we had an interrogation technique that was that invoked psychological anguish briefly and triggered a reaction that was nearly impossible to condition against?

I don't think we waterboard people because its fun. I hope we aren't that sick. I hope were doing it because A. it works, B. its fast and leaves the recipient physically fine. If we were psychologically torturing people just for the hell of it, I think we could all agree it was definitely out of line with most everyones "moral pride".

 

[Tailgater]

A friend of mine was waterboarded in high school, but back then it was called swirlies.

 

[pgwenthold]

I am against torture. I am against beating a man senseless just cause he is an enemy. I am against causing someone terribly physical pain just to attempt to get information.

But waterboarding is simulated drowning. No one drowns or dies from waterboarding.

The point of waterboarding is to scare the person into thinking he is drowning, even though he is not.

I think if it can indeed save a nation from a terrible attack, waterboarding, under certain circumstances, should be allowed.

I believe a doctor should be present. I believe there should be a time limit to how long the prisoner can be water boarded. I believe if no useful information comes from the prisoner after a few attempts at waterboarding, it should be stopped.

And yes, it is always possible that an innocent man is waterboarded or a man who knows nothing usefull is waterboarded. But it seems to me that the risk of possibly causing an innocent person the fear of drowning, even though he will not drown and will not die, is worth the price of trying to protect a nation.

And strapping electrodes to a man's genitals is not electrocution. No one will die from it.

BTW, if waterboarding were continued for an extended period of time (even an hour) it WILL cause death. And not just because it can cause pneumonia. That's more than can be said for applying a non-lethal voltage to the genitals.

OTOH, I am not sure what "simulated drowning" means. We have had this discussion before. Some have suggested that "drowning" means you die. If that is the case, then waterboarding is not simulating it. However, in the more colloqual usage of "drowning" of breathing water, filling the lungs (as in "Help, I'm drowning!", then waterboarding is not simulated at all. Water is absolutely going into the lungs, and as others have noted, is triggering the physiological drowning response.

 

[Adrian Lopez]

Why does there have to be an imminent threat to justify waterboarding?

Why does there have to be any sort of threat to justify waterboarding? "Justifying" an act is simply a matter of presenting a "need" and offering the act as a "solution".

 

[Upchurch]

Does a single case where we extracted useful information justify the use of psychologically anguishing torture in that case or in general?

I'll rephrase: Was torture justified in the case you cited? If so, why?

If we were psychologically torturing people just for the hell of it, I think we could all agree it was definitely out of line with most everyones "moral pride".

Do you consider immoral behavior okay as long as it serves a purpose that does not include personal gratification?

 

[Upchurch]

Why does there have to be any sort of threat to justify waterboarding? "Justifying" an act is simply a matter of presenting a "need" and offering the act as a "solution".

There is also an element of "cost" to consider.

 

[corplinx]

Do you consider immoral behavior okay as long as it serves a purpose that does not include personal gratification?

Of course I do. In ww2 we had people shooting other people as a means to an end. I have it on good authority we even killed them with bombs. We do many immoral things that serves a purpose other than personal gratifcation.

Killing is immoral. I don't like moral arguements. Too subjective, vague, and it can go anywhere with all sorts of comparions.

Lets talk numbers and facts.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You're right. It is not the only method to stop mass murder. Has anyone suggested that?

Nice straw-man. I didn't say anything like that at all.

But are you going to claim that there is no possible situation where it might be the only way to get actionable information out of someone in time to stop a mass murder?

I think the possibility is as likely as the possibility that psychics are real.

But please don't insult everyone's intelligence by saying that there is no conceivable circumstance where it could be the the only way to get the information you need to save people's lives.

Please don't insult everyone's intelligence by saying that there could be a circumstance where torture could be the only way to get information that could save people's lives. Such things only happen in fiction.

 

[rikzilla]

But when torture is used by Fidel, the North Vietnamese, Saddam and his colorful kids, Kim Jong Il, the terrorists who tortured CIA station Chief William Buckley to death--the list goes on--when it is used by these icons of the left, we won't utter a peep about it. NEVER. Not ever. Period.

Well Pomeroo since there is no vocal dissent in those nations it is obvious to the left that what we have here are socialist utopias...and we all know that socialist utopias, being such rare and delicate things, should never be criticised. After all, the ultimate leftist goal is to "fix" the US so that we can have a utopia here too. Other than brutal Stalinist and Maoist dictatorships the left also seems to hold unconditional love for "indigenous peoples" and other (non-Eurocentric) "cultures". When these "peoples" decided to scalp, skin, or roast someone alive you can be sure that it couldn't have been "torture" as torture can only properly be understood to be bad by the educated western mind. Ditto with the routine genital mutilation done to young girls in Arab and/or Islamic lands. It's "cultural" so don't dare call it torture! We must not impose our own values on these people...it's just not fair! No bro, it's just their culture! That makes it all okay! (See Michael Vick and the big-headed-steroid-junkies of MLB....it's a "culture" not a crime!) But when a majority white first world "Euro-centric" nation decides to get tough with some murderous terrorists...getting them wet and scaring them...well hell man that's Bushitler and his corporatenazitorturegoons destroying the good name of America! (Nevermind the tortures "cultural strategies" that our "Native Americans" brethren perpetuated.) Well, I call BS on what is basically just another incarnation of the racism of low expectations. If waterboarding=torture then what exactly do we call it when someone is thrown screaming into a wood chipper or placed on a rack or mangled with thumbscrews etc...etc...etc...??

-z

 

[shadron]

Would it change things for you if they were? If torturing a suspect should be allowed in order to save your family, doesn't it therefore follow that torturing a suspect should be allowed to save someone else's family? And those people on the plane are someone else's family.

About three years ago, I told my wife that should I ever get picked up by some terrorist and held for torture or death (like the beheaders at the time were doing), that if anyone in my family were to start pleading to a politician or the newspapers about freeing me, and it worked, I'd come back and break the arm of whoever did it. I told her that no amount of crying or begging to the cameras on my part while it captivity was to change that. I was to be considered dead, and that was the extent that they could talk about it to anyone outside the family. And I made sure that she understood I was serious. She even agreed with me on it, bless her heart.

Now, this may have only been bravado on my part; I've never been in a situation at risk of life or limb. Nor do I know what I'd really do if someone close to me were. But as far as I'm concerned right now, my life would not be worth the power that it gives these people in terms of publicity to have it done, and I'd also say that my estimation is that the erosion of the USA's reputation would not be worth the torture you propose to supply.

My only problem is if asked whether I'd torture to help someone else's family, would I? I think I'd probably wilt like a lettuce leaf and kill the sob on the spot. And blow the deal.

not wanting the resulting political embarrassment of the reigning president, as opposed to giving up "principles of life, liberty, and defense of justice"

Highlighted portion is irrelevant - not remotely a justification for torture. But to answer your question, do you have the right to torture in such a case? Not individually, no. But government has - or should have - the power (not the right - only people have rights) to do so, to protect its citizens. That is the primary purpose of government. A government that can not or will not protect its people has no right to exist.

Yeah, you're right - it's not. But I think it is closer to the real truth, the implicit CIA-trained truth, than is admitted. I think that pressure from their bosses, including The Boss, from the ethos left over from the cold war mindset, from the usual quasi-military desire to "not mess up" (including looking like a wimp) in front of peers, even in some cases the religious desire to spike the devil's messenger - all these are part of the reason why it happens right now. The right answer is in there, but if the other motivations aren't in there as well, they're probably in the wrong line of work.

I'll grant you your power argument - for military, in emergencies.

The rest later - gotta keep the devil from the doorstep, you know.

 

[Upchurch]

I don't like moral arguements. Too subjective, vague, and it can go anywhere with all sorts of comparions.

Lets talk numbers and facts.

Okay, 6 years ago, 19 people hijacked 4 planes and successfully attacked a nation they considered their enemy. Did you have a problem with that and, if so, why?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I see some inconsistencies here. Most have acknowledged that torture can be used to make a person confess to the most absurd crimes, such as witch-craft. However, some of these same people say that the same torture procedure can work to get truthful information as well. What kind of magic is this?

 

[Adrian Lopez]

There is also an element of "cost" to consider.

Certainly. There's also the matter of who bears most of that "cost". If the cost to the torturer is insignificant enough, cost isn't likely to become a consideration in his rationalization of torture.

 

[CFLarsen]

Because we've been lax in keeping our government under control?

You mean there has been nothing that prevents your own government from employing torture?

Maybe you should worry about how to remedy that, before you do anything else.

What is your solution?

 

[Oliver]

Yeah, all those america hating hippies and commies that hated america before but trusted us now no longer trust us.

Oh, and according to Oliver, their foreign counterparts as well.

No, I don't hate America nor do I know America-haters.
All I say is that I personally though America has higher
standards. Iraq, Waterboarding and Gitmo proved me
wrong.

And other people putting hope into America were deeply
disappointed as well.

Including the most America-hating politician of all: McCain

 

[Upchurch]

You mean there has been nothing that prevents your own government from employing torture?

Claus, nothing in the world can prevent bad things from happening. The question is whether or not you hold people accountable for the bad things they do.

What is your solution?

Press criminal charges, of course.

 

[shadron]

Would it change things for you if they were? If torturing a suspect should be allowed in order to save your family, doesn't it therefore follow that torturing a suspect should be allowed to save someone else's family? And those people on the plane are someone else's family.

About three years ago, I told my wife that should I ever get picked up by some terrorist and held for torture or death (like the beheaders at the time were doing), that if anyone in my family were to start pleading to a politician or the newspapers about freeing me, and it worked, I'd come back and break the arm of whoever did it. I told her that no amount of crying or begging to the cameras on my part while it captivity was to change that. I was to be considered dead, and that was the extent that they could talk about it to anyone outside the family. And I made sure that she understood I was serious. She even agreed with me on it, bless her heart.

Now, this may have only been bravado on my part; I've never been in a situation at risk of life or limb. Nor do I know what I'd really do if someone close to me were. But as far as I'm concerned right now, my life would not be worth the power that it gives these people in terms of publicity to have it done, and I'd also say that my estimation is that the erosion of the USA's reputation would not be worth the torture you propose to supply.

My only problem is if asked whether I'd torture to help someone else's family, would I? I think I'd probably wilt like a lettuce leaf and kill the sob on the spot. And blow the deal.

not wanting the resulting political embarrassment of the reigning president, as opposed to giving up "principles of life, liberty, and defense of justice"

Highlighted portion is irrelevant - not remotely a justification for torture. But to answer your question, do you have the right to torture in such a case? Not individually, no. But government has - or should have - the power (not the right - only people have rights) to do so, to protect its citizens. That is the primary purpose of government. A government that can not or will not protect its people has no right to exist.

Yeah, you're right - it's not. But I think it is closer to the real truth, the implicit CIA-trained truth, than is admitted. I think that pressure from their bosses, including The Boss, from the ethos left over from the cold war mindset, from the usual quasi-military desire to "not mess up" (including looking like a wimp) in front of peers, even in some cases the religious desire to spike the devil's messenger - all these are part of the reason why it happens right now. The right answer is in there, but if the other motivations aren't in there as well, they're probably in the wrong line of work.

I'll grant you your power argument - for military, in emergencies.

The rest later - gotta keep the devil from the doorstep, you know.

 

[gumboot]

International Law explicitly forbids the practice of mock executions. Even were waterboarding absolutely harmless in every way (it isn't, it can cause pain and potentially permanent damage to the lungs, for example) it would still be illegal for the simple fact that its effectiveness relies on the prisoner believing they are going to die.

-Gumboot

 

[corplinx]

Okay, 6 years ago, 19 people hijacked 4 planes and successfully attacked a nation they considered their enemy. Did you have a problem with that and, if so, why?

I had several problems with it that can all be shown on a calculator including damage to the economy that affects me. Notice this is a selfish reason to be against what they did, not one of concern to others.

If I wish to discuss why I had a an ethical problem with what they did, I will talk in terms of ethics. A subjective subject of course, but open to less interpretation than ethics' retarded country cousin morals.

One of the most basic tests of ethical behavior is reciprocation. Whether or not people are knowledgable enough of ethics to know this, they unconciously express it when they talk about "BUT WHAT IF THEY WERE WAREBOURDING USSS?" and "BUT THEY ARLADY DO BAD THINGS TO US". These rather pedestrian expressions on recoprocity of course miss some things.

So let's talk ethics now that I have brought the subject up. Does waterboarding pass/fail a test of reciprocity? Yes it does.

If america hijacked a bunch of planes in an unsuspecting country we were not at war with and used them in a terrorist act killing many civillians, causing their capital markets distress, and doing untold economic damage to their country, I would be completely in favor of that country waterboarding the captured US mastermind of the attack.

So in my case, the waterboarding of KSM was ethical behavior.

The problems with the more primitive reciprocity tests I mocked earlier is that they don't draw apples/apples comparisons. I expect as much though of people who have never studied ethics.