Dick Cheney: "I was a big supporter of waterboarding"

[ravdin]

This past Sunday, former VP Dick Cheney admitted to war crimes in an interview:

CHENEY: I was a big supporter of waterboarding. I was a big supporter of the enhanced interrogation techniques that...

KARL: And you opposed the administration's actions of doing away with waterboarding?

CHENEY: Yes.

Other supporters of waterboarding include the Spanish Inquisition, the Gestapo, and the Khmer Rouge. After World War II, we convicted Japanese soldiers for war crimes for waterboarding American POWs.

By affirming his commitment to torture so openly, Cheney has put us in an interesting dilemma: either we're a nation of laws or we aren't. There is no statute of limitations for these crimes and there is a clear mandate from international treaties to prosecute anyone who has admitted to a war crime. The Obama administration will make our standing in the world less meaningful if his attorney general ignores Cheney's clear contempt for the law.

 

[headscratcher4]

Yes...but all those others used waterboarding to torture people, we just used it to enhance our interogation. See? Big difference. Sort of like the difference between Dick Cheney and "War Criminal."

 

[Thunder]

i support waterboarding only in extreme conditions, when several intelligence services agree that a massive attack is coming, and we have good reason to believe that a certain person has info about it, and a doctor is present, and the duration of waterboarding is limited.

desperate times call for desperate measures.

 

[hgc]

i support waterboarding only in extreme conditions, when several intelligence services agree that a massive attack is coming, and we have good reason to believe that a certain person has info about it, and a doctor is present, and the duration of waterboarding is limited.

desperate times call for desperate measures.

Any doctor present for such a procedure should lose his license to practice medicine.

 

[Nursefoxfire]

i support waterboarding only in extreme conditions, when several intelligence services agree that a massive attack is coming, and we have good reason to believe that a certain person has info about it, and a doctor is present, and the duration of waterboarding is limited.

desperate times call for desperate measures.

And people subjected to waterboarding (or other torture methods) will get to a point where they'll say anything to stop the torture. I need to find the article I read, but to paraphrase: information gathered during torture can be considered suspect, as the torturee may come to a point where they say what they want the torturer to hear, simply to stop the pain/panic.

So as an information-gathering tool, you can't rely on the accuracy of the information you receive.

 

[Thunder]

And people subjected to waterboarding (or other torture methods) will get to a point where they'll say anything to stop the torture.

including the exact location of the nuke or dirty bomb?

i think the CIA and FBI know when someone is just saying what they want to hear, and when they are actually providing usable intelligence.

 

[ravdin]

i support waterboarding only in extreme conditions, when several intelligence services agree that a massive attack is coming, and we have good reason to believe that a certain person has info about it, and a doctor is present, and the duration of waterboarding is limited.

desperate times call for desperate measures.

First of all, that's not the international agreement we signed on to. The treaties don't condone torture because a politician decides that a certain individual might have information on an impending attack.

Also, what kind of information can we get from waterboarding someone 183 times? I have no love or sympathy for KSM- but this treatment does not suggest to me that there was a sense of urgency in his interrogation.

 

[Thunder]

First of all, that's not the international agreement we signed on to.

water boarding causes zero permanent physical damage. it leaves no scars. all it produces is fear.

is it comfortable? no. is it pleasent? no.

does it suck to be waterboarded? yes.

is it true torture..if it is limited in duration and a doctor is present? i am not convinced.

 

[I Ratant]

i support waterboarding only in extreme conditions, when several intelligence services agree that a massive attack is coming, and we have good reason to believe that a certain person has info about it, and a doctor is present, and the duration of waterboarding is limited.

desperate times call for desperate measures.

.
And you know the answer you want anyway, so why waste the water?

 

[ravdin]

water boarding causes zero permanent physical damage. it leaves no scars. all it produces is fear.

is it comfortable? no. is it pleasent? no.

does it suck to be waterboarded? yes.

is it true torture..if it is limited in duration and a doctor is present? i am not convinced.

The presence of a doctor argument is absurd. Doctors are flawed human beings like the rest of us and are not less capable of cruelty and errors in judgment.

How "limited in duration" would you suggest? Is 182 times instead of 183 limited enough for you? CIA officers who have voluntarily subjected themselves have held out for an average of 14 seconds before capitulating. KSM apparently won the admiration of his interrogators for holding out for two minutes before begging to confess.

There are precedents in US and international law for equating waterboarding with torture. This makes sense to me: would you want to give the police sweeping powers to waterboard you if you were suspected of a crime?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

i support waterboarding only in extreme conditions, when several intelligence services agree that a massive attack is coming, and we have good reason to believe that a certain person has info about it, and a doctor is present, and the duration of waterboarding is limited.

desperate times call for desperate measures.

Has this ever happened? The 'ticking bomb' situation seems to only exist on 24.

 

[Marcus]

water boarding causes zero permanent physical damage. it leaves no scars. all it produces is fear.

is it comfortable? no. is it pleasent? no.

does it suck to be waterboarded? yes.

is it true torture..if it is limited in duration and a doctor is present? i am not convinced.

I'm amazed anyone would confuse waterboarding with real torture. Might as well make sure they are as comfortable as possible during their interview, well rested, well fed, heck give them an easy chair and a drink, and by all means don't be mean by yelling at them. I'm being a bit facetious, but in extreme circumstances, were the lives of thousands or millions of people could be on the line, I think these types of interrogation techniques which don't cause bodily harm could be justified.

 

[Finster]

If you want to argue that torture is OK under "extreme" circumstances (as long as you're not trying to make a legal argument) that's fine; it's an opinion. I don't agree, but at least it's an honest argument.

Anybody pretending that water boarding is not torture is either ignorant, dishonest, or delusional (in my opinion)

 

[Cleon]

I'm amazed anyone would confuse waterboarding with real torture.

"I'm amazed that anyone would confuse strapping one's testicles to a car battery with real torture."

Might as well make sure they are as comfortable as possible during their interview, well rested, well fed, heck give them an easy chair and a drink, and by all means don't be mean by yelling at them. I'm being a bit facetious,

No, you're being stupid. The line between "easy chair and a drink" and "don't drown the prisoner" is not exactly thin and grey.

but in extreme circumstances, were the lives of thousands or millions of people could be on the line, I think these types of interrogation techniques which don't cause bodily harm could be justified.

And why couldn't "real" torture be justified, if thousands or millions of people could be on the line?

 

[Liszt]

Has this ever happened? The 'ticking bomb' situation seems to only exist on 24.

Amazingly, some torture apologist, can't remember who, used the excuse "what would Jack Bauer do?". I had to look up who Jack Bauer was, thinking it might be a philosopher or something. Fat chance.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

water boarding causes zero permanent physical damage. it leaves no scars. all it produces is fear.

Do you know about psychological damage, or are you merely superficial in what you mean by 'permanent'?

 

[ravdin]

Torture isn't just morally wrong- it's also ineffective.

If you have the time, check out this 2007 article. It's about how interrogators in Iraq got the information they needed to find the notorious terrorist al-Zarqawi and kill him.

The techniques were not pleasant, but it was not necessary or even desirable to resort to physical coercion at any point. There are much better ways to interrogate prisoners and get valuable, usable information from them.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200705/tracking-zarqawi

 

[Finster]

I think these types of interrogation techniques which don't cause bodily harm could be justified.

So, you're OK with rape and electric shock as interrogation techniques then?

 

[headscratcher4]

water boarding causes zero permanent physical damage. it leaves no scars. all it produces is fear.

is it comfortable? no. is it pleasent? no.

does it suck to be waterboarded? yes.

is it true torture..if it is limited in duration and a doctor is present? i am not convinced.

Even if you can close your eyes to it being torture, the efficacy of waterboarding is highly questionable. Most experts believe that less abusive forms of interrogation are far more effective. Torture is revenge not information gathering...that's why Pol Pot and the Nazi's liked it so well.

 

[TragicMonkey]

So, you're OK with rape and electric shock as interrogation techniques then?

Don't forget mock executions, or convincing people you've murdered or tortured their family and loved ones. If torture requires physical harm, then there can be no such thing as "psychological torture" at all.

We should set up some experiments, to test the matter empirically. I have both an active imagination and sociopathic tendencies. I believe I could turn someone into a complete basketcase without causing any physical harm to them at all! Minus, of course, any harm they might do to themselves. Does driving people to self-harm count as torture? I'd hate to be disqualified on a technicality like that.