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

[Undesired Walrus]

Believe me, it's torture.

it was difficult for me to completely forget the clause in the contract of indemnification that I had signed. This document (written by one who knew) stated revealingly:
“Water boarding” is a potentially dangerous activity in which the participant can receive serious and permanent (physical, emotional and psychological) injuries and even death, including injuries and death due to the respiratory and neurological systems of the body.
As the agreement went on to say, there would be safeguards provided “during the ‘water boarding’ process, however, these measures may fail and even if they work properly they may not prevent Hitchens from experiencing serious injury or death.”

I held my breath for a while and then had to exhale and—as you might expect—inhale in turn. The inhalation brought the damp cloths tight against my nostrils, as if a huge, wet paw had been suddenly and annihilatingly clamped over my face.

I have since woken up trying to push the bedcovers off my face, and if I do anything that makes me short of breath I find myself clawing at the air with a horrible sensation of smothering and claustrophobia.

1. Waterboarding is a deliberate torture technique and has been prosecuted as such by our judicial arm when perpetrated by others.

2. If we allow it and justify it, we cannot complain if it is employed in the future by other regimes on captive U.S. citizens. It is a method of putting American prisoners in harm’s way...

...
4. It opens a door that cannot be closed. Once you have posed the notorious “ticking bomb” question, and once you assume that you are in the right, what will you not do? Waterboarding not getting results fast enough? The terrorist’s clock still ticking? Well, then, bring on the thumbscrews and the pincers and the electrodes and the rack.

You may have read by now the official lie about this treatment, which is that it “simulates” the feeling of drowning. This is not the case. You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning—or, rather, being drowned, albeit slowly and under controlled conditions and at the mercy (or otherwise) of those who are applying the pressure.

I apply the Abraham Lincoln test for moral casuistry: “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.” Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.

 

[Arcade22]

Seems like the general consensus here is that that letting innocent civilians die in terrorist attacks is a price well worth paying for protecting a terrorist scumbag from some physical discomfort.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

The question is also posed: Does a civilian get charged with 'torture' or 'cruel and inhuman punishment' if they waterboard another person?

 

[ravdin]

Here's another account: radio host Erich "Mancow" Muller denied that waterboarding constituted torture and agreed to subject himself last year. He held out for six seconds before ending the "experiment" and unequivocally changing his mind.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/Mancow-Takes-on-Waterboarding-and-Loses.html

Sean Hannity has said he's willing to be waterboarded, but he has yet to through with it. I'd like to see an account of someone who has voluntarily subjected themselves and is still willing to say it's not torture.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Seems like the general consensus here is that that letting innocent civilians die in terrorist attacks is a price well worth paying for protecting a terrorist scumbag from some physical discomfort.

Which terrorist attacks were prevented through the use of information acquired under torture? Which terrorist attacks succeeded because someone was unwilling to torture a suspect?


If you can't provide examples of either, I guess you are just inventing hypotheticals. Which enables me to invent hypotheticals in turn: starting with, YOU are mistakenly identified as a terrorist due to a computer error. Naturally your denials cannot be trusted, and in order to prevent your deadly attack on innocent civilians, we're going to have to "enhancedly interrogate" you for a while. We'll begin with waterboarding, follow up with electric shocks, and move on to the rapes. For the greater good, of course. eta, for clarity: do you think it's justified?

 

[funk de fino]

Seems like the general consensus here is that that letting innocent civilians die in terrorist attacks is a price well worth paying for protecting a terrorist scumbag from some physical discomfort.

With an avatar like yours you have a lot of nerve pretending to care about innocent civilians.

 

[rockinkt]

Torture is horrible and should never be used.

Now imagine this scenario:
You are surrounded by your enemy and have managed to capture one of their sentries posted to stop your escape. He/she probably has the information you need to escape the situation.
Not only is your life in the balance - but the 15 people under your command are also sure to die if you do not escape the situation. If any of you are captured alive - you will certainly be tortured and killed.
Time is of the essence.

Do you torture the captured sentry in the hopes of obtaining useful information that could save you all?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Torture is horrible and should never be used.

Now imagine this scenario:
You are surrounded by your enemy and have managed to capture one of their sentries posted to stop your escape. He/she probably has the information you need to escape the situation.
Not only is your life in the balance - but the 15 people under your command are also sure to die if you do not escape the situation. If any of you are captured alive - you will certainly be tortured and killed.
Time is of the essence.

Do you torture the captured sentry in the hopes of obtaining useful information that could save you all?

And if you do, do you deny it was torture because you really felt you needed to do it?

I have few objections to evil, as long as people are willing to admit it. It's the have-cake, eat-it-too attitudes that piss me off. Committing evil and claming it's good is disgusting. If you're going to torture someone, be honest about it and admit your evil.

 

[ravdin]

Seems like the general consensus here is that that letting innocent civilians die in terrorist attacks is a price well worth paying for protecting a terrorist scumbag from some physical discomfort.

My issue is that apparently, we can torture a confession from anyone deemed to be a "terrorist scumbag" by a politician or our various intelligence agencies. We're looking over the edge of a slippery slope if we decide that torture can be justified and international law ignored based on the government's whims.

 

[headscratcher4]

Seems like the general consensus here is that that letting innocent civilians die in terrorist attacks is a price well worth paying for protecting a terrorist scumbag from some physical discomfort.

That's a horse sh++ statement. It in essense says we have to burn the village to save it. Abandon our laws and our commitment to the rule of law in order to save the country...but what is left of the country if we so abandon the rule of law?

You also are essentially making the argument that the Nazi's made when it came to torture...they were protecting innocent civilians from terrorists. Nice.

But like all torture advocates, even though you believe it somehow magically works, you don't really deal with the pausity of evidence to that fact. In short, even if you could justify it, it doesn't work...especially not in a ticking time bomb senario (where all the terrorist willing to die for the cause has to do is outlive the wild-goose chance he/she sends the investigators on and await the bomb to go off).

Torture is about vengence not about intelligence gathering. The argument isn't and has never been about somehow making terrorist comfortable and magically thinking that they will crack. If you want efficacy there are better ways. If you have any commitment to the rule of law that made this country great, there are better ways.

let us also remember, we had enough information to prevent 9/11 in our system. Bush was warned in August there was something in the offing. The FBI had reports about students at flight schools, people on watch lists were known to be in the country and lost. Torture wouldn't have solved this situation, it would only make the bungling policy makers and beauraucrats feel better.

 

[Gate2501]

Torture is horrible and should never be used.

Now imagine this scenario:
You are surrounded by your enemy and have managed to capture one of their sentries posted to stop your escape. He/she probably has the information you need to escape the situation.
Not only is your life in the balance - but the 15 people under your command are also sure to die if you do not escape the situation. If any of you are captured alive - you will certainly be tortured and killed.
Time is of the essence.

Do you torture the captured sentry in the hopes of obtaining useful information that could save you all?

Cut his throat and attempt to fight your way out or die trying.

This scenario is even worse than a "impending terror attack" as a pro-torture argument, because not only could this sentry spew complete hogwash to get you to stop the torture, he could lead you right in the wrong direction(into a trap, further into enemy territory, etc.). After all, if you torture him, he will probably be pretty PO'd and want the worst for you.

 

[TragicMonkey]

And the other problem, of course, is that given a sufficiently skilled torturer, you can get people to confess to absolutely anything, true or not, possible or not. Given the right tools and legal immunity, I'm sure many of us reading this could find ways to get someone to confess to the murder of Archduke Ferdinand, attest to the divinity of Our Lady Sylvia Browne, and swear that Glitter is the greatest film ever made.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Torture is horrible and should never be used.

Now imagine this scenario:
You are surrounded by your enemy and have managed to capture one of their sentries posted to stop your escape. He/she probably has the information you need to escape the situation.
Not only is your life in the balance - but the 15 people under your command are also sure to die if you do not escape the situation. If any of you are captured alive - you will certainly be tortured and killed.
Time is of the essence.

Do you torture the captured sentry in the hopes of obtaining useful information that could save you all?

It's the same kind of quesion a daughter asks her mother: "If a burgler broke in with a gun and asked you to choose between me or my brother, who would you choose?". I.e, something that doesn't exist in reality.

 

[ravdin]

And the other problem, of course, is that given a sufficiently skilled torturer, you can get people to confess to absolutely anything, true or not, possible or not. Given the right tools and legal immunity, I'm sure many of us reading this could find ways to get someone to confess to the murder of Archduke Ferdinand, attest to the divinity of Our Lady Sylvia Browne, and swear that Glitter is the greatest film ever made.

Jesse Ventura told Sean Hannity that given a waterboard and five seconds, he could make him confess that Barack Obama is the greatest ever President of the United States. Given Hannity's reluctance to go through with it after publicly offering to be waterboarded for charity, I think that deep down he knows this is true.

 

[GlennB]

And the other problem, of course, is that given a sufficiently skilled torturer, you can get people to confess to absolutely anything....

Ah, what was the film I watched a while back about a famous painter living in the time of The Inquisition? Anyhoo - it portrayed his family turning the tables on some Inquisition geezer (it involved tying his arms behind his back, then hoisting him by those wrists thus very painfully dislocating body parts). So our evil Cardinal happily signed a confession that his mother had mated with a baboon and he was the offspring (or something).

Just fiction, presumably, but it illustrates the truth. Just show me the bamboo fingernail skewers and you'd get a confession to the Jack the Ripper murders right there.

edit: it was Goya. I got the plot a tad mixed up but the basic principle is there.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Seems like the general consensus here is that that letting innocent civilians die in terrorist attacks is a price well worth paying for protecting a terrorist scumbag from some physical discomfort.

This ignorant statement presupposes that the person you're about to torture is guilty of terrorism, and has some useful knowledge.

We are neither condoning letting innocent civilians die, nor protecting someone from physical discomfort. We are upholding the treaty that we signed because we are good and decent people. The instant we say the law doesn't apply to us, we are outlaws.

I shudder to think how many innocent straws had to die to construct your enormous strawman.

 

[JFrankA]

It in essense says we have to burn the village to save it. Abandon our laws and our commitment to the rule of law in order to save the country...but what is left of the country if we so abandon the rule of law?

I think this hits it on the head.

And I've lost all respect for Cheney the day he said that the vice presidency isn't in the executive branch.

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/320876_cheney22.html

Since that day, he's nothing more than a man who thinks that everyone should follow the laws except himself especially when they are an inconvenience to him.

I may be naive thinking this way, but I've always thought that America was supposed to be more concerned about right of everyone (prisoners or not) and that we are better than just resorting to torture. Once we use the same methods that the people who hate us use, then we are no better than them and they may be right.

 

[headscratcher4]

This ignorant statement presupposes that the person you're about to torture is guilty of terrorism, and has some useful knowledge.

We are neither condoning letting innocent civilians die, nor protecting someone from physical discomfort. We are upholding the treaty that we signed because we are good and decent people. The instant we say the law doesn't apply to us, we are outlaws.

I shudder to think how many innocent straws had to die to construct your enormous strawman.

You will note that Arcade22 has a picture of Pinochet as his avatar...pretty well sums up his attitude to torture, the rule of law, etc. IMO.

 

[I Ratant]

No need to quote a movie.
Real life is worse...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/STUgerardJ.htm

 

[headscratcher4]

I think this hits it on the head.

And I've lost all respect for Cheney the day he said that the vice presidency isn't in the executive branch.

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/320876_cheney22.html

Since that day, he's nothing more than a man who thinks that everyone should follow the laws except himself especially when they are an inconvenience to him.

I may be naive thinking this way, but I've always thought that America was supposed to be more concerned about right of everyone (prisoners or not) and that we are better than just resorting to torture. Once we use the same methods that the people who hate us use, then we are no better than them and they may be right.

Orwell nailed it in 1984. Big brother didn't want truth or information. The state wanted to punish and pervert. That is all torture ever accomplishes.

We don't get to do it because we're the "good guys" so it is different than when the bad guys do it. It makes us into bad guys...and it doesn't really work.