I now accept waterboarding

[Thunder]

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.

 

[shemp]

I thought from the thread title that you meant you wanted to BE waterboarded. If you do, PM me for my fees.

 

[corplinx]

Its not whether you are "for or against" simulated drowning. Nobody is "for" doing this to people. Its not very nice. I don't think people are truly "pro-war" either. War is a hell of a thing.

The real issue is, is simulated drowning (aka waterboarding) illegal under US or International Law? Under current US law, it is simply not illegal because it does not inflict pain. However, it violates much broader UN rules because specifically it makes them be in fear of imminent death. Currently, the US is basically bucking this rule.

The US is out of compliance with the UN.

I think blowhard "BUTT WHAT IF LIFS ARE ON THE LINE!" and "BUT IF WE WATERBOARD THEYLL CHOP OFF OUR REPOERTERS HEADS!" are missing the greater issue. That is, does the US feel this technique is valuable enough as an interrogation to defy international guidelines on torture?

 

[NeoRicen]

Torture doesn't work.

What you're saying is actually:
"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 time wasted and likely inaccurate information."

I am against causing someone terribly physical pain just to attempt to get information.

But terrible mental pain is a-Ok?

Waterboarding is torture. Torture is immoral. Torture is illegal. And perhaps more important: torture doesn't work.

 

[webfusion]

sounds like fun

I don't understand the problem -- it's quite a fun sport

 

[m_huber]

Does anybody have a good link to an analysis of the effectiveness of torture? This is the second time in as many days I have heard about its ineffectual nature, and I am curious about actual research into it.

 

[BPSCG]

Torture doesn't work.

That's not true. What you meant to say is that torture doesn't always work.

And neither does any other form of interrogation.

 

[The Fool]

I don't see what any American could have against waterboarding it seems to me to be consistant with every principle America stands for. Something to be proud of....

 

[ConspiRaider]

Does anybody have a good link to an analysis of the effectiveness of torture? This is the second time in as many days I have heard about its ineffectual nature, and I am curious about actual research into it.

Here's something to get you started. The JREForumite Kestrel posted this a couple days ago in another thread:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15148243

25-minute NPR interview. Pay extra attention to the professional prisoner interrogator.

 

[ConspiRaider]

I don't see what any American could have against waterboarding it seems to me to be consistant with every principle America stands for. Something to be proud of....

Now Fool - we're not ALL crazy Yanks over here. Some of us actually agree with the Geneva Convention, the UN, and enlightened nations of the world that torture is NEVER to be condoned. Not ever. Period.

 

[sinclairmcevoy]

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.

What if American soldiers were being tortured (waterboarded) to divulge information about their next move? If it can save a nation (Iraq) from a terrible attack, is it still Okay?

 

[corplinx]

While were going through all the retarded pro or anti waterboaring arguements, let me add the always funny "HOW WUD U LIKE IT IF YOU GOT WATERBRDED?@!?"

 

[ConspiRaider]

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.

You sure you wish to go down this path? You now wish to reject this part of the Geneva Convention - because right wingers are telling you to?

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Article 3[/FONT] [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]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:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]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:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](b) Taking of hostages;[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;[/FONT]

[/FONT]

Full document:http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

 

[rtalman]

The real issue is, is simulated drowning (aka waterboarding) illegal under US or International Law? Under current US law, it is simply not illegal because it does not inflict pain.

I thought it was illegal for the military to waterboard.

In General- No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.

5-75. [FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]If used in conjunction with intelligence interrogations, prohibited actions include, but are not limited to[/FONT]—

• • Forcing the detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner.
• • Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee; using duct tape over the eyes.
• • Applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain.
• • "Waterboarding."
• • Using military working dogs.
• • Inducing hypothermia or heat injury.
• • Conducting mock executions.

• Depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care.

(The Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation was superceded in 2006 by the Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations)

 

[latent aaaack]

...is worth the price of trying to protect a nation.

The American nation is:

a) sovereignty and territory, freedom from oppression, the constitution, democracy, culture, apple pie, baseball, values, liberty, all the stuff 100s of thousands of soldiers were told they were fighting for before they died

or

b) the lack of seeing on your tv once in a while one form of scary minor occasional public safety hazards out of very many hazards


Here's a definition we can both agree on:

cow·ard
–noun
1.a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.
–adjective
2.lacking courage; very fearful or timid.
3.proceeding from or expressive of fear or timidity: a coward cry.

—Synonyms 1. craven, poltroon, dastard, recreant, milksop.

 

[Kestrel]

IThe real issue is, is simulated drowning (aka waterboarding) illegal under US or International Law? Under current US law, it is simply not illegal because it does not inflict pain. However, it violates much broader UN rules because specifically it makes them be in fear of imminent death. Currently, the US is basically bucking this rule.

The John Yoo memo that redefined torture as "equivalent to the pain of organ failure" is not the legal definition of torture. It has never been used as the definition of torture in any court.

The Torture Victims Protection Act of 1991 includes a definition of torture that is quite similar to the UN definition:

Torture.—For the purposes of this Act—

(1) the term ‘torture’ means any act, directed against an individual in the offender’s custody or physical control, by which severe pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering arising only from or inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions), whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on that individual for such purposes as obtaining from that individual or a third person information or a confession, punishing that individual for an act that individual or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, intimidating or coercing that individual or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind; and

(2) mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another individual will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.”

 

[latent aaaack]

Should we waterboard drunk drivers to "protect the nation?" If it convinces only a fraction of them to not do it that would reduce one kind of public safety hazard that kills 16 thousand Americans a year, which according to many 'new americans' is the new definition of America - the right to have your fat sedentary tv-watching cowardly ass coddled, lied to and given a false sense of security in a world which apparently is just too frightening for you to maintain your sense of patriotism and being an American.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm

During 2005, 16,885 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 39% of all traffic-related deaths (NHTSA 2006).

Each year, alcohol-related crashes in the United States cost about $51 billion (Blincoe et al. 2002).

 

[thaiboxerken]

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.

will you submit yourself to being waterboarded to make the point?

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

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.

Yes, the way Chinese burns are only simulating being hit on the forearms with nettles.

It's mental, physical and psychological torture. You might not have any lasting physically damaged at the end of the day- or you might, it is very possible- but it is very damaging in many ways besides.

And you can die from it.

 

[autumn1971]

Read Solzhenitsyn. Even in the presence of other brutal ways to extract confessions, which are all false, even though sworn to in absolute sincerity by the accused, three methods are enough. They are isolation, "stress positions" (prolonged severe pain through particular positioning of the body), and sleep-deprivation. To the shame of my country, our President has endorsed all of these methods as effective and neccessary.
Oh, he has also established "special military tribunals", in exactly the same way, and with the same explaination that Lenin, and later, Stalin, used.
Right to counsel has been curtailed, and the specter of rendition has added to the horror of the American "legal" system as it has now been established.
I don't want to start a corollary of Godwin's Law, but reading the first volume of The Gulag Archipeligo is, with some different acronyms, painfully close to reading recent American legal history. The main difference is the relative openness of the Soviet trials.
I apologize that my countrymen have not yet remedied the sorry situation into which a once respectable system has deteriorated.