I now accept waterboarding

[volatile]

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.

That's a complete non-sequitor. How can you be against torture, but be for something that terrifies someone into thinking they're about to die in order to give up information? That's almost the very definition of torture!

 

[CFLarsen]

I am against torture.

No, you're not. Don't kid yourself.

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 makes you think that you can get accurate information from torture?

 

[Dr Adequate]

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.

Well, it persuaded millions of Stalin's subjects to confess to being saboteurs in the pay of Western capitalist gold, so it was kind of effective. Apart from them being innocent.

Likewise, it persuaded millions of people to confess to the sin of witchcraft, a crime which is actually impossible. Again, kind of effective, unless one happens to be interested in the truth, in which case it's about as useful as a glass hammer.

The methods preferred by both sets of torturers were exactly the sort of "torture lite" currently favored by filthy American savages in their never-ending quest to make their country stink like a cesspit. Autumn1971 has referred to the Gulag Archipelago: I have some quotations here which will make the point. Torture Lite --- Your Questions Answered.

 

[Oliver]

What McCain said.

 

[Prometheus]

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

Not quite. The point of waterboarding is to cause a temporary physical degradation of the victim's respiratory system which subsequently inhibits oxygen uptake and brain function, combined with an intense "fight or flight" response that results in physical effects such as extremely elevated heart rate, chest convulsions, actual physical pain as the lungs are filled with water. The combination of extreme stress and reduced brain function often breaks the victim's will to resist cooperating.

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

1. How terrible an attack would qualify?

2. How would you know whether it can prevent an attack or not, in any specific case, until after you'd done it? Do you really believe it's okay to treat people as lab animals to test a hypothesis that maybe they have information which could prevent an attack?

I believe if no useful information comes from the prisoner after a few attempts at waterboarding, it should be stopped.

How would you know whether the information being produced is useful or not?

....even though he will not drown and will not die, ...

No such guarantee is possible. The extreme stress and progressive respiratory failure induced by waterboarding can certainly cause a heart attack, even in a very healthy person. Even with a doctor present, and a very well trained and professional team of interrogators, death is a real risk of the procedure.

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

As horrific as a terrorist attack can possibly be, in no sense can it ever be said to be putting an entire nation in danger, so your argument is based upon a false dichotomy fallacy, which means thay your inference is faulty and your argument is unsound.

 

[CFLarsen]

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

Given his stance, you don't need to ask.

He will have to submit, won't he?

 

[NeoRicen]

You have to acknowledge that this isn't 24 we're talking about. They aren't going to be torturing people to get information quick about an attack that's about to happen next epis.... in a couple of hours.

In fact there's a very high chance they could be torturing someone who really doesn't know anything.

 

[BPSCG]

You have to acknowledge that this isn't 24 we're talking about. They aren't going to be torturing people to get information quick about an attack that's about to happen next epis.... in a couple of hours.

In fact there's a very high chance they could be torturing someone who really doesn't know anything.

And that's part of the issue - why are you torturing the person? To extract a confession? Sure, that'll work - probably get a confession 99% of the time. Whether it's true or not is going to be another story. I had a colonoscopy a few months ago and for reasons you'll be grateful that I don't choose to discuss, it was significantly more painful than I'd been led to believe it would be. I confessed to being on the Grassy Knoll with a rifle on November 22, 1963, as well as being one of John Wilkes Booth's fellow conspirators.

In other words, torture to get a confession, for something that's already happened, is probably pointless.

But torture to extract information that could save many lives? If you know that I know where the bomb is and torture the information out of me, you'll find out pretty quickly whether I'm telling the truth or not, and if I'm not, you'll resume torturing me until you get the truth.

Now other methods may also be as effective in eventually getting information from someone who doesn't want to talk. But will they work as quickly? Whether you want to call waterboarding torture or not, it's undeniable that it gets very quick results. Do you want to try some other equally effective method of getting information when you're trying to prevent thousands of people from getting killed and every second counts?

 

[Bikewer]

What I find interesting in these discussions is that it's seldom mentioned that the US has tried and convicted individuals for "war crimes" for applying this technique to prisoners, and the practice is generally regarded as torture throughout the world.

As many have noted, the response from the public to say, one of our captured airmen showing up on YouTube being dealt with in this manner would be rather severe.

 

[WildCat]

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?

And the last American soldier captured who was not tortured and killed was...?

 

[WildCat]

What I find interesting in these discussions is that it's seldom mentioned that the US has tried and convicted individuals for "war crimes" for applying this technique to prisoners,

Link?

 

[Dr Adequate]

And the last American soldier captured who was not tortured and killed was...?

If you are asking for a specific name of the last American soldier who was captured but not tortured and killed, then I don't have the data to hand. Mainly because, like you, I don't know the name of the last American soldier to be captured. Do you?

If, on the other hand, by asking this unanswerable question, you are trying to pretend that every American soldier who has been captured has also been tortured and killed, then let me remind you that this is a huge stupid stinking honking lie for which you have no evidence.

Remember Jessica Lynch?

 

[BPSCG]

If you are asking for a specific name of the last American soldier who was captured but not tortured and killed, then I don't have the data to hand. Mainly because, like you, I don't know the name of the last American soldier to be captured. Do you?

If, on the other hand, by asking this unanswerable question, you are trying to pretend that every American soldier who has been captured has also been tortured and killed, then let me remind you that this is a huge stupid stinking honking lie for which you have no evidence.

Remember Jessica Lynch?

I think you may have unwittingly stumbled upon the answer to Wildcat's question.

 

[Upchurch]

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....

With all the questions of accuracy and effectiveness, Fool hit on the real problem with torture. Is that really who we are or who we want to be? To hell with liberty and justice for all? Guilty until proven innocent?

In BPSCG's scenerio, he begins with the assumption that we know he has a certain piece of information and that the information he has is correct. How likely is it we know this assumption is correct? Do we throw assumed innocence out the window?

The real question with all this torture business is whether or not we are willing to abandon our principles the moment things get hard.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

So you are also in favor of useing electricity on the genitals of those we question as it only simulates injury and does not kill anyone?

 

[Dr Adequate]

I think you may have unwittingly stumbled upon the answer to Wildcat's question.

I tend not to do things unwittingly.

Especially not telling the truth. That's not accidental, that's inevitable. When I use the phrase "huge stupid stinking honking lie", that is not by chance.

Still, I'm glad that you agree with me.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Link?

look into the trial of Yukio Asano

 

[BPSCG]

With all the questions of accuracy and effectiveness, Fool hit on the real problem with torture. Is that really who we are or who we want to be?

The first thing we are and want to be is alive. If you don't have that, nothing else matters...

To hell with liberty and justice for all?

...including liberty and justice for all.

Guilty until proven innocent?

You're missing the distinction. We're not talking about torture to extract confessions for a crime already committed, or to use as evidence in a court trial. We're talking about torture to prevent a crime that could kill thousands of people.

In BPSCG's scenerio, he begins with the assumption that we know he has a certain piece of information and that the information he has is correct. How likely is it we know this assumption is correct? Do we throw assumed innocence out the window?

You're mixing up rules of interrogation with rules of criminal law. You don't punish someone until you've proven, in a court of law, that the evidence overturns the presumption of innocence. But police interrogate people all the time, whether or not they believe the suspect is innocent.

Again, we're not talking about a court trial after the fact of the mass murder, we're talking about getting information that will save lives now.

The real question with all this torture business is whether or not we are willing to abandon our principles the moment things get hard.

No, the question is, do our principles require that thousands of innocent people be murdered rather than one person implicit in their murder be tortured for the information that would save those lives?

Well, do they?

 

[fuelair]

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?@!?"

It depends on what, exactly, the waterbirds are doing to you.

 

[BPSCG]

I tend not to do things unwittingly.

Especially not telling the truth. That's not accidental, that's inevitable. When I use the phrase "huge stupid stinking honking lie", that is not by chance.

Still, I'm glad that you agree with me.

I'm not sure I did. What I was saying was that I think Jessica Lynch may have been the last U.S. soldier who was captured and not tortured to death. There have been U.S. soldiers who were captured since then and were tortured to death. Whether that's true of all the U.S. soldiers who've been captured since then, I don't know.