I now accept waterboarding

Upchurch said:
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.

...

Press criminal charges, of course.
Click to expand...

So, there are laws that prevent this? Why is waterboarding used, then?

Do you live in a banana republic or what?
 
gumboot said:
it would still be illegal for the simple fact that its effectiveness relies on the prisoner believing they are going to die.
Click to expand...

Minor hair split with you, but simulated drowning works even if the target knows it is will not kill him. That's the point of the technique. Some special forces have been waterboarded to demostrate the technique. Even if you know it is just a simulation, you get broken. Period. It is the way your brain is wired.
 
corplinx said:
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.
Click to expand...
That isn't what I asked. I'm trying to determine if there is a limit to what you feel is acceptable, if there is a point where you think that it is over the top and too much.

Do you consider what the 9/11 hijackers did justified?
 
Upchurch said:
Because bad people break laws.
Click to expand...

So, there will be prosecutions against those who broke the laws?

Upchurch said:
Says the man in denial that he comes from a country with state-supported national religion. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What in the bleedin' hell does that have to do with your country using torture?

Only the absolute pure can criticize the United States? What kind of sanctimonious, self-righteous, holier-than-thou attitude is that?
 
CFLarsen said:
Only the absolute pure can criticize the United States?
Click to expand...
Correct.


What kind of sanctimonious, self-righteous, holier-than-thou attitude is that?
Click to expand...
On second thought you may be right. We'll use the Ivory Soap standard then. You must be 99 and 44/100ths percent pure, and then you can criticize the United States. And if you don't agree, then we Yanks will strap you to a chair and wash your mouth out with a bar of the aforementioned brand of soap. You'll discover the Yank meaning of "Soap on a Rope".
 
BPSCG said:
Your mother, father, sister, and brother will all be killed in a bomb explosion in ten minutes. Tied up in a chair in front of me is a guy who I know has the information about where the bomb is located. He laughs at me when I demand to know where the bomb is.
Click to expand...
Here's another scenario: your mother, father, sister and brother will all be killed in a bomb explosion in ten minutes. During a search of a terrorist's house, a computer is found and you know that somewhere on its harddisk is the information where the bomb is located and how it can be defused. Would you throw the harddisk in water, beat it, shock it with high voltage? I think you'll agree that it would be a very bad idea.

How about if it was a CD-Rom, a memory card or a reel of punch tape? Again, I'll doubt you'll think that would be a brilliant idea. I assume you'll agree with me that the information stored on this medium (and not the medium itself) is what is important as it may save your family, and that you'll need to be very careful in how you treat the medium as mishandling it may damage the information, making it impossible to save your family.

If you agree to all that, why would it be any different if the medium on which the information to save your family is stored, is a human brain?
 
Last edited:
JoeEllison said:
What I'm asking is, "do you believe that the outcome of you torturing someone is so positive that you are willing to accept a negative outcome for yourself in exchange?"

If you think torture is worth doing in extreme circumstances, and in violation of the laws of the civilized world, they you should also believe it is worth facing the punishment for committing the crime.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what I said?

Yes it is worth facing the punishment. People sacrifice themselves in many ways for their loved ones.

The difference is that if torture is illegal and you do it, then get punished for it, you are only paying the price yourself. If the pro-torture crowd got their way, then torture would be legal, making everyone else pay the price.

I am not selfish and I don't expect others to have to lift my moral baggage. So if I had to torture someone, I would make sure that I take the fall and keep everyone not involved as innocent of the atrocity as they should be.
 
BPSCG said:
Let's see if your price is negotiable. Your mother, father, sister, and brother will all be killed in a bomb explosion in ten minutes. Tied up in a chair in front of me is a guy who I know has the information about where the bomb is located. He laughs at me when I demand to know where the bomb is.

Should I start torturing him for the information? Are his civil rights more important than your family's lives?

You now have nine minutes and forty-three seconds.
Click to expand...

Just how did you become the expert at "advanced interrogation techniques"? You say this is an extremely rare event yet your skills are honed to that fine point where you know exactly how far to take the process and get the information you need without killing the suspect first. Who have you been practicing on? (We'll probably find out later!)

Haven't you stopped to think how this perfect storm that demands the application of torture came about just when you were there and able to practice your craft? The subject in front of you is the other half of a two man team. He knows if he just holds out long enough his release will be part of the ransom for the release of the family. He also knows that if he tells you what you need to know to find and release the hostages, he will be facing the death penalty for his part in this caper. Unfortunately, he can't give you the name of the mastermind because he is only a hired mercenary. The drawings in his possession though show that he practically designed the vault where the family is being held. He absolutely can tell you where it is and how to disarm the bomb.

So what are you going to do?



sorry, no hints here
 
Last edited:
rocketdodger said:
Isn't that what I said?

Yes it is worth facing the punishment. People sacrifice themselves in many ways for their loved ones.

The difference is that if torture is illegal and you do it, then get punished for it, you are only paying the price yourself. If the pro-torture crowd got their way, then torture would be legal, making everyone else pay the price.

I am not selfish and I don't expect others to have to lift my moral baggage. So if I had to torture someone, I would make sure that I take the fall and keep everyone not involved as innocent of the atrocity as they should be.
Click to expand...

While I utterly disagree with the use of torture, at least you've presented a position I can respect. Nice work.:D
 
corplinx said:
That reply has already been uttered in several variations and lampooned.
Click to expand...
Last time I argued face-to-face with a creationist, he told me that I was "so predictable".

And I carefully explained to him that if he went around saying that two and two was five, he'd hear the word "four" with predictable and monotonous regularity.

The mere statement that you are familiar with your opponents' arguments is not in itself a counter-argument.
 
parky76 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You attempt to justify that whole screed in the last four words. In doing so you are effectively saying that the 'values' that were the basis for the formation of your country can be thrown into the shredder as and when you like, based on any lies the US 'intelligence' wishes to tell you.

In the way the good citizens of the former UK colonies rebelled because of the behaviour of the British the world is now rebelling against the excesses of the US empire and we really don't want torturers playing with our decent democratic ball any more.

As you take your forces off our lawn - close the gate behind you as you leave - thank you.
 
BPSCG said:
Let's see if your price is negotiable. Your mother, father, sister, and brother will all be killed in a bomb explosion in ten minutes. Tied up in a chair in front of me is a guy who I know has the information about where the bomb is located. He laughs at me when I demand to know where the bomb is.

Should I start torturing him for the information? Are his civil rights more important than your family's lives?

You now have nine minutes and forty-three seconds.
Click to expand...

You mean you'd rather waste time torturing someone when all you have to do is pick up the phone and suggest that your family move out of range!

I always knew torturers were essentially stupid but I didn't know just how stupid until now.
 
parky76 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, inhaling water and feeling like your drowning, over and over again, is painful.

parky76 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The intent is to cause tremendous suffering without leaving visible marks of physical abuse. E.g. If you just want to scare someone you can blind-fold them, tie them up and pretend to drop them out of a helicopter(by dropping them out of a stationary helicopter with it's rotor spinning into someone's arms, say.) if they don't talk.
 
Last edited:
rocketdodger said:
Isn't that what I said?

Yes it is worth facing the punishment. People sacrifice themselves in many ways for their loved ones.

The difference is that if torture is illegal and you do it, then get punished for it, you are only paying the price yourself.
Click to expand...

You are conveniently forgetting the victim of the torture. (And the fact that said victim might just be innocent.)

I find it rather arrogant to suggest that the torturer would be the one paying the price. Most likely, the torturer will be treated much better than the victim.
 
Like I said, there should be very very strict guidelines for waterboarding. Doctor present, short time frame, etc etc. No one drowns or died from it. And it seems to work.

The question isnt whether "torture works" but "does waterboarding work?" and I believe the answer is yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom