Legitimacy of torture in US policy

[gnome]

Someone suggested that an answer in another thread might be considered off-topic by moderators... so I will bring it up here.

Let's get something out in the open--people here that think that waterboarding should be performed in some circumstances... are you willing to say that it could be legitimately used by other countries against Americans?

If yes, well then I at least give credit for consistency.
If no, then we'd better get to talking about why it's OK for us but not others.

 

[BeAChooser]

people here that think that waterboarding should be performed in some circumstances... are you willing to say that it could be legitimately used by other countries against Americans?

Under circumstances equivalent to that in which we waterboarded KSM and the other two individuals? ... yes, it would be legitimate. I would have no problem with it. I wouldn't care if they are Americans, provided the situation is similar.

And what is similar?

First, in KSM and the other two cases, it was undeniable that they were important terrorists who had actively participated in a plot that had already killed thousands of innocent people in a horrible fashion. KSM even told Al Jazeera in April 2002 that “I am the head of the al-Qaeda military committee, and yes, we did it.”

Second, given their high position within al-Qaeda, it was clear KSM and the others probably knew of other on-going plots where thousands more might die if we didn't act soon.

And third, it was clear that the key to getting information from them in time to prevent such deaths was to break them quickly. It was clear conventional methods weren't working.

So yes, under similar circumstances, I would have no objection if other countries decided they needed to waterboard captured American terrorists in order to save more innocent lives.

And one more point, note that all three were waterboarded under a doctor's care and none has suffered any physical injury. And many US troops as part of training were subjected to waterboarding (still are, I believe). So are you really certain waterboarding should be viewed as torture in the way most people think of torture? Hmmmmm?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I would also add that in considering an answer to the question, we are signatories to the Convention Against Torture and have enacted our own laws that reflect more or less what we agreed to in that treaty. Part of the definition of torture in the CAT is infliction of mental pain including the threat of imminent death, which is pretty much the whole point of waterboarding.

 

[gnome]

Under circumstances equivalent to that in which we waterboarded KSM and the other two individuals? ... yes, it would be legitimate. I would have no problem with it. I wouldn't care if they are Americans, provided the situation is similar.

And what is similar?

First, in KSM and the other two cases, it was undeniable that they were important terrorists who had actively participated in a plot that had already killed thousands of innocent people in a horrible fashion. KSM even told Al Jazeera in April 2002 that “I am the head of the al-Qaeda military committee, and yes, we did it.”

Second, given their high position within al-Qaeda, it was clear KSM and the others probably knew of other on-going plots where thousands more might die if we didn't act soon.

And third, it was clear that the key to getting information from them in time to prevent such deaths was to break them quickly. It was clear conventional methods weren't working.

So yes, under similar circumstances, I would have no objection if other countries decided they needed to waterboard captured American terrorists in order to save more innocent lives.

And one more point, note that all three were waterboarded under a doctor's care and none has suffered any physical injury. And many US troops as part of training were subjected to waterboarding (still are, I believe). So are you really certain waterboarding should be viewed as torture in the way most people think of torture? Hmmmmm?

First, thanks for the straight answer.

Second, I think I see where you come from on this, you can justify something like waterboarding being used if the circumstances are extreme enough. The big question is--do you trust the government with a decision like that, once given the power--do you trust them to only use it when it's as cut-and-dry as you see the KSM situation being?

Regarding whether waterboarding is torture--I think someone here posted a description of how Pol Pot used it to kill people. Consider the question--why didn't he just shoot them dead? Because he wanted them to suffer. He used it to torture them to death. So how is it not torture?

The idea of subjecting oneself to it for training, is kind of a red herring. Just like it's wrong to hit someone usually, but not wrong if it's part of training them in self defense. They volunteered for it.

 

[theprestige]

I trust the government to shoot people in the face. Why wouldn't I trust them to waterboard asshats?

 

[BeAChooser]

The big question is--do you trust the government with a decision like that, once given the power--do you trust them to only use it when it's as cut-and-dry as you see the KSM situation being?

Why not? In this case they could have waterboarded HUNDREDS of people and did not. They had strict criteria which they appear to have followed and it's not like there was no oversight of the process. There was lots of oversight. Face it, gnome, if the government wants to do something, they have the power to do it regardless of what they tell the public or what policy is at the time.

Let me give you an example. There was more oversight in the waterboarding case and more adherence to established policy than … say … when our government flew an armed mission into another, supposedly friendly, nuclear armed country without telling that country's leaders we were going to do it, to essentially assassinate someone (which was against long established US policy). They then shot and killed several unarmed people because they thought their *target* *might* be in the building those people were in, and then shot an unarmed man who was confronted in his pajamas in his bedroom in the head killing him too, because they thought he *might* be the man they had targeted. And they were so uncertain at the time they shot and killed him of his identity that they had a seal lie down next to the dead body so they could guage if the man was tall enough to have been their *target*. So tell me, gnome, do you trust the government acted responsibly in that case and that there is no instance where that sort of power might not be abused?
Hmmmmm?

Regarding whether waterboarding is torture--I think someone here posted a description of how Pol Pot used it to kill people.

What does Bush's waterboarding policy have to do with the systematic murder of an entire generation of people by Pol Pot? Pol Pot did not "waterboard" people in the sense it was used by the US. Not even close. Pol Pot did what he did to kill people in horrible ways. And he killed millions. We aren't talking about pulling out fingernails, killing children in front of their parents, deliberately drowning prisoners, mutilating women's genitals … all of which Pol Pot did. So stop the hyperbole because all you are doing is diminishing the horror that the Cambodian people experienced. NO ONE has been killed or even physically injured by the US using waterboarding. But if we can believe our top leaders and the CIA agents who did it, probably thousands of innocent lives were saved by it. So stop the ridiculous arguments.

The idea of subjecting oneself to it for training, is kind of a red herring.

Not at all. It proves that the manner in which the US was using and contemplated the use of waterboarding was safe enough to be used on our own soldiers.

Liberals just don't seem to understand what makes the US exceptional. You want to talk about trust? There was a time when the US was the only nuclear armed nation in the world. Now do you want to claim that had the USSR … or say the islamic world … been the only nuclear armed power they wouldn't have used that power to conquer the world? That's why the US is different … although democrats may have us on a path to becoming like all the rest.

 

[BeAChooser]

By the way …

http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/11/i...laden-in-nothing-but-his-underwear-when-shot/

Inhofe: ‘Gruesome’ photos reveal bin Laden in nothing but his underwear when shot

So the man was not even in pajamas, but in his underwear. That's it. So the killing can't even be excused by claiming he was shot to prevent him from detonating a suicide vest that he might have been wearing under … pajamas. They shot to death an unarmed man, wearing next to nothing, without even calling for his surrender. And then were unsure enough about who they had killed that they laid a seal down next to the body to gauge the height of the man they'd just killed to reassure themselves that it was Bin Laden. Should we trust a government that will do that, gnome?

 

[Upchurch]

This is probably off-topic, but I'll risk it.

For those who say they trust the government to decide when and how to torture and/or kill people, do you also trust the government to provide healthcare for people? Why or why not?

 

[A'isha]

What does Bush's waterboarding policy have to do with the systematic murder of an entire generation of people by Pol Pot? Pol Pot did not "waterboard" people in the sense it was used by the US. Not even close.

That is absolutely, 100% untrue, BAC.

That's a painting produced by Vann Nath, depicting the waterboarding treatment he and others were subjected to at the Khmer Rouge's Tuol Sleng prison, where of the 17,000 prisoners sent there, there were only 12 survivors.

The waterboarding technique depicted in the painting, the waterboarding technique used on Vann Nath himself in this Cambodian prison that had a 99.99924% mortality rate, the waterboarding technique that Vann Nath painted over and over again as part of his effort to document the horrific tortures that were inflicted on him, is the exact same technique used by the United States: slanted board, head lower than the feet, cloth over the face, water poured on the cloth.

 

[theprestige]

Did Vann Nath have a medic and a psychiatrist standing by to make sure no lasting harm was done to him? Was the procedure carried out under strict rules to prevent death or injury?

I drink enough water quick enough, I'll die. But we'd hardly call drinking a glass of water "the exact same procedure" as drinking water to the point of death. Even if I were forced to drink a glass of water, it still wouldn't be the same procedure.

And to be honest, if forcing KSM to drink a glass of water had any chance of getting him to open his pie-hole, I'd be all for it. Though I imagine some would insist it was torture, and possibly the exact same thing as trying to drown him.

 

[triforcharity]

Someone suggested that an answer in another thread might be considered off-topic by moderators... so I will bring it up here.

Let's get something out in the open--people here that think that waterboarding should be performed in some circumstances... are you willing to say that it could be legitimately used by other countries against Americans?

If yes, well then I at least give credit for consistency.
If no, then we'd better get to talking about why it's OK for us but not others.

Well, let me first start off by saying that I have no problem with waterboarding under certain circumstances. It is not my rational side that believes this though. My irrational side wants to waterboard them 183 times a DAY, every single day, for the rest of their lives, and then, when we get the information that we want from them, we take them out back and put a bullet in their brain.

But, that is my irrational side. It's extremely biased, especially considering the terrorists murdered 343 of my Brothers.

Now, my rational side says that under certain circumstances, I am for waterboarding, no matter what country they come from, if there is aggrivating circumstances. Much like BAC said, in the case of KSM.

BUT, at the same time, it can be considered as torture, and we, as Americans, should be above that. We are better than the terrorists, we are better than Poi Pol, and we should be able to find other ways to get information from people.

I can think of a dozen really annoying things that can be done to get people to answer questions. None would be life threatening, and none are against the Geneva Convention.

(And yes, I have been waterboarded. My brother is in the military, and we would take bets on who would last longer. I typically lost though. I will admit, it was scary though. )

 

[AlBell]

That is absolutely, 100% untrue, BAC.

[qimg]http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/1015/waterboard3small.jpg[/qimg]

That's a painting produced by Vann Nath, depicting the waterboarding treatment he and others were subjected to at the Khmer Rouge's Tuol Sleng prison, where of the 17,000 prisoners sent there, there were only 12 survivors.

The waterboarding technique depicted in the painting, the waterboarding technique used on Vann Nath himself in this Cambodian prison that had a 99.99924% mortality rate, the waterboarding technique that Vann Nath painted over and over again as part of his effort to document the horrific tortures that were inflicted on him, is the exact same technique used by the United States: slanted board, head lower than the feet, cloth over the face, water poured on the cloth.

You see no difference between killing people vs interrogating them?

 

[A'isha]

Did Vann Nath have a medic and a psychiatrist standing by to make sure no lasting harm was done to him? Was the procedure carried out under strict rules to prevent death or injury?

I drink enough water quick enough, I'll die. But we'd hardly call drinking a glass of water "the exact same procedure" as drinking water to the point of death. Even if I were forced to drink a glass of water, it still wouldn't be the same procedure.

And to be honest, if forcing KSM to drink a glass of water had any chance of getting him to open his pie-hole, I'd be all for it. Though I imagine some would insist it was torture, and possibly the exact same thing as trying to drown him.

I confess I don't quite understand the cognitive dissonance required to simultaneously claim that waterboarding is perfectly safe and nothing at all like the involuntary-drowning-reflex-inducing technique the Khmer Rouge used, and that it was enough to make hardened terrorists like KSM (who resisted every other interrogation technique used) crack so completely that he meekly answered every question put to him after he was waterboarded.

If it wasn't all that bad, how did it make them crack?

 

[A'isha]

You see no difference between killing people vs interrogating them?

That the US was kind enough to stop the torture process short of the ultimate death of the person being tortured, while the Khmer Rouge sometimes didn't, in no way changes the fact that the exact same torture technique was used by both groups.

 

[AlBell]

I don't understand the cognitive dissonance that presumes that killing people using waterboarding and interrogating people with waterboarding while also carefully monitoring conditions to ensure non-lethality are equally bad.

 

[dtugg]

Personally, it wouldn't bother me at all if the CIA had killed the piece of crap during waterboarding except that dead people don't talk.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't understand the cognitive dissonance that presumes that killing people using waterboarding and interrogating people with waterboarding while also carefully monitoring conditions to ensure non-lethality are equally bad.

Maybe it has something to do with the "torture" aspect of the two procedures.

 

[A'isha]

I don't understand the cognitive dissonance that presumes that killing people using waterboarding and interrogating people with waterboarding while also carefully monitoring conditions to ensure non-lethality are equally bad.

So, it's your position that torturing people is perfectly okay, as long as you do your best to avoid killing the person you're torturing?

 

[AlBell]

Yup, I find waterboarding as done by the US on a few terrorists just fine.

Shall we discuss electricity and genitals? Eyes gouged out? The usual beaten to a bloody pulp? Boiling acid? Iron Maiden? Etc etc.

 

[A'isha]

Yup, I find waterboarding as done by the US on a few terrorists just fine.

Shall we discuss electricity and genitals? Eyes gouged out? The usual beaten to a bloody pulp? Boiling acid? Iron Maiden? Etc etc.

Hey, as long as no one dies, right?