Legitimacy of torture in US policy

[BeAChooser]

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.

Well done, ANTPogo. You've just equated the US military/CIA/Bush to Pol Pot. No difference. Both equally evil. Right?

 

[A'isha]

Well done, ANTPogo. You've just equated the US military/CIA/Bush to Pol Pot. No difference. Both equally evil. Right?

No, they're not equally evil. Not anywhere close.

The waterboarding technique used on CIA detainees is is the exact same technique used in Khmer Rouge prisons. Period. What hay you want to make from that fact based on your own partisan preferences (on either end of the spectrum) is entirely your business.

But none of that changes the unavoidable truth of that fact.

 

[BeAChooser]

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.

But how long will those things take to get a person talking if they really don't want to talk ... like KSM didn't? One can easily imagine circumstances where we might not have weeks, days or even hours to find out what someone we know to be involved in a deadly plot that may kill thousands knows. So what do you do then? Nothing? Do you sit back and bask in how much better you think you are than "Pol Pot"?

 

[BeAChooser]

No, they're not equally evil. Not anywhere close.

You sure? Afterall, they used the "exact same technique used in Khmer Rouge prisons. Period." Can it get any worse?

 

[A'isha]

You sure? Afterall, they used the "exact same technique used in Khmer Rouge prisons. Period." Can it get any worse?

Yes. They could have used some of the other techniques the Khmer Rouge used, too.

That they didn't use more than one of the same torture methods employed by the Khmer Rouge still doesn't change the fact that they did use one.

 

[A'isha]

But how long will those things take to get a person talking if they really don't want to talk ... like KSM didn't? One can easily imagine circumstances where we might not have weeks, days or even hours to find out what someone we know to be involved in a deadly plot that may kill thousands knows. So what do you do then? Nothing? Do you sit back and bask in how much better you think you are than "Pol Pot"?

Well, in that case, waterboarding still won't help you, since it took weeks and months of waterboarding and its aftermath to get KSM to talk...and even then he kept some things concealed and gave out a lot of false information.

 

[funk de fino]

I bet if Obama was doing it this thread would have taken a different twist for some.

Luckily for the internet jessies on here they dont have to worry whether it is really horrible to be tortured. Those who have been in the military, and served in conflicts, could have ended up on the receiving end and if we did would expect our countrymen to be rightfully horrified. Torturing people is barbaric and beneath contempt.

 

[BeAChooser]

They could have used some of the other techniques the Khmer Rouge used, too.

And you fear that will happen? That America's government is no different than Pol Pot's regime?

 

[BeAChooser]

since it took weeks and months of waterboarding and its aftermath to get KSM to talk

Well, as the sources said, KSM was extraordinaryly resistant. The other two broke immediately and started talking right away. For example ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121002091.html

Zubaydah (they spelled it Zubaida) was

ideologically zealous, defiant and uncooperative -- until the day in mid-summer when his captors strapped him to a board, wrapped his nose and mouth in cellophane and forced water into his throat in a technique that simulates drowning.

... snip ...

The waterboarding lasted about 35 seconds before Abu Zubaida broke down, according to Kiriakou, who said he was given a detailed description of the incident by fellow team members. The next day, Abu Zubaida told his captors he would tell them whatever they wanted, Kiriakou said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3978231&page=1

"From that day on, he answered every question," Kiriakou said. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."

 

[A'isha]

And you fear that will happen? That America's government is no different than Pol Pot's regime?

Funny, I don't recall saying either of those things. I certainly don't believe them.

You are aware that there's a spectrum to these things, right? It's not a binary Schrodinger's Morality state where you're either Captain America or you're Hitler.

The Khmer Rouge did a whole lot of unspeakably evil things. The US has never, and probably (hopefully) never will, do anything remotely like the Khmer Rouge did. Certainly not on the scale they did.

But the fact still remains that the US did, in at least three cases, perform one of the same acts of torture on detainees that the Khmer Rouge performed on their prisoners. Repeatedly.

 

[leftysergeant]

NO ONE has been killed or even physically injured by the US using waterboarding.

Prove it.

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.

Citation needed. Ber in mind that some of the CIA "officials" of the time were utterly unfit for their positions. As evidence, I offer the fact that the stupid slimeballs destroyed the tapes of the interrogation sessions. Anybodyt with the least common sense will know that you need to be able to go back over whjat people said earlier to compare it to what they are saying now. Things that made no impact when they were said might mean a great deal in light of something somebody said today.

Potter Goss was about as fit to head the CIA as that drongo Brownie was to head FEMA. They were both appointed by the least competant fool to ever serve as POTUS.

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.

Not a true statement.

That's why the US is different … although democrats may have us on a path to becoming like all the rest.

And the merry morons had us on the track to become Chile under Pinochet. Big whoop.

 

[Biscuit]

As a policy for gaining information torture is as legitimate a tool as using a Ouija board. They both have about the same chance of revealing useful information. They also have the same chance of producing cow excrement. The later is assured and the former is unlikely.

Why would anyone argue that the people charged with getting the information needed to keep this country and its citizens safe should be using methods that are proven unreliable?

Torture is only effective as a phycological weapon against your enemies and is only used as such by some of the most depraved and sadistic people who have ever walked the earth. Americans are exceptionally better than to use torture as a weapon.

Given that it doesn't work to extract info and that to use it as a weapon of fear would be lowering ourselves to likes of Pol Pot we should not even consider its use. Focus our efforts on methods that do obtain reliable intelligence and stop worrying about doomsday scenarios - Jack Baeur will save us from those.

 

[dtugg]

Prove that torture doesn't make people give useful information.

 

[BeAChooser]

You are aware that there's a spectrum to these things, right?

Yes, indeed, there is, isn't there? There's "waterboarding" and then there is *waterboarding*. One causes nothing more than very brief and temporary discomfort to the individual (in this case, a known terrorist possibly hiding vital information about impending plots or bin Laden's location), and the other is intended to kill. Yet, you want to treat them identically in terms of harm.

It's not a binary Schrodinger's Morality state where you're either Captain America or you're Hitler.

And yet, that's the way what those who have used the Pol Pot example to argue against waterboarding seem to believe. Shall we make a list of liberals in the media (or here at JREF) and what they said about waterboarding in the past? Hmmmmmm?

But the fact still remains that the US did, in at least three cases, perform one of the same acts of torture on detainees that the Khmer Rouge performed on their prisoners. Repeatedly.

No, the US did not do the "same acts of torture" on those three that the Khmer Rouge did on their prisoners. Had the US done the same acts, all three would now be dead. What the US did do is expose three *very bad people* to an uncomfortable environment under a doctor's supervision and with strict guidelines to insure that no lasting harm was done to the three. The Khmer Rouge did not do that and your attempt to paint equivalency between the two situations only diminishes the horror that the Khmer Rouge inflicted on the people they waterboarded and the Cambodian population as a whole. You should be ashamed of yourself. You suffer from the liberal disease of moral equivalency, ANTPogo.

 

[A'isha]

Yes, indeed, there is, isn't there? There's "waterboarding" and then there is *waterboarding*. One causes nothing more than very brief and temporary discomfort to the individual (in this case, a known terrorist possibly hiding vital information about impending plots or bin Laden's location), and the other is intended to kill.

*snip*

No, the US did not do the "same acts of torture" on those three that the Khmer Rouge did on their prisoners. Had the US done the same acts, all three would now be dead.

Vann Nath was waterboarded by the Khmer Rouge. He was strapped to a table, his legs elevated above his head. A cloth was placed over his face, and water was poured on that cloth until his involuntary drowning reflex kicked in. Vann Nath is still very much alive.

Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was waterboarded by the CIA. He was strapped to a table, his legs elevated above his head. A cloth was placed over his face, and water was poured on that cloth until his involuntary drowning reflex kicked in. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad is still very much salive.

 

[funk de fino]

So torture is OK as long as you have a Doctor nearby?

Brilliant.

 

[A'isha]

If you want to argue that torture is a legitimate part of US interrogation policy, then do that. But don't try to hide behind euphemisms or try to pretend that waterboarding isn't torture or that our waterboarding was somehow different from what the Khmer Rouge did because we didn't let anyone die from it and they did.

The very fact that a doctor had to be present to ensure that a prisoner didn't die when subjected to waterboarding says everything that needs to be said about the technique.

 

[BeAChooser]

Vann Nath was waterboarded by the Khmer Rouge. He was strapped to a table, his legs elevated above his head. A cloth was placed over his face, and water was poured on that cloth until his involuntary drowning reflex kicked in. Vann Nath is still very much alive.

Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was waterboarded by the CIA. He was strapped to a table, his legs elevated above his head. A cloth was placed over his face, and water was poured on that cloth until his involuntary drowning reflex kicked in. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad is still very much salive.

Vann Nath was an innocent ... one of perhaps a dozen survivors of Khmer Rouge torture centers in which tens of thousands of innocents were murdered. You want to claim his situation was equivalent to what the US did to a terrorist who helped murder thousands of people (and who it was feared knew about plots that would lead to the death of thousands more), you go right ahead. Because I think it does nothing but discredit you, ANTPogo.

 

[A'isha]

Vann Nath was an innocent ... one of perhaps a dozen survivors of Khmer Rouge torture centers in which tens of thousands of innocents were murdered. You want to claim his situation was equivalent to what the US did to a terrorist who helped murder thousands of people (and who it was feared knew about plots that would lead to the death of thousands more), you go right ahead. Because I think it does nothing but discredit you, ANTPogo.

So the difference between torture and not-torture is not what you do to the person, but whether they deserve it or not?

And I never said "his situation" was equivalent to anything. I said the torture technique used was the same. Because it was.

 

[BeAChooser]

So the difference between torture and not-torture is not what you do to the person, but whether they deserve it or not?

Did I not essentially say that in my first post on this thread?

And I never said "his situation" was equivalent to anything.

You did without having to *say* it.