• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Waterboarding Rocks!

ANTPogo said:
The techniques outlined in the Army Interrogation Manual prior to Bush taking office would be a good place to start.

Those techniques were considered good enough to protect us during a shooting conflict (and potential nuclear war) with the "Evil Empire" itself, after all. You know, things the government thought would protect us during a situation where the Commie tanks could overrun Europe and Russkie guided-missile subs could be in New York Harbor and Soviet bombers could fly right over Sarah Palin's house.

Somehow, I think that as dangerous as al-Qaeda might be now, their threat kind of pales in comparison to that.
Click to expand...

Where in there does it specify no waterboarding?
 
ANTPogo said:
I'm curious about something. If waterboarding really isn't all that bad, as Cicero keeps insisting, why is it so important that we use it? Especially that we use it when lives are on the line and we need information right away!

If waterboarding is no more than "temporary discomfort", what makes it so much more effective than standard military interrogation techniques that even releasing memos about how we used it puts us in danger, to say nothing of the deep kimchi we'd all apparently be in at the hands of the nefarious terrorists should such a technique be disallowed by those traitorous cowardly libs?

Can anyone answer that for me?
Click to expand...

It is harmless yet effective. I'll ask again, in your words where is the line drawn for interrogation techniques.
 
ANTPogo said:
I'm curious about something. If waterboarding really isn't all that bad, as Cicero keeps insisting, why is it so important that we use it? Especially that we use it when lives are on the line and we need information right away!

If waterboarding is no more than "temporary discomfort", what makes it so much more effective than standard military interrogation techniques that even releasing memos about how we used it puts us in danger, to say nothing of the deep kimchi we'd all apparently be in at the hands of the nefarious terrorists should such a technique be disallowed by those traitorous cowardly libs?

Can anyone answer that for me?
Click to expand...

Probably nobody in this forum can provide the definitive answer since they were not the CIA interrogators. Since only three detainees were waterboarded, the interrogators most likely tried the usual methods of extracting information from them before applying the waterboarding technique. It seems reasonable to conclude that the usual methods were not working on these three detainees.
 
Drysdale said:
Where in there does it specify no waterboarding?
Click to expand...

The part where it says "The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."

Drysdale said:
It is harmless yet effective.
Click to expand...

There are lots of "harmless yet effective" techniques described in the linked PDF. What makes waterboarding stand out from them? Why must we use waterboarding, instead of the other "harmless yet effective" techniques that were considered good enough for the US Army during a potental war with the Soviet Union.

I'll ask again, in your words where is the line drawn for interrogation techniques.
Click to expand...

If the very explicit descriptions in the linked PDF aren't enough, how about this: techniques that aren't banned by conventions against torture that the US signed, nor that were used as part of a regular regime of torture by the Khmer Rouge, nor that were in the list of torture charges levied against prisoners by the United States as part of war crimes trials.

Is that really too much to ask?
 
Last edited:
Cicero said:
Probably nobody in this forum can provide the definitive answer since they were not the CIA interrogators. Since only three detainees were waterboarded, the interrogators most likely tried the usual methods of extracting information from them before applying the waterboarding technique. It seems reasonable to conclude that the usual methods were not working on these three detainees.
Click to expand...

If waterboarding isn't any more unpleasant than the other techniques used by the CIA interrogators which failed, though, why was it used? And why did it supposedly work when those other techniques supposedly didn't?
 
ANTPogo said:
If waterboarding isn't any more unpleasant than the other techniques used by the CIA interrogators which failed, though, why was it used? And why did it supposedly work when those other techniques supposedly didn't?
Click to expand...

Now, who said that waterboarding is not any more unpleasant than other techniques? The point is to make one as uncomfortable as possible in the quickest amount of time. Sleep deprivation, for obvious reasons, is not the quickest method.

But again, the CIA interrogators would have to tell you why these three detainees decided to give information to the interrogators only after this procedure when these detainees prevailed when submitted to other methods.
 
Cicero said:
Now, who said that waterboarding is not any more unpleasant than other techniques? The point is to make one as uncomfortable as possible in the quickest amount of time. Sleep deprivation, for obvious reasons, is not the quickest method.
Click to expand...

You've gone to some lengths to downplay its unpleasantness. Setting aside the whole necessity of the "quickest amount of time" claim, I'm just curious as to why these hardened jihadists who have apparently resisted every other interrogation technique in the book but seemingly folded like a house of cards when waterboarded. And yet, waterboarding (according to you) causes only "temporary discomfort", and is not a big deal at all. Heck, the military does it to its own people all the time, and even that manliest of men Sean Hannity has offered to undergo the procedure!

Do these terrorists have glass jaws, perhaps? Are they literally "rabid terrorists" and thus are hydrophobic? What is it about waterboarding that made them cry "uncle" so quickly, despite their iron-willed resistance to everything else Jack Bauer threw at them?

But again, the CIA interrogators would have to tell you why these three detainees decided to give information to the interrogators only after this procedure when these detainees prevailed when submitted to other methods.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know the reason why. I'm just trying to get you to tell me what you think is the reason why, given the above.
 
While being subjected to it over 200 times? Sure sounds effective and quick to me!
 
Lonewulf said:
While being subjected to it over 200 times? Sure sounds effective and quick to me!
Click to expand...

Is this an argument as to why it isn't torture if the initial procedure did not yield the desired results? If Hitchens had it done to him for the third time, he might have held out even longer than he did during his second trial.

Are you in favor of the Iron Maiden and The Rack? Would Hitchens have volunteered to test his threshold of pain as inflicted by these devices?
 
Cicero said:
But again, the CIA interrogators would have to tell you why these three detainees decided to give information to the interrogators only after this procedure when these detainees prevailed when submitted to other methods.
Click to expand...

They cracked under torture for precisely the same reason people who have confessed to witchcraft and such cracked under torture.

As has been pointed out, torture is effective at making people crack. It is not effective at getting reliable and legally useful information or confessions.

Cicero said:
Are you in favor of the Iron Maiden and The Rack? Would Hitchens have volunteered to test his threshold of pain as inflicted by these devices?
Click to expand...
This is a nonsensical argument. When someone says they're opposed to waterboarding because it constitutes torture, there is no reason to believe they would therefore be in favor of more heinous forms of torture. There's simply no logic to that way of thinking.
 
Cicero said:
Are you in favor of the Iron Maiden and The Rack? Would Hitchens have volunteered to test his threshold of pain as inflicted by these devices?
Click to expand...

I have no clue, and I think neither do you, how this can possibly advance your argument in any recognizable shape or form.
 
Least it be missed by those who sorely need to read it:
SezMe said:
BAC, read about integrity.
Click to expand...
The torture proponents on this board should be ashamed of themselves. These guys faced down the freakin' Nazis during a much more difficult war than we are currently in and they never...

Well, in their own words:
"During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone," said George Frenkel, 87, of Kensington. "We extracted information in a battle of the wits. I'm proud to say I never compromised my humanity."
Click to expand...
Feel free to crawl back under the nearest rock.
 
Cicero is apparently under the impression that there's no torture that does not leave lasting physical effects, so while things like fingernail-ripping and the rack are torture, things like waterboarding and sleep deprivation are not.

He is, of course, dead wrong.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
They cracked under torture for precisely the same reason people who have confessed to witchcraft and such cracked under torture.

As has been pointed out, torture is effective at making people crack. It is not effective at getting reliable and legally useful information or confessions.


This is a nonsensical argument. When someone says they're opposed to waterboarding because it constitutes torture, there is no reason to believe they would therefore be in favor of more heinous forms of torture. There's simply no logic to that way of thinking.
Click to expand...

When it comes to the application of true torture, is there really a hierarchy of abomination? If America is in the torture business, why not use all methods? In for a penny, in for a pound.

You, and other detractors, keep insisting that waterboarding is useless in getting "reliable" and "useful" (and now the added caveat of "legally" obtained) information. When accused witches were tortured in Salem, Massachusetts in order to get them to admit to being witches, they were not then asked to perform feats of witchcraft to prove what they said was true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom