Would you suggest rolling out a waterboarding program to American citizens accused of various crimes? I think America is years behind China when it comes to their justice system. Dontcha think?

Anyone who believes that the US should follow the law objects to it.

I'm not going around thinking it, I'm basing my opinion on articles written by some of the best investigative journalists in the world about how we tortured to manufacture a link between al Qaeda and Iraq that didn't exist. Google it.
I object to it because it doesn't work, and fortunately I have a virtual consensus among the experts to back me up on that. Who do you have backing up your side? Neoconservative chickenhawks that never served like Bush, Cheney and Rice?
We already know that the information that came from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wasn't legitimate, thus verifying that torture didn't work. Furthermore, we know for a fact that the US waterboarding is a successful recruitment tool for al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other anti-US militant forces in the Middle East. Literally no reason whatsoever exists to waterboard. We're just digging ourselves into a bigger hole.

BTW, this PUB DISCUSSION format may seem nice on the surface, but the inability to cite sources means that anyone can say anything and you can't demonstrate that they're wrong. It's enough to start a bar fight.

..

Personal attacks don't fly here. Stick to the facts.

it's good you have no power then, zenturian.

Waterboarding by its very definition is torture. Inflicting mental pain on someone to get a confession. That's the whole point of it isn't it?

The morality is debatable, not the fact that it is torture.

It's SO interesting that now the morality is debatable. It never was, before this "is waterboarding torture" argument got headed toward being settled. The whole point of having that argument is, we're America, we're a country of laws, and we don't torture. So waterboarding (which we've done, nobody denies--although they used to) can't be torture. QED.

Now that waterboarding appears to preeeeetty much be torture, and some way right-wing folks are agreeing about that, NOW we get people saying, well, maybe it is torture but maybe torture is okay. Ooh, ooh, if American Lives are at risk, then sure, fuck the laws, let's cut off fingers! Which, by the way Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld NEVER claimed. They always said that torture is wrong, it's illegal and immoral, we don't torture, and waterboarding isn't torture. Even now, with Cheney doing a fucking media tour to attack the current administration (which has been a MASSIVE no-no for every administration prior to his), he's not changing his tune about that.

The new shifting "24 morality" is all transparently and cynically about a post-facto justification for the actions we've already taken.

Look: news came out this week about a man--a man who hasn't even been charged with anything, and against whom there are no charges planned, who under our law IS INNOCENT until proven guilty--whose genitals were routinely and systematically mutilated by Guantanamo interrogators and guards. Is that torture? If not... how do you figure? If so... how can you stand by that?

and that's why I've always said, "I'm fine with torture." I've explained it in a few other threads...and for the sake of keeping the smoldering fire from igniting, one can just look for those posts.

Actually I originally put that is torture and illegal,but I knew some people would try to argue that. You're right but some people will still try to justify there actions no matter what. That's what I meant by it's morality being questionable,not the act itself.

If the American citizen was withholding information that could save an other American, then yes. Do it to save lives, not to get people to confess to things they didn't do.

---------- Post added at 08:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:12 PM ----------


What law says we can't waterboard?

Um.....the laws that say torture is illegal?

...torturing is inhumane. There are more humane ways of getting the information we need that also won't jeopardize our reputation with the rest of the world...and, yes, that's important.

...besides, why would people, who want to die martyrs, be willing to confess the truth because of torture? It's my understanding, regarding muslim extremists, that the more painful the death the more pleasing to their Allah...and thus bigger rewards in the afterlife.

The FBI Agent testified the other day we were getting better info before the CIA came in a started the torture and water boarding stuff. If it's illegal and produces poor info what's the point? Other then just wanting to make people suffer. Or maybe they want the guy to admit to BS that never happened? You know like a link between Iraq and the 9-11 bombers.

Will, no offense, but that's naive and negligent at best. Would you strangle someone just because you know CPR? It's extraordinarily dangerous to do and if something goes seriously wrong, that CPR training doesn't mean anything.

What's the point of any person defending a position they don't believe in? Stubbornness. Being a stubborn person myself, I can attest to how difficult it is to admit that I'm wrong, but it has to happen when I'm faced with overwhelming evidence and a bullet-proof argument. You don't just get to be wrong and never admit it without losing all credibility. Look at former Vice President Dick "I'm a fucking joke" Cheney.

---------- Post added at 06:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 PM ----------

Strangulation isn't the same thing as getting water up your nose. By my understanding, being strangled at all can theoretically cause permanent physical damage and even death. Waterboarding is used specifically because it can be done again and again and again. It leaves no physical damage beyond extreme discomfort. The worst case scenario is gagging and a small amount of water in the lungs. It's why the water is poured slowly, so that only a small amount of water can get into the lungs if any.

Anyway, I stopped doing it the weekend after I did it the first time simply because it seemed more like something a freshman might to do get into a second-rate frat house. And this was a while ago. And you're totally right, in hindsight it was really stupid.

For the sake of this thread, I must say that those who don't think waterboarding is torture (and that haven't gone through it themselves) don't have the necessary experience to make that determination. That was the point. It's not just holding your breath, it's a perfect simulation for that moment in drowning when you're panicking and losing hope of reaching the surface.

Has it been declared torture?

We prosecuted people for waterboarding on the charge of torture. The convictions in those trials set legal precedent.

You realize that we are looking weak to those that wish to kill us. They want to kill you too. Being nice to them will only encourage them. Can't wait till Republicans are back in power. There will be massive attack while Obama's in office. They smell weakness.

True, but those people would force water down a soldiers throat until he passed out.

The US application was considerably different, shorter duration, and without unconsciousness.

Just as twisting someones arm may be perfectly legal to force compliance during an arrest but excessive force if it is twisted so hard it is broken in multiple places.

Scaring someone simply isn't torture. The recent application of water boarding was controlled specifically to elicit fear without causing damage.

Actually, by torturing we're making them stronger. Like I said before, it's their strongest recruiting tool. Google it.
You're wrong about that one, too. They don't want to kill Americans that are against military expansionism and that are open minded about Islam. If I was actually in any kind of real danger from terrorism (I'm more likely to be hit by lightning three times), my death would be indiscriminate. So no, they don't want to kill me, it's more just a general anger towards our government and those that prop up some very stupid foreign policy.
When I want to know about the Middle East and terrorism, I'll be sure to check with Republicans. Because they have such an outstanding track record. Just out of curiosity, from your extensive knowledge of the Middle East and Islam, which Hadith contains the passage about 72 virgins?

---------- Post added at 09:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 PM ----------

With all due respect, we don't know whether or not we did that too because of the lack of transparency. And Cheney's disingenuous calls for records ignore the fact that a lot of the worst stuff likely wasn't officially recorded. I would hope we didn't allow the detainees to pass out due to the level of torture, but considering what we're hearing about detainees having their testicles sliced with a scalpel... I can't really buy it without some serious evidence.
That's just it, though, torture isn't just defined as physical harm. It also includes mental suffering. I'm sure if, after you leave out hypothetical pub, you were to read the UN Convention Against Torture (which the US has signed and is thus US law), you would notice that the definition in the convention includes both physical and mental suffering.

This is not about looking weak. This is about being strong enough to do the right thing. The US is not a nation of people. It is a nation of laws. It is that distinction that sets the US apart from the rest of the world.

The US is only weak when it forgets this.

I can read the back and forth in these debates just fine, and see both points of view, until I come across a nugget like this.

This ain't Wild fucking Kingdom. Nobody's "smelling" anything. This is nothing more than sensationalist partisan bullshit. Any credibility or point you might have been making just went down the shitter.

Yes, because they'd never attack while a Republican is in office. If only a Republican was in office on 9/11... oh.

Yeah, that is why so many officers on the ground have said that Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are the main recruiting tools for the insurgents....

This is so true. Each moment the U.S. throws one of its principles to the wind is a moment of weakness.

The United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights...there aren't mere words. The further the nation deviates from the terms outlined therein, the greater its chance of becoming weakened.

If anything, the terrorists want the U.S. to break laws, to break from morals, to break principles. Once those are lost, what does it have left?

+1

A couple of questions if you'll indulge me for a moment.

1. Are you admitting to waterboarding three people?

2. From your statements, you've claimed that waterboarding is torture and that torture is illegal. Have you turned yourself in to be investigated for the commission of these crimes?

3. Can I assume from your history of posting that less than seven years has transpired since you committed these crimes?

4. Do you believe your crimes should be investigated by the proper authorities?

You have to give it proper context, namely consent. If I walk up to someone on the street and punch him in the face, that's assault. If I do it in a boxing ring, it's a sport. If I have sex with a woman and she doesn't want it, it's rape. If she does, it's sex. Anyway, the guy in the above video certainly wasn't arrested for waterboarding that disc jockey. The training staff at SERE school aren't dragged off in handcuffs.

Like most crimes, torture is torture because it's not consensual. But you already know that.

There's no need to be pedantic, JJ. Will obviously had the consent of his "victims". That makes it an entirely different thing from torturing prisoners of war.

Waterboarding isn't torture because I say it's not. And, yes, that's a perfectly valid reason. The problem with the "It's torture!" crowd is that, by following the logic that any physical, mental or emotional pain inflicted on someone solely to obtain information is torture, then any way used to glean information from someone which isn't, "Please tell me what you know?" would have to be, by it's very definition, also torture.

Someone please tell me what the difference between forcing someone to live in solitary confinement in a completely dark room for days/weeks at a time and waterboarding is? Someone please tell me what wouldn't constitute torture

And THAT, my friends, is why Pub Discussion fails.

"Torture" is actually a defined term, per a UN Convention that the US is a signatory on. But I can't cite it given the parameters of this thread.

Short version: YOU DON'T GET TO SAY WHAT IS AND ISN'T TORTURE.

It isn't a valid reason. Sorry.

There are stories of CIA getting more information from a game of chess with their prisoners than from torture.

This logic is torture.

The problem with those who say it isn't torture is that they don't understand what it means by "cruel and unusual punishment." We don't waterboard children to get them to tell us who stole the cookie from the cookie jar. We don't waterboard priests until they confess they've diddled children. We don't waterboard white collar criminals to make them confess to the extent of their insider trading.

Why don't we?

Waterboarding is unconstitutional if not illegal; it's immoral if not unbecoming of a state that is supposed to uphold ideals of democracy and freedom and justice.

i say the sky is green.
it doesn't matter what you say.
it doesn't matter what the social conventions are that distinguish one color from another.
it doesn't matter what agreements there are that identify color.
i say it's green.
so there.

What wouldn't? Trying, convicting (based on the evidence), and then, after they've been legally incarcerated, questioning them using legal and proven techniques of questioning... that wouldn't be torture, and it's the smart way to go because we don't embolden our "enemies" by giving them an incredibly powerful recruiting tool.

What do you suppose happens if the detainees come back home and say, "They treated me with respect, they tried me on the evidence, and I was found innocent and allowed to come back to my family"? Do you think that would make them hate us more or maybe rethink their position on the evil Americans?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post, but those are the parameters defined by the U.N.

...And I've really got to start using the sarcasm tags, as it's hard to convey over the internet (Apparently).

Well, first of all, waterboarding isn't unconstitutional nor illegal (In the U.S.). You might want it to be, but it isn't and referencing them as such doesn't do much to help your argument. But, moving on. The reason we waterboard suspected terrorists is because they're suspected terrorists who don't operate under the guidelines set forth by the Geneva Convention. They frequently target civilians, behead PoW's or journalists and have publicly stated that they won't stop until the opposing side is wiped out. We don't waterboard children because they're crimes don't necessitate being waterboarded. The same with priests or white collar criminals. Hell, we wouldn't even torture normal PoW's who were organized under a common banner.

I don't care how callous of a sentiment you think it is, but if they're not going to "play nice", then neither should we. To make use of a popular idiom, "All's fair in love and war".

Can no one pick up sarcasm anymore?

I'm not that naive. Our enemies don't need a new recruiting tool. They have 30/40/50 years worth of it. If you want to believe that a suspected terrorist released back to their country of origin would suddenly lose their anger and hatred towards the U.S., then that's your right to do so. But just because you believe it, doesn't make it so. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of detainees released by the U.S. went right back and joined a terrorist cell, and that they would do so regardless of the way they were treated whilst detained.

And through all of this, no one answered my questions so I'll ask again:

It isn't torture because I say so. That's a topper. You just can't beat logic like that. I going to try that with my broker. My account has several million, no wait billion dollars in it because I say it does. I'll keep you all posted on how it goes. If it works I'm planning one big ass TFP party. Location to be determined on whether he buys the millions or billions argument.

I've stayed out of this conversation, mostly because I think it's a gigantic joke. Anyone that thinks that any sort of valid information can come from anything that's borderline torture (and defining that border is the basis for this discussion) is a fool. That includes our former Vice President. I arrive at that conclusion based on the experience of the Soviets, who, in the 1920's and 1930's, created vast conspiracies from the ether based on torture, generally without resorting to violence. Waterboarding was used in rare circumstances but required too much work. The US government employees and their contractors engaged in the sleep deprivation, starvation and confinement techniques perfected by the Stalinists.

The last 8 years or so has been one of the greatest hypocrisies in modern history since torture was something we routinely condemned less than 20 years ago and was completely unthinkable here 10 years ago. But now that we're doing it, it's somehow ok. If an American thinks torture is somehow appropriate EVER, then you need to get the hell out. We don't want your kind here.

I remember when the ACLU filed a lawsuit because prisoners were being subjected to 'cruelty'.....the "Barney Theme Song" piped non-stop into their cells for hours on end. While they agreed the volume was at a reasonable level, the song itself is what was considered the problem.


Given the choice between one waterboarding session and 12 straight hours of Barney, I am sure they would have chosen the waterboarding.


More humane.