Waterboarding

[SavageEagle]

But wait, we are only talking about waterboarding which is no more torture than putting someone in prison. POW's that is.

 

[SavageEagle]

And no, I dont condone torture. It's awful and we are better than that. But I am talking about this as an imminent danger and doing this to stop the immediate threat. Not doing this to regular criminals. Oh, and btw, we have tortured for decades. Every major war. I'm not saying it's right, it's disgusting, but we have done it. Many, many times, many many ways.

 

[turnandshoot4]

I have understood that they have done it, they weren't peeing in their faces while they did it before. Now the government is abusing their powers and telling us about it. In doing so, we have become complacent.

 

[jeremy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy
I do not support the use of "water boarding" or torture to get information from an individual. This smacks of the inquisition and the witch hunts. The main reason the military tries to stay away from this is not necessarily the legality of the issue, but more of are you really going to get reliable information from someone who knows that you are going to cause them a lot of pain and possibly kill them. Ummmm probally not or they would have already spilled their guts out and told you everything already.

That turns out not to be the case. Not quite true. For one thing, what people think they can take and what they actually can take are two different things.

Yup I learned in a lot of classes that I was a real puss before the miltary. Pain is really in ones mind, ignore it for the most part and you can still function.

BTW, did you know that waterboarding is part of SERE training in the US military? Do you honestly think the military tortures its own people then has record levels of re-enlistments?

BTW yes I know ALL about waterboarding being a part of SERE School I also know they are allowed to break bones in SERE, minor ones granted but they are allowed to. And yes I think, No I know the military would torture its own people that is the purpose of the course in question. Survival Evasion, Resistance and Escape. Did you ever wonder what the resistance in the name meant or is it just a cool sounding acronym to you?

As far as the record number of re-enlistments only avery small percentage have to go through this course. That and the job market suck out here in the real world.

There is the argument often made about how unreliable the information gotten from "aggressive interrogation" (up to and including torture), however, that can be addressed by both how the interrogation is conducted and what specific information one is looking for. The claim is, they'll say anything to stop the torture. Well, that's true. They'll say anything, including the truth. The trick is to get them to learn early on that lies do not get them a reprieve but the truth does.

Have you ever actually worked HUMINT? I have worked HUMINT before, and have seen more negative leads generated than positive. Sometimes it does work I will grant you that, Sometimes being the key word here.
Quote:
Besides "IF" we needed to torture someone that is why we have allies where it is not quite the wrong then to do there.
And you have just undermined your entire argument. Contracting out what you're not willing to do yourself is the same as doing it yourself only sleazier.

Sleazy yes it is, welcome to the big world of POLOTICS! It is legal though.

My .02 cents again.

 

[dburkhead]

All forms of torture are simply wrong.
Ends do not justify the means!
Does our government have alternative ways of collecting info?
Yes, it does.
Do they work better than using the methods of torture?
I do not have data for it.

It is my understanding that torture is the easiest and most economical way of collecting info. Although, it is debatable how effective the torture is as information gathering tool.

All forms of violence are simply wrong. The ends do not justify the means. (Consider that statement in the context of armed self defense.)

How does that work for you. If not, why not?

Simply declaring something as true does not make it true.

Different methods of information collection have a tendency to collect different information. What is collected by SIGINT is different from what is collected by HUMINT is different from what is collected by recon drones is different from what is collected by intel satellites. Different methods of information collection also have different time requirements to get information. If you want to know about an attack planned for tomorrow, methods that require a week to get results are no help.

And "debatable" only in the sense that folk make contradictory claim. That's "debatable" in the same sense that the germ theory of disease is debatable.

 

[dburkhead]

THEN MY FRIENDS, THE TERRORISTS HAVE ALREADY WON. THEY HAVE INFLICTED ENOUGH TERROR IN US TO SUSPEND THE BASIC HUMANITY OF OURSELVES.

I presume you're married or have (or have had, or hope to have) a girlfriend. If the RIFs ("Radical Islamic Fundamentalists") had actually won, your wife or girlfriend, current, past, or present would be subject to execution for the "crime" of being raped (as just one example). Said wife/girlfriend's testimony would only count 20% of a man's in a court of law. Being even a little bit uncovered (as in anything less than Burka covered) would justify rape in the eyes of Islamic courts ("Uncovered meat, ripe for snatching"). And so on and so forth.

Before talking about them having already won, consider what a "win" really would mean.

I consider someone taking a knife to my belly and cutting me open in five spots to be pretty bad. But when my gall bladder went bad that became very much a lesser evil.

He who has ears to hear, let him here.

You see, for the most part I agree that torture should not be used. Where we part company is that I can see potential situations where it would be justified, where not doing it would lead to far worse consequences. Thus, I cannot say "never" on the use of torture, and even less under waterboarding (which, once again, is not torture).

 

[dburkhead]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy
I do not support the use of "water boarding" or torture to get information from an individual. This smacks of the inquisition and the witch hunts. The main reason the military tries to stay away from this is not necessarily the legality of the issue, but more of are you really going to get reliable information from someone who knows that you are going to cause them a lot of pain and possibly kill them. Ummmm probally not or they would have already spilled their guts out and told you everything already.

That turns out not to be the case. Not quite true. For one thing, what people think they can take and what they actually can take are two different things.

Yup I learned in a lot of classes that I was a real puss before the miltary. Pain is really in ones mind, ignore it for the most part and you can still function.

So everyone who ever broke under torture was just a wuss? Sorry but that's bull.

BTW, did you know that waterboarding is part of SERE training in the US military? Do you honestly think the military tortures its own people then has record levels of re-enlistments?

BTW yes I know ALL about waterboarding being a part of SERE School I also know they are allowed to break bones in SERE, minor ones granted but they are allowed to.

Cite? And I don't mean training accidents. I mean a cite for deliberate breaking of bones as policy.

And yes I think, No I know the military would torture its own people that is the purpose of the course in question. Survival Evasion, Resistance and Escape. Did you ever wonder what the resistance in the name meant or is it just a cool sounding acronym to you?

So, since, survival" is part of the name, they also shoot at you with real bullets, aimed center of mass--just like would happen in a real situation?

SERE is more psychological than physical (not to discount the physical, but it's more about mindset).

As far as the record number of re-enlistments only avery small percentage have to go through this course. That and the job market suck out here in the real world.

The small percentage who go through SERE would only have bearing you intend to imply that SERE graduates are not re-upping proportionally with the rest of military. And the job market is only relevant to that issue if you contend that unemployment is worse than working for someone who tortures you.

There is the argument often made about how unreliable the information gotten from "aggressive interrogation" (up to and including torture), however, that can be addressed by both how the interrogation is conducted and what specific information one is looking for. The claim is, they'll say anything to stop the torture. Well, that's true. They'll say anything, including the truth. The trick is to get them to learn early on that lies do not get them a reprieve but the truth does.

Have you ever actually worked HUMINT? I have worked HUMINT before, and have seen more negative leads generated than positive. Sometimes it does work I will grant you that, Sometimes being the key word here.

So you have used torture to question prisoners? Unless that's what you mean by "worked HUMINT" then the above has no bearing on what I said.

Quote:
Besides "IF" we needed to torture someone that is why we have allies where it is not quite the wrong then to do there.
And you have just undermined your entire argument. Contracting out what you're not willing to do yourself is the same as doing it yourself only sleazier.

Sleazy yes it is, welcome to the big world of POLOTICS! It is legal though.

My .02 cents again.

So you're willing to have them tortured so long as you can pretend that your own hands are lily white? That's what the above sounds like. And, frankly, it undermines all arguments about torture being wrong or ineffective. If it's wrong, it's wrong to have our allies do it. If it's ineffective, it's ineffective when our allies do it.

What you're doing is the same as someone who objects to hunting but enjoys eating steaks. It's no more than squeamishness.

 

[ruger17hmr]

If we begin to sanction torture based on the needs, where do we stop?
Why not begin to sanction selective assasination and/or imprisonment of persons without the due process, foreign or domestic, who deemed to pose threat to our national interest? If we let one evil deed to be carried out for the sake of public interest, we are inviting the influx of wrongful ways to innervate our very moral infrastructure.

 

[Shadowbeach]

.

 

[10ring]

Again, let's all please stop the silly comparison of "inducing the sensation of drowning" with hanging someone from chains and taking a knife, drill, battery hooked up to genitals and blow torch to them and then when convinced that you have all you could get, dragging them outside and putting a bullet into the back of their skull.

People, wake the hell up.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, for one example, spilled loads of intelligence that saved lives and nobody here can claim differently. Last I checked, he is still breathing and has all of his fingers and toes.

Doesn't anyone here remember Daniel Pearl? Google his name, find the video of them sawing his head off and then come here and tell me about freaking water boarding.

And you know what, I could give a damn that someone that has the blood of innocent human beings on his hands and would butcher me and my family if he had the chance had to suffer the horrible "sensation of drowning".

Give me a freaking break.

GOOD GRIEF!

 

[SavageEagle]

If we begin to sanction torture based on the needs, where do we stop?
Why not begin to sanction selective assasination and/or imprisonment of persons without the due process, foreign or domestic, who deemed to pose threat to our national interest? If we let one evil deed to be carried out for the sake of public interest, we are inviting the influx of wrongful ways to innervate our very moral infrastructure.

We aren't talking about sanctioning torture. We aren't talking about sanctioning assasination. We are talking about psychological warfare here. Water boarding! My God, it's not something that is going to harm someone and there's no way it's going to be used on criminals! The Government will not have a chance to use this on common criminals. The People would not allow it. Yes, we have become complacent, but not when it comes to this stuff.

You can not compare waterboarding to forms of torture. It's just not the same thing. And yes, it DOES save lives.

 

[dburkhead]

If we begin to sanction torture based on the needs, where do we stop?
Why not begin to sanction selective assasination and/or imprisonment of persons without the due process, foreign or domestic, who deemed to pose threat to our national interest? If we let one evil deed to be carried out for the sake of public interest, we are inviting the influx of wrongful ways to innervate our very moral infrastructure.

You use the term "assassination." That term has been applied to the ambush of Isoroku Yamamoto's aircraft during WWII (we had specific intelligence that he woudl be on that particular flight at that particular time and the attack was undertaken for the express purpose of taking out, killing, that particular individual). Are you saying that was wrong?

How about various plots to assassinate Hitler (same war)?

And since when do enemies in wartime have any expectation of due process? Do you have to read a person their rights before you shoot them on the battlefield? POW's have never had rights of Habeus Corpus and the like. And spies and saboteurs (falling into what today would be called "unlawful combatants") could be shot out of hand when caught. They have no rights per international treaty.

 

[techres]

Again, let's all please stop the silly comparison of "inducing the sensation of drowning" with hanging someone from chains and taking a knife, drill, battery hooked up to genitals and blow torch to them and then when convinced that you have all you could get, dragging them outside and putting a bullet into the back of their skull.

People, wake the hell up.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, for one example, spilled loads of intelligence that saved lives and nobody here can claim differently. Last I checked, he is still breathing and has all of his fingers and toes.

Doesn't anyone here remember Daniel Pearl? Google his name, find the video of them sawing his head off and then come here and tell me about freaking water boarding.

And you know what, I could give a damn that someone that has the blood of innocent human beings on his hands and would butcher me and my family if he had the chance had to suffer the horrible "sensation of drowning".

Give me a freaking break.

GOOD GRIEF!

1. We only "know" we got good intel from him because those who "extracted it" say so and ask only our trust that they are telling the truth. I cannot deny it, just as you cannot prove it. And trust of our gov't or intel is not easy to come by these days.

2. Are you arguing for "just this one thing" or are you arguing for "what is needed to get the intel"? The first assumes that the slope is not slippery, and the second takes apart your whole argument.

3. What this really comes down to is a question of faith, and fear that puts you into one of two groups really:

Group A has faith in the use of force to produce useful info, fear that they could have the one guy who has the intel to stop the imminent death of hundreds/thousands and are willing to put those two in a dark room together to save us all.

Group B has faith that our government and its agents are not competent to have the right person, or for that matter will grab someone for another reason than first intended, and fear that these techniques will produce results completely other than what we want (bad intel, intel on Americans, or just the accidental killing of a few people here and there).

I fall much more within Group B and fear this added power, pushed through out of "necessity" and am greatly concerned about how, when, and how often it will be used. And I am not for a second, going to believe that there will be any fundamental wall between American and Non-American or Accused Terrorist and Convicted Terrorist. And I cannot see in any way how our Constitution is not fundamentally weakened by yet another new power that those in charge "need to have" in order to keep me safe.

I have heard it all too often:

"Nice Country you got there, be a shame if something were to happen to it."
"Nice Economy you got there, be a shame if something were to happen to it."

Both sound like shakedown lines.

Too bad we lack the one I would like to hear:

"Nice Bill of Rights, be a shame if something were to happen to it."

Oh, wait, it does kinda sound like that, but not in a good way...

 

[SavageEagle]

1. We only "know" we got good intel from him because those who "extracted it" say so and ask only our trust that they are telling the truth. I cannot deny it, just as you cannot prove it. And trust of our gov't or intel is not easy to come by these days.

2. Are you arguing for "just this one thing" or are you arguing for "what is needed to get the intel"? The first assumes that the slope is not slippery, and the second takes apart your whole argument.

3. What this really comes down to is a question of faith, and fear that puts you into one of two groups really:

Group A has faith in the use of force to produce useful info, fear that they could have the one guy who has the intel to stop the imminent death of hundreds/thousands and are willing to put those two in a dark room together to save us all.

Group B has faith that our government and its agents are not competent to have the right person, or for that matter will grab someone for another reason than first intended, and fear that these techniques will produce results completely other than what we want (bad intel, intel on Americans, or just the accidental killing of a few people here and there).

I fall much more within Group B and fear this added power, pushed through out of "necessity" and am greatly concerned about how, when, and how often it will be used. And I am not for a second, going to believe that there will be any fundamental wall between American and Non-American or Accused Terrorist and Convicted Terrorist. And I cannot see in any way how our Constitution is not fundamentally weakened by yet another new power that those in charge "need to have" in order to keep me safe.

I have heard it all too often:

"Nice Country you got there, be a shame if something were to happen to it."
"Nice Economy you got there, be a shame if something were to happen to it."

Both sound like shakedown lines.

Too bad we lack the one I would like to hear:

"Nice Bill of Rights, be a shame if something were to happen to it."

Oh, wait, it does kinda sound like that, but not in a good way...

I guess I really can't argue with that. I still maintain that Waterboarding (which is the only thing we are really talking about here) is not torture and should be allowed.

Also, as per my highlighted part of your statement....

So you should also fear the laser guided bombs, Predators UAV's, Stealth Bombers, and nuclear weapons being used against American People also. These are all forms of war just as Waterboarding is used in times of war. So therefore, being scared that the Government will Waterboard you for expressing your thoughts and opinions as an innocent person, you should also be scared that Predators are circling above your house ready to unleashe laser guided bombs on you because you ran a red light at rush hour. Or that a murderer will be nuked from Stealth bombers on American soil.

The Government knows there is a line that Americans won't allow them to cross and waterboarding common criminals to find other criminals or their "stash" is something we won't allow.

I mean, I'm paranoid, but come on. Seriously.

 

[ruger17hmr]

War is wrong, even if we are forced into it.
We do fight for our own survivor during the war. We do take lives without hesitation, for our own lives are at stake, but does it make it right to kill? Our very brain is ingrained with the ideas of patriotism and nationalism, which enable us to do the things we might not enjoy doing, including maiming and even killing other human beings.
Two wrongs does not make it right!

Waterboarding might not be as serious as maiming or killing, but it is still wrong to subject a person to such duress for the sake of gathering information. Again, if you sanction it for selective objectives, you are taking the risk of it becoming common practice in the future. What is wrong is wrong and should not be condoned regardless of its perceived or real benefits.

 

[techres]

Also, as per my highlighted part of your statement....

So you should also fear the laser guided bombs, Predators UAV's, Stealth Bombers, and nuclear weapons being used against American People also. These are all forms of war just as Waterboarding is used in times of war. So therefore, being scared that the Government will Waterboard you for expressing your thoughts and opinions as an innocent person, you should also be scared that Predators are circling above your house ready to unleashe laser guided bombs on you because you ran a red light at rush hour. Or that a murderer will be nuked from Stealth bombers on American soil.

The Government knows there is a line that Americans won't allow them to cross and waterboarding common criminals to find other criminals or their "stash" is something we won't allow.

I mean, I'm paranoid, but come on. Seriously.

Is this not the community that concerns itself with the day they come for our guns? What Obama's army of volunteers might be empowered to do? I have heard exactly these things from many of the same people who suddenly have faith in our Gov'ts ability to restrain itself in dark rooms where our law, oversight and transparency have no existence.

I frankly am not very concerned with overflights of aircraft, well unless they are LEO's illegally using FLIR to look for narco's and sometimes getting tree growers instead and then lying about it. I am not concerned about use of military gear against civi targets, well unless that tank at Waco thing gets under your skin (not one of my big issues, but is for some). I am not really scared about what overkill the government will use on me, frankly because the history of government is that they will not use those powers, not if they can get what they want in dark rooms where no-one sees anything and no-one hears anything.

Why should they?

And yes, these are extreme, but without the protections of the Bill of Rights, we will eventually live that extreme. Remember, Liberty is lost one little bit at a time. And it is rarely taken, it is given one little bit at a go.

The government did not need to take our guns in one fell swoop. No. They took this one little thing in 1934, then another in 68, then 86, then 94. That government beast is the one and the same that you are talking about entrusting with waterboarding. I am not inclined to trust personally. I am inclined to be very suspicious and concerned, asking at every junction - is this constitutional and how can it be used improperly.

The practice of waterboarding is "full of fail" when it comes to that test. And for that matter so is the proclaimed need for it as well.

Really, I am no more paranoid than the other gun nuts on this board. I just do not set aside my distrust and paranoia because someone tells me there is a ticking A-Bomb sitting in Indy just waiting to go off and the only way to stop it is to waterboard this guy we just picked up who likely, probably, might know where it is.

Just me there.

 

[Shadowbeach]

.

 

[baldmax]

ANY way to gain information is OK with me.

 

[SavageEagle]

So you people mean to tell me you would rather watch 100 million Americans die needlessly in the name of morals instead of waterboarding a TERRORIST that would kill you given the chance who could stop mass destruction by simply waterboarding him to get the info from him?

 

[10ring]

1. We only "know" we got good intel from him because those who "extracted it" say so and ask only our trust that they are telling the truth. I cannot deny it, just as you cannot prove it. And trust of our gov't or intel is not easy to come by these days.

2. Are you arguing for "just this one thing" or are you arguing for "what is needed to get the intel"? The first assumes that the slope is not slippery, and the second takes apart your whole argument.

3. What this really comes down to is a question of faith, and fear that puts you into one of two groups really:

Group A has faith in the use of force to produce useful info, fear that they could have the one guy who has the intel to stop the imminent death of hundreds/thousands and are willing to put those two in a dark room together to save us all.

Group B has faith that our government and its agents are not competent to have the right person, or for that matter will grab someone for another reason than first intended, and fear that these techniques will produce results completely other than what we want (bad intel, intel on Americans, or just the accidental killing of a few people here and there).

I fall much more within Group B and fear this added power, pushed through out of "necessity" and am greatly concerned about how, when, and how often it will be used. And I am not for a second, going to believe that there will be any fundamental wall between American and Non-American or Accused Terrorist and Convicted Terrorist. And I cannot see in any way how our Constitution is not fundamentally weakened by yet another new power that those in charge "need to have" in order to keep me safe.

I have heard it all too often:

"Nice Country you got there, be a shame if something were to happen to it."
"Nice Economy you got there, be a shame if something were to happen to it."

Both sound like shakedown lines.

Too bad we lack the one I would like to hear:

"Nice Bill of Rights, be a shame if something were to happen to it."

Oh, wait, it does kinda sound like that, but not in a good way...

A question of faith? This is not a matter of faith.

And the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to assholes captured on foreign battle grounds while trying or plotting to kill Americans, as much as you and people that think like you do would like to make that the case.

Do you or do you not think that someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would kill you and your family if he got the chance? If you don't think so or don't care, you are a fool and haven't been paying attention.

If you choose to ignore my entire point, whatever, talking to you about this is absolutely pointless.

I'm glad that we had people, unlike you, that will take steps like "inducing the sensation of drowning" on people that have real blood on their hands -- something you didn't even mention in your reply to my post -- to save lives of innocent people. You act as if guys like this were just walking down the street.

You should rest easy though, now we have an incoming administration that will cut all these people loose to plot and murder even more innocent people.