Waterboarding, is it torture? Should it be allowed?

[RedRalph]

So you dont care if its torture because you have no sympathy for terrorists, but you do care if its torture because you dont want your govt to break its own laws. Do I have you right?

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Dont be a butthole. Do I go around sawing peoples heads off? Murder innocents with carbombs? No. Then yes, I absolutely have the moral highground here.



Dont misquote me. I never said 'why should I stop'. Take your trolling elsewhere. Its not appreciated and adds nothing to the thread topic.

let's face it, you should be against torture, according to your beliefs, and i see it as fine to call you a hypocrite.

and you do not even hint at remorse for being one, so i see that as a "why should i stop?"

 

[sonorakitch]

the detainees restrain themselves?

Cute question, but I hope you know what I mean.

There is zero physical interaction during any waterboarding procedure. Detainees, at least in Gitmo, are restrained already.

This whole waterboarding thing has really been blown out of proportion. I know it is the "hip" thing to lambast it, but most of these people don't really understand it.

Physically beating a detainee is worse really.

~Chris

 

[JollyRoger]

Do I go around sawing peoples heads off? Murder innocents with carbombs? No.

You say that now. Let's waterboard you and see if we can get a confession.

 

[IglooDame]

Cute question, but I hope you know what I mean.

There is zero physical interaction during any waterboarding procedure. Detainees, at least in Gitmo, are restrained already.

This whole waterboarding thing has really been blown out of proportion. I know it is the "hip" thing to lambast it, but most of these people don't really understand it.

Physically beating a detainee is worse really.

~Chris

I guess I don't get what you mean by "zero physical interaction". An interrogator pours water on a detainee (I'm simplifying, but that's pretty much it). If water doesn't count as a "physical interaction", then why would electricity, or steel, or wood?

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Like a shirt with too much starch in it?

uncomfort to make them say things. It shouldn't be used for interrogations.

 

[MobBoss]

let's face it, you should be against torture, according to your beliefs, and i see it as fine to call you a hypocrite.

I am against torture.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Cute question, but I hope you know what I mean.

There is zero physical interaction during any waterboarding procedure. Detainees, at least in Gitmo, are restrained already.

This whole waterboarding thing has really been blown out of proportion. I know it is the "hip" thing to lambast it, but most of these people don't really understand it.

Physically beating a detainee is worse really.

~Chris

Physically beating a detainee usually doesn't hotwire their brain to send a YOU WILL DIE IN FIVE SECONDS message right past all conscious thought and straight to the panic center, and as IglooDude pointed out, there's as much physical interaction involved in waterboarding a man strapped to a board as there is in beating the same man with a club. Unless, of course, you think water has special properties. In which case replace the club with a high-pressure hose. Not quite as high as the ones used to cut steel, of course.

 

[sonorakitch]

I guess I don't get what you mean by "zero physical interaction". An interrogator pours water on a detainee (I'm simplifying, but that's pretty much it). If water doesn't count as a "physical interaction", then why would electricity, or steel, or wood?

Ha, well, I guess we could conclude that there is a form of physical interaction, but not in the human to human form (as most interregation techniques are).

CIA trainees regularly train for counter-interregation and undergo the waterboarding procedure. The average trainee lasts 14 seconds before begging to be released. These guys agree that the sensation is horrible, but temporary of course. However, the CIA concluded a several years ago that waterboarding is not effective for information extraction, as the detainee is generally scared horsehockyzeless and the information provided is not to be trusted.

~Chris

 

[RedRalph]

I am against torture.

Want to reply to my post at the top of the thread?

 

[I'm Cleo!]

sonorakitch,

That's exactly it. Waterboarding is among the best techniques for quickly getting someone to tell you exactly what you want him to say.

Which, it should be obvious, is not "interrogation".

Cleo

 

[sonorakitch]

sonorakitch,

That's exactly it. Waterboarding is among the best techniques for quickly getting someone to tell you exactly what you want him to say.

Which, it should be obvious, is not "interrogation".

Cleo

I agree. We shouldn't do it...and hopefully don't anymore.

~Chris

 

[Mr. Dictator]

I am against torture.

but you seem to support waterboarding.

 

[aarbron]

Strange question really, if it's not torture what is it ?

 

[IglooDame]

sonorakitch,

That's exactly it. Waterboarding is among the best techniques for quickly getting someone to tell you exactly what you want him to say.

Which, it should be obvious, is not "interrogation".

Cleo

It does make me wonder, though. I mean, the fellows at the CIA and other places that figure out how to extract information are not stupid, and there's no reason to assume that they're overly sadistic. Why would they stick with a technique when logically what they're getting isn't particularly trustworthy? Yeah, McCain gave the NVA interrogators the Green Bay offensive line, but they were looking for propaganda victories - signed confessions, names of pilots they could use on Hanoi Hannah broadcasts, stuff like that - they probably could not have used operational intel to much effect, whereas against (suspected) Al Qaeda operatives operational intel is all they want. So I do have my doubts about the effectiveness of torture/waterboarding/coercion in this circumstance.

 

[Abaddon]

Has torture ever been good for getting reliable information? Is it not a case of coercion to get them to say whatever you wish to hear?

 

[I'm Cleo!]

IglooDude,

Well, look: the Soviet Union used all sorts of coercive interrogation to get "dissidents" to admit to crimes. A lot of those techniques were studied by the U.S. since we assumed (rightly, I'm sure) that if some of our people were captured, they'd be subjected to the same things. It was called the SERE program, and I'm sure it was valuable. But The New Yorker reported that the research done there was used to develop the Bush administration's interrogation techniques that they now use against detainees in Guantanamo and elsewhere.

I'm sure they're not overly sadistic, but you're absolutely right to ask "why". It's like that scene in The Hunt for Red October, when Jack Ryan asks to himself, "How do you get the crew off a nuclear submarine?" and the question answers itself. Just ask yourself: "why would the Bush administration want terrorist suspects telling them what they want to hear?"

Cleo

 

[sonorakitch]

It does make me wonder, though. I mean, the fellows at the CIA and other places that figure out how to extract information are not stupid, and there's no reason to assume that they're overly sadistic. Why would they stick with a technique when logically what they're getting isn't particularly trustworthy? Yeah, McCain gave the NVA interrogators the Green Bay offensive line, but they were looking for propaganda victories - signed confessions, names of pilots they could use on Hanoi Hannah broadcasts, stuff like that - they probably could not have used operational intel to much effect, whereas against (suspected) Al Qaeda operatives operational intel is all they want. So I do have my doubts about the effectiveness of torture/waterboarding/coercion in this circumstance.

To my knowledge, the CIA no longer uses waterboarding or cold room techniques. I think any from of info. extraction that inflicts shuddering fear upon a detainee isn't going to work anyways.

There are other means of interrogation that does work however, including long time standing. The fear factor is gone and it is just really really uncomfortable.

You are right though; the best method of intelligence aquisition is in the field. However, old Khalid Sheik Mohammed crumbled and spilled everything following interrogation, and one method used was waterboarding. He lasted around 2 1/2 minutes before capitulating. Tough man.

~Chris

 

[MobBoss]

So you dont care if its torture because you have no sympathy for terrorists, but you do care if its torture because you dont want your govt to break its own laws. Do I have you right?

Not exactly.

I care that its torture. But as for waterboarding itself, I have been 'on the fence' in regards to it for a long time as I typically recognize a difference in its application and that of using blowtorches and pliers.

To be honest, I have been leaning more to the 'it is torture' side of that fence than the 'it is not' lately.

I dont have any sympathy for terrorists.

I dont want the USA to use torture as an interrogation tool. But this is again mitigated by being 'on the fence' where waterboarding is concerned.

That make it more clear or did I just confuse you more?

 

[MobBoss]

It does make me wonder, though. I mean, the fellows at the CIA and other places that figure out how to extract information are not stupid, and there's no reason to assume that they're overly sadistic. Why would they stick with a technique when logically what they're getting isn't particularly trustworthy? Yeah, McCain gave the NVA interrogators the Green Bay offensive line, but they were looking for propaganda victories - signed confessions, names of pilots they could use on Hanoi Hannah broadcasts, stuff like that - they probably could not have used operational intel to much effect, whereas against (suspected) Al Qaeda operatives operational intel is all they want. So I do have my doubts about the effectiveness of torture/waterboarding/coercion in this circumstance.

Has torture ever been good for getting reliable information? Is it not a case of coercion to get them to say whatever you wish to hear?

Because, 'alledgedly' the waterboarding of the three terrorist leaders (specifically Khalid Sheik Mohammed) that helped plan 9/11 precisely did lead to good intel that led to the uncoverning and subsequent capture of several other terrorists and their cells - specifically one of the more famoust Al Qaeda bombers in SE Asia.