Waterboarding, is it torture? Should it be allowed?

[D0NIMATRIX]

Wikipedia sings a different tune:

Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.

 

[Berzerker]

thats when amateurs do it

 

[sonorakitch]

Wikipedia sings a different tune:

Well, we haven't heard of any deaths caused by waterboarding.

Granted, it could have happend, but our beloved media would probably blow the whistle on that one.

~Chris

 

[Stevenpfo]

Well, we haven't heard of any deaths caused by waterboarding.

Granted, it could have happend, but our beloved media would probably blow the whistle on that one.

~Chris

Not recently. I went to Wikipedia out of curiousity. It did say this:

Alleg has stated that the incidence of "accidental" death of prisoners being subjected to waterboarding in Algeria was "very frequent."

It also mentioned this:

Waterboarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in the Vietnam War.[30] On January 21, 1968, The Washington Post published a controversial photograph of an American soldier supervising the waterboarding of a North Vietnamese POW near Da Nang.photo[31] The article described the practice as "fairly common."[31] The photograph led to the soldier being court-martialled by a U.S. military court within one month of its publication, and he was thrown out of the army

When did they change their mind? Was it "officially" wrong before? It must have been if they court-martialled and threw him out of the army. When did they change it? Or was it only wrong because he wasn't a "professional" that was doing it?

 

[Berzerker]

No, it was wrong because we were in his country trying to run his life... Waterboarding aint immoral, waterboarding people who dont deserve it is immoral.

 

[Bamspeedy]

When did they change their mind? Was it "officially" wrong before? It must have been if they court-martialled and threw him out of the army. When did they change it? Or was it only wrong because he wasn't a "professional" that was doing it?

Difference being it was a North Vietnamese POW, rather than a terrorist. North Vietnam is a recognized state, thus more easily falls under Geneva Convention rules.

And because the army doesn't allow something doesn't mean the CIA had to follow the same rules (I don't know off hand which agency did the waterboarding of KSM and the two others).

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Difference being it was a North Vietnamese POW, rather than a terrorist. North Vietnam is a recognized state, thus more easily falls under Geneva Convention rules.

Laws and treaties are a poor basis of morality. The idea that torture is wrong just because some document says so is pretty damn sick.

I've got a solution to the torture debate! Get Rush or some other waterboarding naysayer start boarding them and tell them it will stop if you can *insert recognized torture method here*. I'd put money that they'd take the out in 5mins or less.

 

[Stevenpfo]

No, it was wrong because we were in his country trying to run his life... Waterboarding aint immoral, waterboarding people who dont deserve it is immoral.

Ah, I see the difference now. I just don't agree with it. If it is immoral, then it is immoral. In my opinion anyways. It is similar to free speech to my way of thinking. Everyone deserves equal, not just the ones you like. Equal in the basic human right (in my world it is one) not to be tortured or abused or whatever label someone would like to apply to it.

All that and they still may be innocent. But i'm sure there's proof that one or two of five of them are not innocent. Thus it is OK to waterboard the rest.

 

[Berzerker]

Why? Is Rush a terrorist? What would you have done if you had the Sheik in your custody on 9/10?

 

[Stevenpfo]

Why? Is Rush a terrorist? What would you have done if you had the Sheik in your custody on 9/10?

That is not the point to most the people against it here. To us it has to do with morals and ethics. It may be part of their personal belief in a basic human right. At least for myself that is something I apply to every human.

 

[Berzerker]

Ah, I see the difference now. I just don't agree with it. If it is immoral, then it is immoral.

If the person being waterboarded deserves it, its not immoral. We put lotsa people in jail, some deserve it, some dont - is it immoral to jail the people who deserve it because we jail people who dont?

It is similar to free speech to my way of thinking. Everyone deserves equal, not just the ones you like. Equal in the basic human right (in my world it is one) not to be tortured or abused or whatever label someone would like to apply to it.

But it aint similar, we aren't dealing with some vocal dissident of policy. We're dealing with guys at war with us, attacking us, killing people. And if we nab a high level AQ strategist or planner I want him talking asap.

All that and they still may be innocent. But i'm sure there's proof that one or two of five of them are not innocent. Thus it is OK to waterboard the rest.

Not this guy, but you've just declared our judicial system (and every other judicial system) immoral based on your standard because we mistakenly jail the innocent.

 

[Berzerker]

That is not the point to most the people against it here. To us it has to do with morals and ethics. It may be part of their personal belief in a basic human right. At least for myself that is something I apply to every human.

Of course its about morals and ethics, saving the lives of people is more important morally and ethically than the well being of the person(s) trying to kill them.

 

[Stevenpfo]

If the person being waterboarded deserves it, its not immoral. We put lotsa people in jail, some deserve it, some dont - is it immoral to jail the people who deserve it because we jail people who dont?

But it aint similar, we aren't dealing with some vocal dissident of policy. We're dealing with guys at war with us, attacking us, killing people. And if we nab a high level AQ strategist or planner I want him talking asap.

Not this guy, but you've just declared our judicial system (and every other judicial system) immoral based on your standard because we mistakenly jail the innocent.

I wasn't hungry but thanks for shoving all those words in my mouth.

Jailing someone and waterboarding are different. If I kill someone in another country I can expect to be justly placed within their jail or whatever punishment is meted out for said crime in their country. If a terrorist water boards one of our troops if he is captured I consider it illegal, immoral and unethical. That is a double standard if we allow it and are OK with us doing it.

Also, it is unethical to jail an innocent person. Does it happen? Yes. Does that make it OK? No. I have some opinions on how our jails and judicial system are run but that's for another thread.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Why? Is Rush a terrorist?

The urge to be snarky here is overwhelming but no. Logically if someone would take a punishment they recognize as torture over waterboarding then waterboarding must be worse than that form of torture. Get it?

 

[Stevenpfo]

Of course its about morals and ethics, saving the lives of people is more important morally and ethically than the well being of the person(s) trying to kill them.

I guess this is where we differ then. Now only if they would bring this within the grasp of the law system so that the people residing in the country that is being represented by these actions could decide if they want these kinds of actions representing them. That would be interesting ... Amongst other things.

 

[Berzerker]

I wasn't hungry but thanks for shoving all those words in my mouth.

I applied your standard to the judicial system. You dont like the logical conclusion of your argument?

Jailing someone and waterboarding are different.

Does mistakenly jailing the innocent make jailing the guilty immoral? Thats your argument against waterboarding.

If I kill someone in another country I can expect to be justly placed within their jail or whatever punishment is meted out for said crime in their country.

What if you didn't kill anyone? Does that make it immoral for that country to punish killers? Your argument was that waterboarding is immoral because the innocent might be waterboarded. So jailing people is immoral because the innocent might be jailed.

If a terrorist water boards one of our troops if he is captured I consider it illegal, immoral and unethical. That is a double standard if we allow it and are OK with us doing it.

It aint a double standard unless we equate the terrorist with the soldier. If a villain put you in a cage, that would be immoral. If you caught the villain and put him in a cage, that aint immoral.

Also, it is unethical to jail an innocent person. Does it happen? Yes. Does that make it OK? No. I have some opinions on how our jails and judicial system are run but that's for another thread.

Well, do mistakes make the judicial system immoral? Thats your argument wrt waterboarding. Taking a human life may or may not be immoral, the circumstances matter... Waterboarding some a-hole trying to kill us to save the lives of his victims aint immoral... Circumstances matter...

 

[Berzerker]

The urge to be snarky here is overwhelming but no. Logically if someone would take a punishment they recognize as torture over waterboarding then waterboarding must be worse than that form of torture. Get it?

If someone didn't wanna talk they might wanna avoid any technique that gets them to talk whether its waterboarding or a nice piece of steak. But do you have some reality to add to that "if"?

 

[Stevenpfo]

I applied your standard to the jud... Blah Blah Blah

I'm pretty sure I answered everything to one degree or another. Getting dragged into an argument about semantics is kinda boring. I'm going to head off to bed happy because I just bought 3 tickets to see NOFX. Good times.

 

[Berzerker]

I guess this is where we differ then. Now only if they would bring this within the grasp of the law system so that the people residing in the country that is being represented by these actions could decide if they want these kinds of actions representing them. That would be interesting ... Amongst other things.

Frankly I'm amused to see the anti-waterboarding people assume the moral high ground. I dont see anything moral about letting a big fish in the enemy army keep quiet about plans to kill us.

 

[Stevenpfo]

Out of curiosity (i've got a few mins to waste - burning a CD): Why is it amusing?