Waterboarding, is it torture? Should it be allowed?

[Cu Chulainn]

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"?

IEither you do not grasp my point at all or you think I'm debating something I'm not. My only point is that if people who say it isn't torture were actually waterboarded they would change their tune rather quickly.

 

[Berzerker]

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.

If waterboarding an AQ strategist/planner is immoral because we might waterboard someone who is innocent, then its immoral to jail people because we might jail the innocent. That aint semantics, thats the logical conclusion of your argument... Now that is a double standard.

But your argument is irrelevant to the case of the Sheik - he aint innocent. So why is waterboarding him immoral?

 

[Cu Chulainn]

If waterboarding an AQ strategist/planner is immoral because we might waterboard someone who is innocent, then its immoral to jail people because we might jail the innocent. That aint semantics, thats the logical conclusion of your argument... Now that is a double standard.

But your argument is irrelevant to the case of the Sheik - he aint innocent. So why is waterboarding him immoral?

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted?

 

[Berzerker]

Steven

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

Because I see nothing moral about letting bigshots in the enemy's army keep quiet about impending attacks. Finding out what they know can save lives...

Cu

IEither you do not grasp my point at all or you think I'm debating something I'm not. My only point is that if people who say it isn't torture were actually waterboarded they would change their tune rather quickly.

I dont care what you call it, but you didn't provide any examples of people accepting some other form of torture over waterboarding. How about some guy drilling into all your teeth until he hits nerve? Would waterboarding seem a bit more quaint?

 

[Cu Chulainn]

I dont care what you call it, but you didn't provide any examples of people accepting some other form of torture over waterboarding. How about some guy drilling into all your teeth until he hits nerve? Would waterboarding seem a bit more quaint?

Speculation my friend. and the hypothetical requires that the subject is being waterboarded at the time the alternative is offered. Not meant to prove anything just thinking.

 

[Berzerker]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted?

Well I guess when Congress declares war they'll have to send an army of lawyers to do the fighting because shooting at people and dropping bombs on them just might be considered cruel and unusual by the people in the way of our metal. You do understand the difference between civil and criminal law and war? The Framers certainly did and they knew affording POWs trials during war was impractical. If you dont believe me, read up on the federal powers regarding war. They dont have to give prisoners trials, or bail

 

[Berzerker]

Speculation my friend. and the hypothetical requires that the subject is being waterboarded at the time the alternative is offered. Not meant to prove anything just thinking.

What are you asking me? Do you have real world examples of people opting for torture over waterboarding because the latter is worse? And it aint speculation, I've been to the dentist and I've swallowed enough ocean water to think I was drowning. I'd go for the simulated drowning over get my teeth drilled.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

How do you decide when it's ok to torture someone, and when it's not ok Bezerker?

edit: Added to that, would you also be ok with other means of torture?

 

[brennan]

If waterboarding an AQ strategist/planner is immoral because we might waterboard someone who is innocent, then its immoral to jail people because we might jail the innocent. That aint semantics, thats the logical conclusion of your argument... Now that is a double standard.

But your argument is irrelevant to the case of the Sheik - he aint innocent. So why is waterboarding him immoral?

People go to jail after they have been found guilty in a court of law. Not after they have been picked up off the street because they look shifty. It's this little thing commonly referred to as 'due process' - assumption of innocence and all that.

 

[brennan]

I'm just wondering how many of our pro-torture crowd would have gleefully tortured the 5 young men whose convictions were recently quashed.

Five students win terror appeal

How many innocents is it ok to torture in the name of a nameless and unknown threat?

 

[GoodGame]

From what video footage of it that I've seen, I'd say it was a technique that emulates torture, but only does temporary psychological harm if done expertly.

I'm with the view that intelligence gathered from bona fide, armed enemies is a must have. Doing such on suspicion of a person's status alone (e.g. 'detainees' members of the public that are simply detained on a short term status) is what should be illegal. Traditional, physically damaging torture should be outlawed unilaterally as against human rights.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I wonder how the results would change if it wasn't a public poll.

 

[Stevenpfo]

But your argument is irrelevant to the case of the Sheik - he aint innocent. So why is waterboarding him immoral?

Well, morals have to do with a "code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong". My own personal morals state that torture is wrong in all cases. I'm not a fan of playing the game of why it might be handy in some cases. It is wrong.

Torturing someone crosses a line that I am not comfortable with supporting. By supporting it I would see it as not only lowering myself, my standards and my morals but that of my countries as well.

 

[JollyRoger]

Why? Is Rush a terrorist?

He could be. The only way we can know for sure is to waterboard him and see if he confesses.

 

[Berzerker]

Ziggy

How do you decide when it's ok to torture someone, and when it's not ok Bezerker?

Its okay when it'll save the lives of the people about to be murdered.

edit: Added to that, would you also be ok with other means of torture?

Sure, the guy is gonna die anyway, he lives only to provide information. If he provides that information maybe he lives. But his death is just as assured as that of his victims if he dont talk.

brennan

People go to jail after they have been found guilty in a court of law. Not after they have been picked up off the street because they look shifty. It's this little thing commonly referred to as 'due process' - assumption of innocence and all that.

And yet we jail plenty of people who are innocent and people who dont deserve jail for their "crime". Does that injustice mean we shouldn't jail the guilty? The Sheik was not some peasant wandering around in Afghanistan and sold for a bounty.

I'm just wondering how many of our pro-torture crowd would have gleefully tortured the 5 young men whose convictions were recently quashed.

How much glee would you feel if you had the Sheik on 9/10 and did nothing to get the information he had? Shall we continue debating your strawman?

Steven

Well, morals have to do with a "code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong". My own personal morals state that torture is wrong in all cases. I'm not a fan of playing the game of why it might be handy in some cases. It is wrong.

Where is the morality in letting innocent people die? Why does the well-being of the murderer weigh more heavily on your scale of justice than his victims?

Torturing someone crosses a line that I am not comfortable with supporting. By supporting it I would see it as not only lowering myself, my standards and my morals but that of my countries as well.

Because you associate it with villainous regimes when in fact all it is, is a technique for compelling someone to talk. But if you had the call and you had the Sheik on 9/10 would you find your line in the same place? Not personal enough? Where would your line be if you had the guy who buried your kid with limited air?

 

[Stevenpfo]

Because you associate it with villainous regimes when in fact all it is, is a technique for compelling someone to talk. But if you had the call and you had the Sheik on 9/10 would you find your line in the same place? Not personal enough? Where would your line be if you had the guy who buried your kid with limited air?

When I was in Afghanistan I had the guy that killed my friend in custody. I had my rifle. I considered it. I'd be a liar to say I didn't. As far as I know the guy still lives.

And yes, I do associate it with villainous regimes.

 

[Berzerker]

You ignore what matters - the circumstances - because of a guilt by association. I know its cliche but its valid nonetheless, if some whackjob buried your kid and time was crucial, you'd be torturing that guy to find your kid. And he would deserve it! Sorry to hear about your friend

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Its okay when it'll save the lives of the people about to be murdered.

and how do you know for sure that it will? What if you're wrong?

And yet we jail plenty of people who are innocent and people who dont deserve jail for their "crime".

Its called due process, its not perfect but at least we're trying to make sure we get the right people.

Where is the morality in letting innocent people die? Why does the well-being of the murderer weigh more heavily on your scale of justice than his victims?

Its not about the welfare of the "murderer". Its about having standards, about moral high ground. Its about not giving the government carte blanch to do whatever they want to anyone they label a "terrorist".

But if you had the call and you had the Sheik on 9/10 would you find your line in the same place?

The attack was so effective because no one saw it coming. If I saw him on that date I would have no reason to believe there was such a plot. I suppose we should just torture the hell out of everyone, you never know who might know something.

 

[Stevenpfo]

That is a perfect situation. I'll play your game. I would torture him in that situation to get what I wanted.

I hate using perfect scenario examples. 99.9% of the time they're unrealistic. They'll never happen. Nothing is black and white. Matter of fact, I don't believe there are the colors black and white in politics. Politics are nothing but shades of grey.

 

[echinococcus]

Noone can waterboard me into reading the whole thread, so dont bother if this has been posted already, on whether torture or not:

Blog entry of guy who actually tried this on himself