Waterboarding

[Bronx Warlord]

No. You. Didn’t. Answering the question is very simple. There is only one of 2 answers that will answer it:

I diden't give the answer you wanted? Dosen't matter if it's justifible or not, it's going to happen so why is justification revelant from my point of view? Are you that desperate to try and get me into some 101 level lawschool trap? I don't give a . .. .. .. . if they think it's justifiable or not, thats my answer

do you think considerations of morality have a place in war?

In a war like this it's hard to say. I wish we were dealing with a more civilized advesiary and then prehaps I could have the luxury of being able to make more judgement calls based on morality.

In combat itself? No. If someone, regardless of age or gender endangers my life, the lives of my Marines or the lives of innocent civilians I will retire them. That is why combat messes so many people up, it's not natural and it's not pretty. It's a very, very ulgy thing and far more toxic to the mind, body and soul than anything else I have ever encountered or delt with. It's years down the road, when you think back that morality hits you. Some people get really bent up about it, some do not. Everyone is diffrent.

Your same logic can be used against us, but somehow we are justified in our actions, but our enemies are not.

From what I have seen of the enemies actions toward the civilian population of Iraq? Yes we are justified. Apprently the Iraqis agree as well considering the shift of the Sunni population for one example. You seem to think the insurgency is based on some sort of freedomfighter style and it's not. Insurgents do not invest in schools and clinics, they do not bring a better oppertunity to the population. In many cases they have killed so many iraqis that our once bitter enemies are now on our side. That does not make you think about just what they are doing?

Little story, something I saw with my own eyes. It's pretty simple and to the point and it one of the reasons I feel the way I do now. I saw with my own eyes a family, an entire family of five cut to peices with a powertool known as a sawsall. They were beaten, the three children had signs of sexual abuse, I could see burns on the limbs from cigarettes. Blood everywere, intestines on the floor. Some of the limbs, like the arms were broken before cut off. It looked like these guys took there time with this family and really did them in. From what it looked like and what I later read in the examiners report, they started with the kids while the parents watched, then worked over the wife and finally the husband. The kind of stuff you read about in horror novles, something you would never expect to see with your own eyes. I had been in plenty of combat at this point, it was not my first tour. I had seen things before. Yet this was something that stunned me, I can't even describe my feelings now, two years latter. I will never forget it, it's changed me on a deep level that is hard to describe.

You want to know why they were killed and made an example of? Why it was such a . .. .. .. .ing waste?

The father did not want to store weapons and ammunition for the insurgency. They did this to make sure others in the village would not get the same idea.

Now do you think I am going to have a problem with waterboarding people like this in general? Do you really think waterboarding and something like this are on the same scale? Do you think I am going to have a problem with a mid level insurgent leadership type who has operational control of several cells that do this kind of thing being waterboarded? You say brutality? Trust me I have seen brutality and waterboarding is definately not even in the same leauge. At least in my opinion wich has been formed by my experances. Key words to remember there, my opinion and my experances.

Now do I think waterboarding should become standard practice in say law enforcement? no I do not. In dealing with people like this, when I know it works when it comes to getting information when combined with other sources, I have no problems with it being used. It's a technique, cutting people to peices with a powertool in front of there parents is torture and brutality. You have the luxury of passing judgement from the comfort of your home, to say what is immoral and what is not in regards to situations you have never seen or delt with. That is just one incident I have seen. I won't go into mass graves that I've pulled security on while they were being dug up, clearing a place in fallujah the locals called " slaughterhouse " or the pictures I've seen of Americans that have been captured and what they looked like afterwards.

At the end of the day you are free to have your opinion and I am free to have mine. It's obvious we are not going to agree on it. Our experances differ too much for us to see eye to eye on the matter. Brutality and morality, like everything else in this world, it subject to a matter of prespective and that is shaped by our experances in life. One mans war criminal is another mans war hero. In this case one mans technique is another mans torture. It is what it is, I hope you never see something like that with your own eyes and in your face yet if you do you may feel diffrently about a lot of things.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I didn't give the answer you wanted? Doesn't matter if it's justifiable or not, it's going to happen so why is justification relevant from my point of view? Are you that desperate to try and get me into some 101 level lawschool trap? I don't give a . .. .. .. . if they think it's justifiable or not, thats my answer .

We want to know if you think their actions are justified. Because if you think they are then you're reasoning is consistent. If you think they aren't then it's not.

It's not a trap. It's a question of are you willing to apply the same morals when the tables are turned?

I feel I'm being consistent when I say that both can't be justified.
You'd be consistent if you feel both can be justified.

 

[BSmith1068]

I diden't give the answer you wanted? Dosen't matter if it's justifible or not, it's going to happen so why is justification revelant from my point of view? Are you that desperate to try and get me into some 101 level lawschool trap?

Justification is relevant from your point of view because you are stating that water boarding (which in my view is torture) is justifiable by the US in certain situations. When presented with a case that uses your exact justification, but put on the other side, with US people being tortured (let’s even say limited to water boarding), you can not say if it is justified or not for them to do that.

Either it is justified or it is not. It can not be justified for one side, and not the other. I am not trying to get you into a law school trap. I am trying to understand where you draw the line with the justification of your argument. Right now, all I see is: If we do it, it is right. If they do it, it is evil.

I don't give a . .. .. .. . if they think it's justifiable or not, thats my answer

I’m not asking if you think that they think they are justified. I am asking you if you think they are justified in that situation.

At the end of the day you are free to have your opinion and I am free to have mine. It's obvious we are not going to agree on it. Our experances differ too much for us to see eye to eye on the matter. Brutality and morality, like everything else in this world, it subject to a matter of prespective and that is shaped by our experances in life. One mans war criminal is another mans war hero. In this case one mans technique is another mans torture. It is what it is, I hope you never see something like that with your own eyes and in your face yet if you do you may feel diffrently about a lot of things.

It sounds like you have seen some serious stuff in your time in Iraq. I am not trying to discredit this experience or belittle it in any way. You will have to live with the memory of the things you have seen for the rest of your life and that is not a burden I take lightly.

However – life is not as black and white as you are making it out to be. Asserting that we are justified in torturing people whom we deem as “bad”, while at the same time (and rightly) recoiling from the aftermath of torture done by bad people strikes me as odd. Why would we, as a society, even want to employ tactics similar (if not nearly as bad) as the people we despise?

To me, this is precisely why we, as a nation, should not torture anybody regardless of the circumstances.

EDIT: Somewhat of an x-post with Ziggy. That is precisely what I am asking.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

I respect your stance. I for one find what I consider torture to be distasteful and I would not personally take part in it. If I found Marines or anyone doing things like that to civilians I would put an end to it. Killing your enemy in combat is one thing, to rape, beat and degrade him is another matter entirely, one that I feel every incident that is carried out by US servicemembers dishonors us, our services and our country. I simply will not stand for it if I saw it going on. That would include waterboarding people for the hell of it, with no intelligance to be gained.

 

[Defiant47]

While others are dealing with your other posts, I'll address the ones addressed at me.

I think your missing my point. I don't consider it torture. Not compaired to what I have seen that is definately torture. I could really care less if the people trying to kill me are waterboarded. It's that simple. It comes down to a matter of opinion and in my opinion, it's not torture. I have no moral problems with it being used, unlike many with an opinion on it, I have personally felt it's effects and I think it's damn effective. I have no problems of it being used by trained professionals in persuit of information that will save lives. Your not going to convince me otherwise.

Then you would not be upset if your enemies waterboarded American soldiers such as you, in the pursuit of information that will save their own people's lives. Correct?

I did read it. They are intrested in protecting there familes from airstrikes that would resault from there own actions. They should have considered that before becomming insurgents and criminals. I have yet to see an insurgent platform for solving iraqs problems aside from imposing laws on the population they have no idea of following themselves, murder, rape and outright theft. They are only intrested in there own asses, not the nation of iraq or it's progress. To make that assumption is false and not based in reality.

I feel this will digress into a "is the war justified or not" argument. I'll try to steer clear of that, even though it might end up with an incomplete response:

So then you believe that torturing someone in the name of saving lives is only sometimes justified?

Also, how is the deaths of innocent civilian lives justified due to the actions of some insurgents? Suppose the insurgents are torturing American soldiers in order to save inadvertent collateral damage that would result in loss of innocent (as well as guilty) civilian lives. They would then be justified in this torture, correct?

Or he is going to be tortured for simply being an American servicemember. Or an iraqi that does not support the insurgeant agenda. You seem to think both sides have rules when in fact only one side is playing by them. To make this sort of comparison is again not based in reality. The example itself is crap due to one simple reason. Justification or not, they are going to work him over. Regardless. The track record speaks for itself.

But ignoring the fact that they're going to torture him regardless, they would be justified in such torture in this case, right? They are doing it to save lives.

Oh so now we are all about the psychological factors. News flash, combat itself as well as life in a warzone are far more damageing than waterbording. Continued exposure to combat after 90 days will, with 100% cirtianity resault in a psychological casualty. I personally do not care if I capture someone that was trying to kill me or others and he ends up waterboarded. When he goes to an iraqi run prison he is in for much, much worse at the hands of his fellow inmates let alone the guards. It's another, imho, . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . example of why it's " bad ". There are much, much worse things going on in iraq than waterbording. Trust me.

An occurring evil does not justify choosing to cause an additional, but lesser evil.

Darn. Really. Your not going to sway me with this. People who are going about there business in a peaceful manner in iraq are being kidnapped and having there heads cut off, familys killed and children raped. Thats just the tip of the iceburg. You think I give a . .. .. .. . if we are waterbording the people doing that? to quote Show Nuff from The Last Dragon - . .. .. .. .. . Please.

Would you suppose it's justified to kidnap, cut the heads off, kill the families of, and rape the children of the people who are responsible for this?

Not that we'd actually do that, but would you find it acceptable to stoop to the enemy's immoral level if immoral actions are being committed against us or others?

There is no stalling with the boarding. Thats why it's used. It's also much more humane that what one can expect if turned over to the Iraqis. I am sure if you asked some of the survivors of Insurgent torture if they would rather have what they got or the board they would go with the board. Then again most of them were tortured for reasons other than gathering information. As for false leads, anyone can give them. So you reccomend we just stop questioning people and say kill them on the spot? Mabey let thm go with a stern warning?

Logical fallacy: not torturing someone does not equal letting them go. It is possible to imprison someone and hold them as prisoners of war OR hold them for war crimes, without torturing them.

You have obviously never been in an armed conflict, much less an American effort. You would be suprised at just how we treat prisoners, it's far, far better than these insurgents give or there own respective governments. I love the logic though, we know the Taliban are bad guys so we will give them a pass. They are cutting heads off, we are waterboarding so we are in the wrong?

Neither the Taliban nor the Americans get a free pass. If the Taliban run around doing evil and immoral things, they are the bad guys. The same is true for the Americans.

It is absurd to claim that me or any other rational person would actually view the Taliban as good guys and the Americans as bad guys. We just don't want Americans, the good guys in this conflict, to resort to the tactics that the bad guys use. We don't want our good guys to become bad guys, essentially.

 

[BSmith1068]

I respect your stance. I for one find what I consider torture to be distasteful and I would not personally take part in it. If I found Marines or anyone doing things like that to civilians I would put an end to it. Killing your enemy in combat is one thing, to rape, beat and degrade him is another matter entirely, one that I feel every incident that is carried out by US servicemembers dishonors us, our services and our country. I simply will not stand for it if I saw it going on. That would include waterboarding people for the hell of it, with no intelligance to be gained.

I respect your stance as well. I think we are basically in agreement. The only difference from my point of view is with the last sentence. I think it would include water boarding regardless of the situation.

 

[Agent327]

I'd say it isn't a bold statement that people using "waterboarding" in order to gain intelligence would be better off reading a book.

 

[Berzerker]

You and others have been arguing that we are justified in torturing someone whom we suspect of having knowledge of an impending attack that will kill our fellow citizens. When this exact same logic is placed on the other side, all of a sudden it is not justified. How is this possible?

I never said that, I said it was moral to waterboard known terrorists. They're known terrorists... And as I've explained in my posts, the two sides in a conflict dont have equal culpability. The "moral high ground" belongs to the side that is defending itself (or others) from aggression.

The Japanese waterboarding people aint the same as US soldiers waterboarding Japanese soldiers. They're on a murderous rampage and the US soldiers were trying to stop them. This is a logical extension of my scenario involving a parent and child and the nutcase who is about to murder the kid. That parent has the moral high ground to do what it takes to save the child, the nutcase doesn't have any moral authority... You cant equate the two to say waterboarding is inherently immoral...

In the example presented, the Iraqis that capture the American serviceman believe that he has information and knowledge that can prevent an impending attack on their fellow citizens. It doesn’t matter if the individual actually has the information, but that they believe that he does.

Of course it matters, thats the difference between waterboarding the guilty and the innocent. Thats the realm of justification, now you're arguing they had justification when you clearly presented a scenario (a dentist) where they lacked justification.

How is this different than your argument that we are justified in torturing if we believe that someone has info on an impending attack?

Believing we are justified dont make it so. If we captured an Iraqi dentist and took him to Gitmo for waterboarding, are we justified? No, the guy is a dentist.

Sure you do. You have made several statements of fact to support your argument that frankly are not justified.

Quote me

How do we know that water boarding has indeed prevented any attacks or saved any lives?

You're asking me for information that requires security clearances. You realize that? Now, from what I heard of the sheik, he sang like a bird thanks to waterboarding and he did give us information (the source didn't get into details but said the info saved lives). I find it hard to believe nothing he gave us was relevant, but its ridiculous to ask me for that information. And it wouldn't matter to me if we waterboarded him and got nothing, the victims deserve our effort.

If it has not, then how is it justified?

Its justified because the guy we're waterboarding is a murderer and terrorist.

You just assert that it has saved lives, therefore it is OK to do it, but can't back up that assertion.

Not me, one of the guys who interrogated the sheik said the info he gave saved lives. But quote me... You've really missed the point if you think I'm arguing waterboarding is okay only when it saves lives. In my scenario involving the nutcase murdering the kid, it dont matter if the parent gets the right information during the waterboarding, only that the attempt to get the information is justified.

The burden of proof in any argument is not the responsibility of one side over another. Both sides have to justify their arguments with facts and be able to prove those facts. Otherwise we are just wasting our time.

If I accuse you of immorality, the burden of proof is on me, not you.

 

[BSmith1068]

I never said that, I said it was moral to waterboard known terrorists. They're known terrorists... And as I've explained in my posts, the two sides in a conflict dont have equal culpability. The "moral high ground" belongs to the side that is defending itself (or others) from aggression.

Of course it matters, thats the difference between waterboarding the guilty and the innocent. Thats the realm of justification, now you're arguing they had justification when you clearly presented a scenario (a dentist) where they lacked justification.

But how do we know they are guilty? What checks and balances are in place to make sure that they are guilty? Right now, it is an individual or agency “determining” that they are guilty. They are the judge, jury and executioner. We are applying an arbitrary standard of proof with little to no checks and balances on who gets water boarded and for what reason.

Believing we are justified dont make it so. If we captured an Iraqi dentist and took him to Gitmo for waterboarding, are we justified? No, the guy is a dentist.

Good. We agree on this point at least!

Quote me

You've captured them, you haven't prevented their attack. Thats why we're water boarding them, to prevent the attack.

According to what I've heard, the sheik broke within seconds of water boarding.

From what I've heard he gave us actionable intel.

Apparently the sheik was singing right away, and telling the truth. May be partly why we haven't been hit here since 9/11

Well, we got answers from the sheik.

I'm sure he didn't wanna wake up one day to hear NYC just got hit again by something really nasty and it could have been prevented by water boarding a top AQ planner.

Of course I realize that I am asking you for information that is secret. That is part of the point of my argument. There is no verifiable evidence to prove that water boarding anyone has prevented a single attack or saved a single life. If we can not prove that we have saved a single life, then how is water boarding morally justifiable? Just because we think it might work is not a high enough bar.

And if you ask me to trust this administration to tell us the absolute truth about this, then you are crazy. These guys are more than capable of lying and misleading us to believe that what they have done has worked and is therefore justified. I have yet to see any evidence that that is the case.