EnglishEdward
Deity
Water boarding is torture and it is inherently immoral.
The fact that there are theoretical circumstances when it would be a lesser evil (e.g. have a million die when a city is nuked etc), does not make it moral.
Waterboarding
- Thread starter Patricman
- Start date
Water boarding is torture and it is inherently immoral.
The fact that there are theoretical circumstances when it would be a lesser evil (e.g. have a million die when a city is nuked etc), does not make it moral.
RavenKing
Warlord
A society which abandons its principles and resorts to torture, including waterboarding, will never achieve true security. While the torture may may save some lives some of the time, the further consequences of such action ultimately will be to increase the causes for hatred of the country employing the waterboarding, increasing the need to resort to torture. Waterboarding becomes another reason to perpetuate the notion of American evil among the enemies of the US. And don't underestimate how much damage this has done to the perception of the US in countries such as mine (Canada) that are friends, allies and thought we shared your principles and values.
It may be possible to justify the use of waterboarding, but in the long run you only increase the likelihood that you will continue to need to use it, and continue the need to be hyper-vigilant against increasing numbers of potential terrorists.
The US and its citizens need to truly understand why there would be so many people out there who are willing to kill themselves to attack the US (and other Western nations). As long as there are those who can find a justification for actions such as waterboarding, you will never get it.
The terrorists haven't needed to attack America since 9/11 yet. They have succeeded in making the nation fearful; subverting civil rights with the Patriot Act, increasing the level of government surveillance of the people, bringing in state-endorsed torture, prompting the Americans into a costly and illegal invasion of another country under a false pretext, and undermining American fiscal stability through enormous military expenditures.
The most telling outcome of 9/11? The viewing area in the crown of the Statue of Liberty is now closed to the American public.
Close the Statue of Liberty. Open Guantanamo for torture. Quo vadis America? Where are you going America?
It may be possible to justify the use of waterboarding, but in the long run you only increase the likelihood that you will continue to need to use it, and continue the need to be hyper-vigilant against increasing numbers of potential terrorists.
The US and its citizens need to truly understand why there would be so many people out there who are willing to kill themselves to attack the US (and other Western nations). As long as there are those who can find a justification for actions such as waterboarding, you will never get it.
The terrorists haven't needed to attack America since 9/11 yet. They have succeeded in making the nation fearful; subverting civil rights with the Patriot Act, increasing the level of government surveillance of the people, bringing in state-endorsed torture, prompting the Americans into a costly and illegal invasion of another country under a false pretext, and undermining American fiscal stability through enormous military expenditures.
The most telling outcome of 9/11? The viewing area in the crown of the Statue of Liberty is now closed to the American public.
Close the Statue of Liberty. Open Guantanamo for torture. Quo vadis America? Where are you going America?
In theory, am pro waterboarding. I am not saying this is not torture. It sure is. To say otherwise would be hypocrisy.
But then again, it is equal hypocrisy to say that this is as bad as flaying your fingers or pulling off nails with pincers or burning with hot iron rods or pulling limbs out of joints or other historically used methods of cracking someone. So I would say this is "humane torture" (however nonsensical this might sound) and might be best of bad options,
Those who say waterboarding (or any torture) really does not give reliable information, ignore very simple logic.
If torture would be absolutely useless for getting necessary info, noone would use this any more. The only case it is so, is when the subject simply does not have the info. That is why torture has been used for thousands of years to make people speak. This - unlike "asking them nicely" - works. Interrogation is a profession like any other and I believe those who've picked it know what they are doing.
I would not waterboard captured enemy soldier. I would not waterboard some petty criminal. I would not waterboard a terror suspect against whom there is no considerable evidence.
But if I had just arrested a guy whose apartment is, say, full of fuses and trinitrotoluen, I would try to make him speak about his accomplices and intentions. Using waterboarding, if necessary.
But then again, it is equal hypocrisy to say that this is as bad as flaying your fingers or pulling off nails with pincers or burning with hot iron rods or pulling limbs out of joints or other historically used methods of cracking someone. So I would say this is "humane torture" (however nonsensical this might sound) and might be best of bad options,
Those who say waterboarding (or any torture) really does not give reliable information, ignore very simple logic.
If torture would be absolutely useless for getting necessary info, noone would use this any more. The only case it is so, is when the subject simply does not have the info. That is why torture has been used for thousands of years to make people speak. This - unlike "asking them nicely" - works. Interrogation is a profession like any other and I believe those who've picked it know what they are doing.
I would not waterboard captured enemy soldier. I would not waterboard some petty criminal. I would not waterboard a terror suspect against whom there is no considerable evidence.
But if I had just arrested a guy whose apartment is, say, full of fuses and trinitrotoluen, I would try to make him speak about his accomplices and intentions. Using waterboarding, if necessary.
One may claim that waterboarding people is bad. He may claim it will make them seek revenge. He may claim it will make others sympathize with their cause and grow resentment against waterboarders. And of course the result will be worst when the victim happened to be innocent. And this is all very likely true.
But similar argument may be made against arresting people. Should we outlaw jails?
RavenKing
Warlord
Originally posted by Yeekim
Any system of justice must include mechanisms for bringing people to justice, mechanisms for determining guilt, and mechanisms for punishing those who have been found to be guilty in accordance with the law.
Justice systems can seek to do this by methods that insist on adherence to due process that respect for principles of fundamental justice or they can devise systems that depart from those principles to varying degrees.
In my opinion, the US was founded on principles that called for adherence to the principles of the rights of human beings to be treated in certain ways and not to be treated in other ways. The American Constitution and Bill of Rights are two cornerstone documents in the history of civilization. It is entirely possible to have prisons and still have a system based on respect for the basic human rights of individuals. Many nations balance the rights of the individual with the needs of the state. So no, I don't think we need to outlaw jails. It is entirely possible to have a prison system that operates within the context of a justice system that is based on respect for core human rights.
The use of torture, however, seems to me to be anti-thetical to principles of fundamental justice. Accepting the use of torture against suspects is to turn one's back on the development of the principles underlying the basic premises of the Anglo-American justice system from the Magna Carta forward, to say nothing of the developments in human rights in other countries.
It would be very convenient and save a lot of trouble if our justice system was free of notions such as the presumption of innocence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, habeus corpus, the rules of evidence and the impartiality of judges. We might even save a lot of lives if we could detain people indefinitely or imprison them without proper trials; but in the broader context of our civilization, it wouldn't be the right thing to do.
Torture is wrong, and the fact that so many Americans seem to be willing to accept that it is carried on under the auspices of their government is disquieting to many people who believed that the United States represented a step forward for humanity.
Any system of justice must include mechanisms for bringing people to justice, mechanisms for determining guilt, and mechanisms for punishing those who have been found to be guilty in accordance with the law.
Justice systems can seek to do this by methods that insist on adherence to due process that respect for principles of fundamental justice or they can devise systems that depart from those principles to varying degrees.
In my opinion, the US was founded on principles that called for adherence to the principles of the rights of human beings to be treated in certain ways and not to be treated in other ways. The American Constitution and Bill of Rights are two cornerstone documents in the history of civilization. It is entirely possible to have prisons and still have a system based on respect for the basic human rights of individuals. Many nations balance the rights of the individual with the needs of the state. So no, I don't think we need to outlaw jails. It is entirely possible to have a prison system that operates within the context of a justice system that is based on respect for core human rights.
The use of torture, however, seems to me to be anti-thetical to principles of fundamental justice. Accepting the use of torture against suspects is to turn one's back on the development of the principles underlying the basic premises of the Anglo-American justice system from the Magna Carta forward, to say nothing of the developments in human rights in other countries.
It would be very convenient and save a lot of trouble if our justice system was free of notions such as the presumption of innocence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, habeus corpus, the rules of evidence and the impartiality of judges. We might even save a lot of lives if we could detain people indefinitely or imprison them without proper trials; but in the broader context of our civilization, it wouldn't be the right thing to do.
Torture is wrong, and the fact that so many Americans seem to be willing to accept that it is carried on under the auspices of their government is disquieting to many people who believed that the United States represented a step forward for humanity.
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
What are your sources? Mine disagree. Here's a sample:
"If I had the choice of being waterboarded by a third party or having my fingers smashed one at a time by a sledgehammer, I'd take the fingers, no question. It's horrible, terrible, inhuman torture. I can hardly imagine worse. I'd prefer permanent damage and disability to experiencing it again. I'd give up anything, say anything, do anything." -Scylla
Burning the fingers with hot iron rods causes the fingers to send a message to the brain saying "you are being damaged". Waterboarding causes a drowning reflex to send a message saying "you are being destroyed". The latter is a more serious event with more negative utility. What grounds do you have for saying that simulated damage is not as bad as simulated destruction?
Remember, brains operate by telepresence from the skull. Pain received in the finger is perceived in the brain, not the finger.
Bronx Warlord
Squad Leader
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
It works. If you know something and you are put on the board you will talk. Good enough for me.
So if you were put on the board, would you be willing to "confess" that it doesn't work if that's what would get you off the board?
In a perfectly ideal scenario, I agree that there's nothing immoral about that torture.
One mistake we're making here is confusing legal with moral. It should never be legal to do that torture. If the torture is 100% legit and necessary, then do it and go to jail. You'd go to jail to stop your kid from suffocating to death. A good CIA agent would go to jail to stop another 9/11.
The torture becomes immoral once the certainty of the 'deservedness' of the torture is brought into question. And it's also immoral to grant someone else permission to torture.
We should ask him again just before smashing his finger for the third time.
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
If you're worried that he just names the most recent one, what we really should do is smash his fingers while waterboarding him again, and then ask him.
lolled, for real.
Mandeville
Prince
we should freeze their penis with carbon dioxide and smash it to pieces if they don't talk
Berzerker
Deity
I keep reading that but I dont see anyone explaining why.
Of course its moral under the right circumstances, yer saving the life of an innocent by dunking the head of the would be murderer in water. Why do y'all care about the guy who is murdering people? Yer gonna put 'em in a cage for the rest of his life (or the DP), true? Is that moral? Yes, the guy is a murderer and we're saving lives by removing him from society.
If I had the choice between life in prison and water boarding, I'd take the water boarding - thats a no brainer. And the circumstances are far from theoretical, if we had the sheik on 9/8 we could have prevented the attack on 9/11. Thats not theory, thats just timing...
That is speculation. We would have had to known what to ask him and hoped he told the truth.
Berzerker
Deity
True security? Where does that exist?
Saving the lives of the innocent is more important (morally or any other way) than how we are perceived by people who are not in the position of making the decision. I'm inclined to give the latter the leeway they need to save people...
Terrorists did not attack us because of the water boarding of a few terrorists after the attacks began. They dont want a US military presence in those parts of the ME they consider sacred, Saudi Arabia is the last place we should have plopped down an army for an extended stay. Now, I understand yer point and I agree with it to an extent.
The Japanese made no friends by water boarding soldiers, but their list of crimes made it look tame. They were slaughtering civilian populations, so to compare their use of water boarding (as someone did) to facilitate their murderous rampage to our efforts to save lives misses the point - we do it for self-defense, they did it to murder more people. Most people understand that distinction, even critics of water boarding.
So the terrorists justify murdering the innocent because we water boarded a few terrorists? Hardly... I dont have to find the justification, it exists regardless of whether or not I exist. If a terrorist was about to kill yer kid, you'd kill 'em instead and you'd be justified. That principle applies to torture, if you can shoot him to save a life, you can dunk his head in water to save a life.
Well, if we're fighting the omniscient we dont stand a chance
They want us to leave the ME, they could care less about the rest of that.
To paraphrase a frenchmen visiting the Statue of Liberty in 1920 - I see you Americans honor your dead too
Shekwan
Kim Chi Quaffing Celt
Yeah! Exactly the same reason why terrorism is justifed. It works. So now we're stooping to their level to win the War on Terror. Count me in
Berzerker
Deity
We had a contemporaneous NSA bulletin about bin Laden attacking within the US. We already knew at the time AQ had planned to use airliners as flying bombs in the late 90s in Indonesia. Okay Sheik, you dont want us water boarding you any more, does AQ have any planned attacks against the US? It aint 20 questions, and if he doesn't play along the rest of his life is gonna be real rough. It appears he aint immune to telling the truth under the right circumstances.
But you're still arguing about effectiveness, thats irrelevant to the morality of the matter. Interrogators dont have the luxury of making assumptions like you are, they gotta try regardless and I want them to try. If you're his interrogator and you're given water boarding as a tool, how would you feel as those planes are flying into our buildings and you could have prevented it but you decided water boarding was immoral? Does that guilt feel moral to you? Well, I'm no fan of Bush but I do understand the position he was in... 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.
I would feel horrible that I didn't make proper use of the more moral and effective techniques at my disposal.
Berzerker
Deity
you'd be kicking yerself for not water boarding him. Dont even bother denying it, you're human.
Similar threads
