Is Waterboarding torture?

[AURaptor 1,126]

\This crap of " if it's not torture, why don't you do it " is bogus on 2 fronts.

1. We're not terrorist who want to murder 100's or 1000's of citizens

2- We have no information to yield, waterboarding or not.

=

How do we know that until we question you?

For one, I wasn't , nor will I be found on a battle field , fighting against US forces, as were the terrorsit you want to protect so dearly.

Second, we don't even know if we ever HAVE water boarded anyone, have we ? Just because we keep it as an option, ( so the terrorist know that ) doesn't mean we've done it yet )

And third,....

Levin, who refused to comment for this story, concluded waterboarding could be illegal torture unless performed in a highly limited way and with close supervision. And, sources told ABC News, he believed the Bush Administration had failed to offer clear guidelines for its use

A root canal could be used as torture too, if it wasn't "performed in a highly limited way and with close supervision".

[TitanTiger 20,511]

A root canal could be used as torture too, if it wasn't "performed in a highly limited way and with close supervision".

Except we know the normal use for a root canal, while painful and distressing, is a good thing. It is for the ultimate benefit and health of the one it's performed on.

Waterboarding is used for no other purpose than to inflict pain and psychological harm to coerce someone into giving up info that:

1. They may or may not have.

2. May or, according to many interrogators is likely not to, be true.

There is no "normal, beneficial" use for it except for someone to get their jollies and likely send us on a wild goose chase of bad intel or find out we just committed this evil against an innocent person.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

I can't really improve on the arguments of Titan and Otter.

I would, frankly, find it less disturbing if someone takes the position that, "Of course, it's torture. I just think that there may be times we should employ it." There are still strong arguments against it-- many made already on this thread, but at least it shows a semblance of reality. This insistence that, by definition, "anything we do isn't torture" is absurd. Did anyone see how ridiculous George Tenet looked on 60 Minutes?

If an enemy subjected an American to waterboarding, would we not consider it torture?

This administration's assertions that it isn't torture is absolutely Orwellian.

[AURaptor 1,126]

This administration's assertions that it isn't torture is absolutely Orwellian.

They can always simply tell us when the next attack is coming. Or is that devulging too much of their right to privacy for you ?

The Islamo Fascists have taken the gloves off now. While we're still light years more civilized than they, we still owe it to our citizens and pretty much everyone else to stop these killers as best we can.

If it takes such drastic measures as waterboarding, then I'm all for it.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

This administration's assertions that it isn't torture is absolutely Orwellian.

They can always simply tell us when the next attack is coming. Or is that devulging too much of their right to privacy for you ?

Please make sense, and I'll try to respond.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

This administration's assertions that it isn't torture is absolutely Orwellian.

They can always simply tell us when the next attack is coming. Or is that devulging too much of their right to privacy for you ?

Once again, making the simplistic error that unless you torture your only option is doing nothing. False dichotomy.

[bigsixfive 328]

Daniel Levin thought it made perfect sense to undergo it to see exactly what it was.

LINK

Great journalism. He refused to comment, yet ABC determined his specific experience.

Maybe this is another discussion, but who gives a flip if its torture or not? Hook up some car batteries to some gonads if that's what it takes to protect this country and the millions within who detest it.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Daniel Levin thought it made perfect sense to undergo it to see exactly what it was.

LINK

Great journalism. He refused to comment, yet ABC determined his specific experience.

Maybe this is another discussion, but who gives a flip if its torture or not? Hook up some car batteries to some gonads if that's what it takes to protect this country and the millions within who detest it.

Maybe this is another discussion, but those who seek to reject our principles to become more like our worst enemies are the ones who detest America and what it stands for.

[bigsixfive 328]

Maybe this is another discussion, but those who seek to reject our principles to become more like our worst enemies are the ones who detest America and what it stands for.

Those who let our worst enemies roll all over them become the servants of our worst enemies.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Maybe this is another discussion, but those who seek to reject our principles to become more like our worst enemies are the ones who detest America and what it stands for.

Those who let our worst enemies roll all over them become the servants of our worst enemies.

Because again, if you don't torture people to get shaky intel out of them, you're doing nothing or "rolling over."

Which is utter horses**t.

[mowegl 4]

So do you guys think that torture is never morally permissible? or that it is morally permissible but that it doesnt help us anyway therefore we shouldnt do it? (aside from treaties and conventions) Or do you simply think we should abide by our previous commitments, treaties, conventions, etc.?

Personally, I dont think that torture is never morally permissible, but I feel I am not qualified to say whether it is effective. I cant really see how it can never be an effective way to obtain information. I mean theres a lot of information I would give up to escape torture I'm sure and other info. I wouldnt give up short of death. I think that there is a lot more than the fact that our enemies engage in torture that separates them for us i.e. I dont think that torture (depending on the degree) is what should or does make them our enemy.

[AURaptor 1,126]

This administration's assertions that it isn't torture is absolutely Orwellian.

They can always simply tell us when the next attack is coming. Or is that devulging too much of their right to privacy for you ?

Once again, making the simplistic error that unless you torture your only option is doing nothing. False dichotomy.

Where do you get the idea that it's either talk or torture? A) I never said that. But certainly after all else has been tried, and nothing has yielded positive results, the logical next step is to at least have the possibility to use more coersive techniques, even if you don't plan to actually use them. And B ) Waterboarding isn't torture, so your scenario is what is false here.

[Tiger Al 0]

Daniel Levin thought it made perfect sense to undergo it to see exactly what it was.

LINK

Great journalism. He refused to comment, yet ABC determined his specific experience.

"After the experience, Levin told White House officials that even though he knew he wouldn't die, he found the experience terrifying and thought that it clearly simulated drowning."

Maybe this is another discussion, but who gives a flip if its torture or not? Hook up some car batteries to some gonads if that's what it takes to protect this country and the millions within who detest it.

You're creating a false dilemma. Is it possible that there are more choices available than to torture or leave the country unprotected?

BTW, the last word in your post is "it." If your sentence is grammatically correct, the "it" you're referring to is "this country." Is that really the "it" you meant to say millions detest? I'm curious.

[Tiger Al 0]

This administration's assertions that it isn't torture is absolutely Orwellian.

They can always simply tell us when the next attack is coming. Or is that devulging too much of their right to privacy for you ?

Once again, making the simplistic error that unless you torture your only option is doing nothing. False dichotomy.

Where do you get the idea that it's either talk or torture? A) I never said that. But certainly after all else has been tried, and nothing has yielded positive results, the logical next step is to at least have the possibility to use more coersive techniques, even if you don't plan to actually use them. And B ) Waterboarding isn't torture, so your scenario is what is false here.

This is the legal definition of torture as it is written in US Code Title 18, 2340:

(1 ) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2 ) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—

(A ) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B ) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C ) the threat of imminent death; or

(D ) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3 ) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

You guys seem to think that torture is strictly limited to extreme physical abuse like beatings, electrical currents and beheadings. Look at section D. If I threaten to send people to your house to kill your daughter if you don't talk then I'm legally guilty of torturing you and I never had to lay a hand on you, put a knife to your throat or a wire to your gonads.

So, Raptor, how is waterboarding NOT an act of torture as you've asserted it isn't?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Where do you get the idea that it's either talk or torture? A) I never said that.

Every time you react as if the choice not to torture will result in just sitting on our hands waiting for them to tell us what their plans are, that's the impression you give.

But certainly after all else has been tried, and nothing has yielded positive results, the logical next step is to at least have the possibility to use more coersive techniques, even if you don't plan to actually use them.

Except by and large, they don't work. Plus, they make you no better than the savage you think you're dealing with.

And B ) Waterboarding isn't torture, so your scenario is what is false here.

No it's not. It is torture according to the very definitions our country has signed and ratified on torture.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Is Waterboarding Torture? Passes the DKW test as torture. We fought and won wars against the Nazis, the Phillipine Warriors, etc. They were all fanantics determined on our destruction. We never had to use torture in the past. Why now? I am not fond of my country using it at all. I know it was only used what 3 times? Still cant support the policy.

As an veteran, I will never second guess a commander IN THE FIELD, but not as a govt policy. As president, I would cover my officers for a rash "in the heat of the battle" decision. As an officer, if my guys are being tortured by an enemy and I have reason to believe that I can save them, then I cant say what I might be capable of doing.

Bush has had his problems and I cannot wait for his presidency to be over. I have never felt so disconnected with my own govt either. Bush is indeed an idiot. He is not even a useful idiot. Pelosi and Reid have just set new records for "Do-Nothing" Congress too. They are devoid of leadership skills. What have we elected in this country?

I have to ask, are the Dems sssooo desperate that they conjure up a 100% crap message like "Rush is against the Troops." Is THAT worthy of Congress' time and effort? I guess when it is all you got. Worse, are they dumb enough to think the American people would fall for such complete crap? I could go on and on. There is no difference between the Reps and Dems. They are complete boobs on both sides of the aisles and the only difference is who gets rich when they are in power, nothing more.

WE NEED A THRID PARTY.

[otterinbham 0]

This administration's assertions that it isn't torture is absolutely Orwellian.

They can always simply tell us when the next attack is coming. Or is that devulging too much of their right to privacy for you ?

The Islamo Fascists have taken the gloves off now. While we're still light years more civilized than they, we still owe it to our citizens and pretty much everyone else to stop these killers as best we can.

If it takes such drastic measures as waterboarding, then I'm all for it.

You watch far too many movies.

Again, a huge number of people in intelligence, both military and civilian, argue that torture is a very suspect way to get information. Not just from a moral standpoint, but from a practical working standpoint. A subject under torture will say anything to stop the pain. For some weird reason, you have a childlike belief that if we subject a suspected terrorist to torture, then he will automatically spout out names, dates, and methods with complete and utter veracity.

Nothing is further than the truth. So if a suspect cooks up a phony plot under torture for no other reason than to end the torture, resulting in our assets being deployed against non-existent threats (Which has happened in Iraq to an alarming degree), then exactly what advantage have you gained?

Rather, competent interrogators never have to lay a hand on suspects, preferring to use subtle psychological methods to both get information and turn the suspect.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I agree with Al. What Democrats think about this is not the issue to me. What matters to me is what we think...people who think this country has something about it that is worth preserving and fighting for. Losing one's soul and searing one's conscience rarely happens in one swift move. It happens incrementally so it's less noticeable because each move is only a teesy bit worse than the one before it. Also, it doesn't happen out of the blue. It comes in the guise of being "necessary."

We start in small ways compromising our principles (the things that make a country great) and those because "the battle has changed" or "this enemy is different." But over time, small compromises lead to slightly bigger ones. The urgency and "necessity" of the times and the enemy we're dealing with are viewed as greater and more pressing and thus serve as a justification. After a while you look back at how far down this road you've allowed yourself to travel and you wonder how the hell you got here and whether the thing you claim to be fighting for even exists anymore. If you're willing to use evil to fight evil, then what is the good that you're supposedly saving?

We need to get out of this state of moral compromise and fear-based reactions and recover the sense of moral decency that used to separate us from the enemy. Sure, we may not be quite as bad now. But compromises like this tend to be like lighting a stick of dynamite. You might extinguish the wick, but when you relight it the next time, it doesn't go back to the original starting point. You pick up where you left off and go even further than before.

That's not the United States of America I know and love.

[channonc 466]

I agree with Al. What Democrats think about this is not the issue to me. What matters to me is what we think...people who think this country has something about it that is worth preserving and fighting for. Losing one's soul and searing one's conscience rarely happens in one swift move. It happens incrementally so it's less noticeable because each move is only a teesy bit worse than the one before it. Also, it doesn't happen out of the blue. It comes in the guise of being "necessary."

We start in small ways compromising our principles (the things that make a country great) and those because "the battle has changed" or "this enemy is different." But over time, small compromises lead to slightly bigger ones. The urgency and "necessity" of the times and the enemy we're dealing with are viewed as greater and more pressing and thus serve as a justification. After a while you look back at how far down this road you've allowed yourself to travel and you wonder how the hell you got here and whether the thing you claim to be fighting for even exists anymore. If you're willing to use evil to fight evil, then what is the good that you're supposedly saving?

We need to get out of this state of moral compromise and fear-based reactions and recover the sense of moral decency that used to separate us from the enemy. Sure, we may not be quite as bad now. But compromises like this tend to be like lighting a stick of dynamite. You might extinguish the wick, but when you relight it the next time, it doesn't go back to the original starting point. You pick up where you left off and go even further than before.

That's not the United States of America I know and love.

Great post Titan, I agree completely.

The argument that our enemies are beheading and torturing our citizens and Armed Forces is not a good reason to use those same tactics against them. I am not saying we should "roll over" or "surrender," but instead look to other ways of defeating our enemy without stooping to their level. We have won wars before without using such tactics, I believe we can continue to win without using them. And the argument that this is a "different kind of enemy" doesn't hold either, we have never fought two wars with the exact same enemy and using the exact same strategy. I believe we have the smartest military minds leading our armed forces, I trust that they can come up with other ways to win other than to rely on torture.

[channonc 466]

This week's question on the "On Faith" blog with the washington post was regarding this subject. Interesting read.

LINK

[TexasTiger 13,029]

I agree with Al. What Democrats think about this is not the issue to me. What matters to me is what we think...people who think this country has something about it that is worth preserving and fighting for. Losing one's soul and searing one's conscience rarely happens in one swift move. It happens incrementally so it's less noticeable because each move is only a teesy bit worse than the one before it. Also, it doesn't happen out of the blue. It comes in the guise of being "necessary."

We start in small ways compromising our principles (the things that make a country great) and those because "the battle has changed" or "this enemy is different." But over time, small compromises lead to slightly bigger ones. The urgency and "necessity" of the times and the enemy we're dealing with are viewed as greater and more pressing and thus serve as a justification. After a while you look back at how far down this road you've allowed yourself to travel and you wonder how the hell you got here and whether the thing you claim to be fighting for even exists anymore. If you're willing to use evil to fight evil, then what is the good that you're supposedly saving?

We need to get out of this state of moral compromise and fear-based reactions and recover the sense of moral decency that used to separate us from the enemy. Sure, we may not be quite as bad now. But compromises like this tend to be like lighting a stick of dynamite. You might extinguish the wick, but when you relight it the next time, it doesn't go back to the original starting point. You pick up where you left off and go even further than before.

That's not the United States of America I know and love.

Very well said. We are not at our most effective promoting democracy when we rely primarily on our military to achieve that task. We are most effective when the world sees us as clearly holding to high principles. Over the years, America has inspired those in other countries to seek to be like us. Democracy is having trouble taking hold in Iraq because it has been from the top down instead of the bottom up. Successful democracies are inspired by highminded principles. When we surrender our principles to our fears, we can no longer even inspire ourselves.

[AURaptor 1,126]

So, Raptor, how is waterboarding NOT an act of torture as you've asserted it isn't?

There's no perminant physical damage, there's no risk of death.....the list goes on and on. By your definition supplied, waking up and getting out of bed constitutes 'torture' . Some of you pansies live in a pollyanna world where you believe if we tell the terrorist we'll act nice, then they'll act nice back.

And they're laughing at us for just having this conversatino. While they're raping and torturing folks simply for the hell of it, we're trying to get info from prisoners so we can SAVE LIVES!. On no plain of existance what so ever can we ever be compared to them. This talk of " we've become the monsters we're fighting " is pure crap. And deep down, you know that, or did, and have been shamed into thinking that it's some how wrong to get tough with these monsters. And that's what they are, make no mistake about that. Ask those who are fighting them...there's no soul in those eyes.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DkLml9dJqG4

Divided Rule

If they were to waterboard you, would you consider it torture?

I would. And, if I lived through it, I would take at least one of them out before I died regardless of how long I live. At least one of those responsible would have to go.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

So, Raptor, how is waterboarding NOT an act of torture as you've asserted it isn't?

There's no perminant physical damage, there's no risk of death.....the list goes on and on.

The United States did not agree to such a narrow view of torture that it has to cause permanent physical damage or risk of death. Reread the documents and definitions that we signed and ratified.

By your definition supplied,

You mean that pesky one we as a country agreed upon?

waking up and getting out of bed constitutes 'torture' .

Hardly.

Some of you pansies live in a pollyanna world where you believe if we tell the terrorist we'll act nice, then they'll act nice back.

The point of not doing evil is not to magically get evil people to stop doing evil. The point is (specifically in this situation) that:

1. We don't violate our own basic humanity in the name of fighting evil.

2. That we use the most effective methods to get the info we need and physical and mental torture are not the best ways to achieve that aim. Experienced interrogators, time and again, testify to this.

And they're laughing at us for just having this conversatino. While they're raping and torturing folks simply for the hell of it, we're trying to get info from prisoners so we can SAVE LIVES!.

Except the info we get is not reliable. It actually increases the chance we'll waste time and resources on wild goose chases while valuable minutes tick away that could be directed at actually saving people or preventing disaster.

Frankly, if homicidal maniacs think we're crazy or laughing at us, it most likely means we're doing something right. If they think we're doing the right thing with the warped sense of morality they possess, we need to check ourselves.

On no plain of existance what so ever can we ever be compared to them. This talk of " we've become the monsters we're fighting " is pure crap. And deep down, you know that, or did, and have been shamed into thinking that it's some how wrong to get tough with these monsters. And that's what they are, make no mistake about that. Ask those who are fighting them...there's no soul in those eyes.

When you use evil means to combat evil, you are becoming what you are fighting. This isn't rocket science. A civil society that goes by the rule of law and believes in certain inalienable rights and the dignity of the human person does not torture. Period.

[Tiger Al 0]

So, Raptor, how is waterboarding NOT an act of torture as you've asserted it isn't?

There's no perminant physical damage,

There's no legal requirement that there be permanant physical damage.

there's no risk of death.....the list goes on and on.

This statement is very telling. Either you are being intentionally obtuse or you don't have a clue about what you are defending.

By your definition supplied, waking up and getting out of bed constitutes 'torture' .

No, it isn't.

Some of you pansies live in a pollyanna world where you believe if we tell the terrorist we'll act nice, then they'll act nice back.

Try to respond to arguments that have actually been made. I don't think John McCain is a pansy or lives in a pollyanna world and he has no problem recognizing or calling waterboarding what it is: torture.

And they're laughing at us for just having this conversatino. While they're raping and torturing folks simply for the hell of it, we're trying to get info from prisoners so we can SAVE LIVES!. On no plain of existance what so ever can we ever be compared to them. This talk of " we've become the monsters we're fighting " is pure crap. And deep down, you know that, or did, and have been shamed into thinking that it's some how wrong to get tough with these monsters. And that's what they are, make no mistake about that. Ask those who are fighting them...there's no soul in those eyes.

This is interesting rhetoric, but, that's all it is.