Is waterboarding torture?

[billvon 2,998]

>Where did vengeance come into all of this?

"While these SOB's electricute . . . Our soldiers"
" What about our soldiers they killed, drug through the streets being pulled by an SUV, then hung them from a bridge . . ."

It's been pointed out again and again by the experts, the people who do this for a living, that torture simply does not work. Many people defend it using the above rationale - "they'd do the same to us" "they killed US soldiers" "what, do you want to give them a comfy chair? Make them SUFFER!"

That's vengeance. And if someone chooses vengeance over intelligence, and we lose US lives in the process, they should be prosecuted like anyone else who would harm the US for their own selfish purposes.

>Eventually the goalposts will shift and we'll be discussing whether doing anything
>more than asking "pretty please" to a criminal/terrorist constitutes torture.

Some of us think the goalposts are quite clearly defined in the US Constitution, a document that, unfortunately, isn't very fashionable these days.

Take a trip to a decently run US prison one of these days. See if you see any torture there; I bet you don't. Now see if putting someone in prison is the same as asking "pretty please" for everything. It may be an eye opener for you.

>the government will continue to use whatever techniques work . . .

Provided the Constitution allows them, I agree. Fortunately, we now know what techniques do work, and waterboarding isn't one of them.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

>Even you, Bill. You'd do what you have to do.

Actually, I'd hope to have the wisdom to do what's right and not what satisfies my desire for vengeance. It's much harder to the right thing than to give in to your rage, but in the long run saves lives.

Where did vengeance come into all of this?

because, for some people, they can't accept that a difference in opinion can POSSIBLY be motivated by reasons that are not anything other than a base and selfish justification rather.

In other words, when you disagree with Bill on torture, he automatically attributes only those character traits that he thinks would drive him to torture. Instead of acknowledging that you might be driven to torture for completely different and, perhaps, a more selfless set of reasons.

It comes from assuming everyone is the same.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Lefty 0]

Quote

>Where did vengeance come into all of this?

"While these SOB's electricute . . . Our soldiers"
" What about our soldiers they killed, drug through the streets being pulled by an SUV, then hung them from a bridge . . ."

It's been pointed out again and again by the experts, the people who do this for a living, that torture simply does not work. Many people defend it using the above rationale - "they'd do the same to us" "they killed US soldiers" "what, do you want to give them a comfy chair? Make them SUFFER!"

That's vengeance. And if someone chooses vengeance over intelligence, and we lose US lives in the process, they should be prosecuted like anyone else who would harm the US for their own selfish purposes.

Now hold on a second. If you say the motivation to waterboard is vengeance, then I would say it accomplishes its goal very well. It must make the torturers feel better since they keep doing it.

Quote

>Eventually the goalposts will shift and we'll be discussing whether doing anything
>more than asking "pretty please" to a criminal/terrorist constitutes torture.

Some of us think the goalposts are quite clearly defined in the US Constitution, a document that, unfortunately, isn't very fashionable these days.

Take a trip to a decently run US prison one of these days. See if you see any torture there; I bet you don't. Now see if putting someone in prison is the same as asking "pretty please" for everything. It may be an eye opener for you.

I bet you back when the Constitution was written their definition of torture was very different, and probably wouldn't have included something as relatively harmless as waterboarding. Only our definitions of the word "torture" have change, and I'm saying it will continue to change. Regarding the prison assertion, you're right. I'd sing like a bird because my motivations and convictions are different than a die-hard terrorist bent on killing Americans.

Quote

>the government will continue to use whatever techniques work . . .

Provided the Constitution allows them, I agree. Fortunately, we now know what techniques do work, and waterboarding isn't one of them.

No, provided the public doesn't have to endure the thought of such "horrible" things being done to protect them.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[billvon 2,998]

> If you say the motivation to waterboard is vengeance, then I would say
> it accomplishes its goal very well.

I rest my case.

>I bet you back when the Constitution was written their definition of torture
> was very different . . .

It doesn't say anything about "torture." It prohibits cruel and unusual punishments, period.

I'm not in favor of constantly re-interpreting the Constitution to fit whatever the current political reality is. Imagine your reaction if a gun control group decided that "the right to bear arms" only meant muskets, and thus did not apply to future weapons. After all, when the Constitution was written their definition of 'arms' was very different, and probably wouldn't have included something as dangerous as a semiautomatic handgun. Right?

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

NOUN
4. physical or mental anguish
5. the practice of torturing a person
6. a cause of mental agony or worry.

So, American Idol is illegal ?

[Lefty 0]

Quote

> If you say the motivation to waterboard is vengeance, then I would say
> it accomplishes its goal very well.

I rest my case.

Such as it is. I'd like the think the professional interrogators you cited in your other post know better than to succumb to Dark Age blood lust.

Quote

>I bet you back when the Constitution was written their definition of torture
> was very different . . .

It doesn't say anything about "torture." It prohibits cruel and unusual punishments, period.

Tomato/tomahto in this case.

Quote

I'm not in favor of constantly re-interpreting the Constitution to fit whatever the current political reality is. Imagine your reaction if a gun control group decided that "the right to bear arms" only meant muskets, and thus did not apply to future weapons. After all, when the Constitution was written their definition of 'arms' was very different, and probably wouldn't have included something as dangerous as a semiautomatic handgun. Right?

Fair enough. However, if we want to bring the Constitution into this, it has to be mentioned that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the type of people we were waterboarding.

None of this really refutes my original point. Regardless of how our society decides to define torture, if we as individuals are ever faced with a real, dire scenario where either a scumbag or innocent people (especially, say, family members) get hurt, we'd cross the "torture" line like we were wearing ACME rocket shoes.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[billvon 2,998]

>I'd like the think the professional interrogators you cited in your other
>post know better than to succumb to Dark Age blood lust.

Fortunately, they do! They are one of the strongest opponents of torture techniques.

>However, if we want to bring the Constitution into this, it has to be
> mentioned that the Bill of Rights only applies to American citizens.

I believe you may misunderstand what the Bill of Rights states. It does not apply to people; it does not tell people what they can and cannot do. It does not apply to citizens or foreigners, and it makes no distinction there. It applies to the government, and describes what the federal government may not do.

Indeed, the amendments in the Bill of Rights that refer to "the people" use that phrase, and not "citizens." It is there to protect the people against the government, not to tell people what rights they have.

>Regardless of how our society decides to define torture, if we as
>individuals are ever faced with a real, dire scenario where either a scumbag
>or innocent people (especially, say, family members) get hurt, we'd cross
>the "torture" line like we were wearing ACME rocket shoes.

That may well be true. But your desire to protect a family member does not allow you to break the law, no matter how good your intentions. You can't pull a gun on a cop just because he wants to arrest your brother, and you fear for his safety. (Especially if he was a foreigner!)

If any family member of yours is ever threatened by the classic "ticking atomic bomb" scenario so prevalent in TV shows, I very much hope that the person involved uses the most effective method of interrogation, rather than play Jack Bauer.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

>I'd like the think the professional interrogators you cited in your other
>post know better than to succumb to Dark Age blood lust.

Fortunately, they do! They are one of the strongest opponents of torture techniques.

?? They're the ones who did it! These weren't amateurs performing the waterboarding. Why would they deny themselves the satisfaction of their sweet, sweet revenge? We all know that's the only motive for any interrogation methods besides a friendly chat.

Quote

>However, if we want to bring the Constitution into this, it has to be
> mentioned that the Bill of Rights only applies to American citizens.

I believe you may misunderstand what the Bill of Rights states. It does not apply to people; it does not tell people what they can and cannot do. It does not apply to citizens or foreigners, and it makes no distinction there. It applies to the government, and describes what the federal government may not do.

Indeed, the amendments in the Bill of Rights that refer to "the people" use that phrase, and not "citizens." It is there to protect the people against the government, not to tell people what rights they have.

I changed the wording of my post a while ago. In any case, the Bill of Rights does NOT exist to protect the rights of nationally unaffiliated enemy combatants.

Quote

>Regardless of how our society decides to define torture, if we as
>individuals are ever faced with a real, dire scenario where either a scumbag
>or innocent people (especially, say, family members) get hurt, we'd cross
>the "torture" line like we were wearing ACME rocket shoes.

That may well be true. But your desire to protect a family member does not allow you to break the law, no matter how good your intentions. You can't pull a gun on a cop just because he wants to arrest your brother, and you fear for his safety. (Especially if he was a foreigner!)

What if that officer was actually trying to kill your brother who was peacefully complying with the officer's commands?

Quote

If any family member of yours is ever threatened by the classic "ticking atomic bomb" scenario so prevalent in TV shows, I very much hope that the person involved uses the most effective method of interrogation, rather than play Jack Bauer.

So do I. I wouldn't limit them to harsh language, either. Out of curiosity, if waterboarding were proven to work would you still oppose it so strongly?

Incidentally, Eric Holder himself said the following when asked about how the waterboarding of our troops is not torture:

"we’re doing something for training purposes to try to equip them with the tools to, perhaps, resist torture techniques that might be used on them. There is not the intent to do that which is defined as torture — which is to inflict serious bodily or mental harm. It’s for training. It’s different."

What if, hypothetically, the CIA interrogators were not characters straight out of the Spanish Inquisition and really only wanted to gain information and not cause serious bodily or mental harm? Would it still be so offensive?

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[BikerBabe 0]

so many uninformed things in this post...

1. See nerdgirl's post on page 6 of the "cheney emerges" thread. it provides a link to a top FBI interrogator's testimony before the senate judiciary committee. Oh here...just go to the link:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3842&wit_id=7906

2. why do people seem to think that SERE's purpose is to train our own soldiers how to torture? (or in this case, SERE instructor training). Oh, and by the way if you can't see Mr. Holder's BLATANT self-contradiction in his statement, you need to go back to logic 101. Why use waterboarding to train them to resist torture techniques if waterboarding isn't torture?

Quote

Out of curiosity, if waterboarding were proven to work would you still oppose it so strongly?

Yes.

Quote

What if, hypothetically, the CIA interrogators were not characters straight out of the Spanish Inquisition and really only wanted to gain information and not cause serious bodily or mental harm? Would it still be so offensive?

Yes.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[yourmomma 0]

I just heard Jessie Venture tell the fellow with broad shoulders and funny suspenders that given a waterboard, Dick Chenney and an hour; He would have him admitting to the Tate murders.

[BikerBabe 0]

which calls into question the efficacy of the torture, eh?

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[Lefty 0]

Quote

1. See nerdgirl's post on page 6 of the "cheney emerges" thread. it provides a link to a top FBI interrogator's testimony before the senate judiciary committee. Oh here...just go to the link:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3842&wit_id=7906

OK, I believe him. Doesn't refute my points.

Quote

2. why do people seem to think that SERE's purpose is to train our own soldiers how to torture? (or in this case, SERE instructor training). Oh, and by the way if you can't see Mr. Holder's BLATANT self-contradiction in his statement, you need to go back to logic 101. Why use waterboarding to train them to resist torture techniques if waterboarding isn't torture?

*shrug* I don't know why people think that about SERE training.

Of course Mr. Holder's statement was contradictory. That's why I used it. He and the current powers-that-be are the ones stirring all this up. With all the tap dancing and double-talk they're displaying, it makes me think the whole issue is more political than anything.

Quote

Quote

Out of curiosity, if waterboarding were proven to work would you still oppose it so strongly?

Yes.

I'm glad you're not the one who has to make the tough calls, then. But why not? You present evidence that waterboarding doesn't work, but that whole aspect of the debate is meaningless to you according to your above answer. I'd like to hear the real objections.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I doubt most Americans, while sitting in their comfortable chairs, can appreciate the threats that are out there. That is why the public can condemn the actions of the interrogators so easily--it doesn't cost them a thing to do so and it makes them feel good.

Yet, many Americans appreciate the threat that is posed by American's torturing detainees, torture that takes place despite the abundance of evidence that legal, humane interrogation methods work much better if the goal is to obtain accurate intelligence from the detainees.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[BikerBabe 0]

apparently the moral high ground isn't a "real objection".

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

However, if we want to bring the Constitution into this, it has to be mentioned that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the type of people we were waterboarding.

Have you read Article VI of the Constitution lately?

Quote

None of this really refutes my original point. Regardless of how our society decides to define torture, if we as individuals are ever faced with a real, dire scenario where either a scumbag or innocent people (especially, say, family members) get hurt, we'd cross the "torture" line like we were wearing ACME rocket shoes.

Some might, but those who are well informed would realize that torture is ineffective compared to other interrogation methods, and would not waste time with such inferior tactics when legal methods are known to work much better.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

These weren't amateurs performing the waterboarding.

In many cases, it was the amateurs doing the interrogations, not the experts.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Lefty 0]

Quote

Yet, many Americans appreciate the threat that is posed by American's torturing detainees, torture that takes place despite the abundance of evidence that legal, humane interrogation methods work much better if the goal is to obtain accurate intelligence from the detainees.

Yup. Whatever works. In a case where waterboarding works, use it. In a case where something more "humane" works better, use it. It's naiive to think the government isn't using the "whatever works" criteria in these situations...whether or not they tell the public about it.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[Lefty 0]

Quote

apparently the moral high ground isn't a "real objection".

Sure it is. Whenever you're ready to make that argument, go ahead.

EDIT: Ah, had to go back a page but I see you did make that argument. My bad. Anyway, the moral high ground is all well and good for civilized folks, but sometimes even that has to go. I wish things were otherwise, but it's a rough world out there.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

These weren't amateurs performing the waterboarding.

It is true that Mitchell, Jessen, and Associates (the CIA contractors) were not amateur psychologists.

They were neither trained nor experienced interrogators, however.

What did/do the experienced interrogation operators assert regarding use of waterboarding, 'enhanced interogation' methods, or other euphemisms for torture?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[riddler 0]

Quote

Indeed, when lives are on the line stress does occur. I doubt most Americans, while sitting in their comfortable chairs, can appreciate the threats that are out there.

I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

Instead of beginning with the assumption that the people questioned are terrorists, start with the assumption that you don't really know. For some people, that's a difficult first assumption to make, especially if race and/or religion is involved. If you can get there, then it's much easier to remember that torturing someone into a confession doesn't prove anything other than people don't like to be tortured.

I'll tell you whatever I think you want to hear if you're torturing me. Or I'll just make something up if I think it'll make you stop.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

In a case where waterboarding works, use it.

I'm still waiting for such an example. Not only is water boarding torture, it is ineffective at obtaining accurate information compared with more humane methods.

Real life isn't like 24. It's more like kindergarten: if someone has something that you'd like them to share with you, it's best not to be an asshole.

Quote

It's naiive to think the government isn't using the "whatever works" criteria in these situations

What is naïve is to believe that water boarding belongs in the "whatever works" box of tools. Experienced interrogators claim it doesn't produce reliable intelligence.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kellja2001 0]

Quote

So, American Idol is illegal ?

If it were up to me, it would be

I sincerely hope you were joking though

[Lefty 0]

Quote

Quote

Indeed, when lives are on the line stress does occur. I doubt most Americans, while sitting in their comfortable chairs, can appreciate the threats that are out there.

I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

Instead of beginning with the assumption that the people questioned are terrorists, start with the assumption that you don't really know. For some people, that's a difficult first assumption to make, especially if race and/or religion is involved. If you can get there, then it's much easier to remember that torturing someone into a confession doesn't prove anything other than people don't like to be tortured.

I'll tell you whatever I think you want to hear if you're torturing me. Or I'll just make something up if I think it'll make you stop.

I've never said to go straight to waterboarding. I've also never said that's the only technique we can use. If it doesn't work, don't use it. If it works, use it. Leave it up to the professionals who know more about this business than any of us to decide that.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[billvon 2,998]

>Why would they deny themselves the satisfaction of their sweet, sweet revenge?

?? They DID deny themselves any sort of revenge. You are watching too much FOX News, my friend.

> In any case, the Bill of Rights does NOT exist to protect the rights of
> nationally unaffiliated enemy combatants.

As long as they are people - yes, it does, by limiting what government may do. It's really pretty clear.

>What if that officer was actually trying to kill your brother who was
>peacefully complying with the officer's commands?

?? I never claimed that the officer was trying to kill him, just arrest and perhaps torture him a bit. (or in the language here, use "enhanced interrogation techniques.") Heck, give the cops in your area a bad reputation; let's say they're mean and sometimes shoot people.

Does that give you the right to pull a gun on the cop?

>Out of curiosity, if waterboarding were proven to work would you still oppose it
>so strongly?

Nope. But as it is currently a) ineffective and b) unconstitutional there's not much to be said for it.