Water boarding---for or against?

[itom37]

Originally Posted by mfp1016
http:///forum/post/2509068
So the US constitution applies to the world?
No, reefraff asked where torture was addressed in the constitution.
Numerous international agreements forbid torture, and to definitions that waterboarding clearly fit. The UN, of which we are a part, forbids torture. The Geneva Convention, whose standards we have agreed to follow, also forbids it.

 

[jmick]

I don't think enemy combatants are giving constitutional protection. That said, I am not for torture and I'm not sure I'd ever fully rely on info given from someone who will say anything to make the abuse stop.
Also, I find it interesting that conservatives are the ones who are generally pro toture and are also generally christains. What ever happen to the golden rule of "Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you?" Or does this not apply to people with brown skin? Given the history of our nation and christian nations in general I think there are patterns.

 

[zman1]

I respect this person's views on this ---
The Army Field Manual authorizes interrogation techniques that have proven effective in extracting life-saving information from the most hardened enemy prisoners. It is consistent with our laws and, most importantly, our values. Let us not forget that al-Qaeda sought not just to destroy American lives on September 11, but American values – our way of life and all we cherish. We fight not just to preserve our lives and liberties but also American values, and we will never allow the terrorists to take those away. In this war that we must win - that we will win - we must never simply fight evil with evil.
http://mccain.senate.gov/public/inde...9-B5F9E38D465A
Here is the senate vote
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00249

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2508976
Oath of Office (military):
Torture is against our Constitution, the same Constitution that every servicemember swears to uphold.
So, the only question is about wether or not waterboarding is torture. If it's not torture then there is no Constitutional issue with using it to obtain information.
I've seen waterboarding in a "training" environment. To me it is clearly torture. It's a lot more than just scarey or uncomfortable. It's no different than dunking someone's head underwater and pulling them up to breath for a few seconds just before they drown and doing this over and over.
I dont recall reading anything in the constitution about torture.
I personally don't think something that doesn't cause physical damage is torture. Funny how we signed the gevena conventions and in every war we've been in since our guys have still been tortured. It seems that trying to do the right thing just puts us at a disadvantage.

 

[zman1]

I just don't see how it's so hard to agree that it's torture. If it were done to your son or daughter would you consider it torture or just an uncomfortable inconvenient interrogation. We are better than that..
We once did consider it torture:
A Punishable Offense
In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.
"All of these trials elicited compelling descriptions of water torture from its victims, and resulted in severe punishment for its perpetrators," writes Evan Wallach in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law.
On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.
Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison.

 

[abethedog]

I can accept that you don't agree with the practice. It is certainly torture. I doubt that anyone being waterboarded is thinking: "I'll be OK regardless how this goes. It's just water."
But, I just cannot say I don't agree with it. Agree with it or not, the American military is trying to win a war. I wish no one had to torture anyone. But someone mentioned the suitcase nuke scenario. I would like to think that an interogator with suspicion of a nuke/bioweapon/dirtybomb/airplane attack would just get the facts, however.
But, I (no sarcasm intended) may be a kinda-right-wing nut who has read WAY too much Vince Flynn.
Also, think about our opponents in this war. Are they having this debate as they try to find the next person they can convince that they have many virgins waiting for them if they just wear a bomb and walk into a busy area. We both have different sets of rules it seems.
I like reading the debate.

 

[itom37]

Originally Posted by salty blues
http:///forum/post/2508941
Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing now but consider that some of our own miltary people undergo this procedure as a part of interrogation techniques training. Surely we're not torturing our own people.
I was being a little sarcastic there.
Supposing our troops are trained as such, clearly the situations are considerably different:
-they signed up
-they're not in enemy hands
-let's not pretend the extent would be anywhere near similar
Even if it was just as bad for our troops as it is for what we use in "interrogation", that's a sorta weird way to argue that it's ok, isn't it? It's not as if just because you're willing to do it to yourself it's moral to do it to someone else.

 

[dlauber]

I used to place washcloths over my head and lay under the faucet while it was on....good times.

 

[mfp1016]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2508976
Oath of Office (military):
Torture is against our Constitution, the same Constitution that every servicemember swears to uphold.
So, the only question is about wether or not waterboarding is torture. If it's not torture then there is no Constitutional issue with using it to obtain information.
I've seen waterboarding in a "training" environment. To me it is clearly torture. It's a lot more than just scarey or uncomfortable. It's no different than dunking someone's head underwater and pulling them up to breath for a few seconds just before they drown and doing this over and over.
What part of the Constitution covers how the military deals with terrorism suspects or enemies in general? Did I miss a part? Links please...

 

[salty blues]

Originally Posted by abethedog
http:///forum/post/2509089
I can accept that you don't agree with the practice. It is certainly torture. I doubt that anyone being waterboarded is thinking: "I'll be OK regardless how this goes. It's just water."
But, I just cannot say I don't agree with it. Agree with it or not, the American military is trying to win a war. I wish no one had to torture anyone. But someone mentioned the suitcase nuke scenario. I would like to think that an interogator with suspicion of a nuke/bioweapon/dirtybomb/airplane attack would just get the facts, however.
But, I (no sarcasm intended) may be a kinda-right-wing nut who has read WAY too much Vince Flynn.
Also, think about our opponents in this war. Are they having this debate as they try to find the next person they can convince that they have many virgins waiting for them if they just wear a bomb and walk into a busy area. We both have different sets of rules it seems.
I like reading the debate.
You make a great point concerning the kind of war we are fighting. The extremists want to destroy us, our way of life, and our country, period. We need the means to meet this type of opponent.

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by salty blues
http:///forum/post/2509119
You make a great point concerning the kind of war we are fighting. The extremists want to destroy us, our way of life, and our country, period. We need the means to meet this type of opponent.
How exactly can they destroy us and our way of life? They lack the means to even fight a conventional war; how exactly can they hurt us? Seriously, our presence in Iraq/Afganistan takes the majority of their attention and means.

 

[itom37]

Originally Posted by salty blues
http:///forum/post/2509119
You make a great point concerning the kind of war we are fighting. The extremists want to destroy us, our way of life, and our country, period. We need the means to meet this type of opponent.
But what is the point of the means we use to combat our opponent is the type of stuff that makes us want to fight them? We're fighting terrorism, which is essentially dirty warfare, with dirty warfare (torturing). I'm not equating the two, but I think they're in the same category.
I feel like we're looking at what our opponents do as disgusting and wrong (not just b/c they're on the other team, because it's morally wrong) and reverting to a very 3rd grade schoolyard type of logic by which we decide we'll do the same in return, and it's ok b/c they did it first. If this is the case I really feel that we've lost our way.

 

[itom37]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2509127
How exactly can they destroy us and our way of life? They lack the means to even fight a conventional war; how exactly can they hurt us? Seriously, our presence in Iraq/Afganistan takes the majority of their attention and means.
Destroy is a strong word, but I think as far as bang-for-buck goes, this war is a major defeat for the United States.
Think of what we've accomplished:
We're not really safer, our world image has plummeted, we've destabilized the middle east, we got rid of saddam which is good... there may be other small victories, but i think the goal was security for america and the world, and if we're any safer, it's not by much.
Think of what it has cost:
American lives (and lives from every other country who has helped us) , civilian lives, what will be end up being trillions of dollars, a completely ununified American population.
I think their biggest victory is our wager of an inept war against them. Even if we end up stabilizing the region (which i think we should do), we've spent a lot and accomplished very little. Is it any more difficult to attack America now? I don't think so. Harder to use a plane as a bomb, for sure, but that's just because we're looking for that now.

 

[abethedog]

What forms of torture are coming from the other side of this conflict? Just curious.

 

[beth]

American Heritage Dictionary definition:
tor-ture (torchr)n. 1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. 2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense. 3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.v. tr. tor-tured, tor-tur-ing, tor-tures. 1. To subject (a person or an animal) to torture. 2. To bring great physical or mental pain upon (another). See Synonyms at afflict.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2509082
I don't think enemy combatants are giving constitutional protection. That said, I am not for torture and I'm not sure I'd ever fully rely on info given from someone who will say anything to make the abuse stop.
Also, I find it interesting that conservatives are the ones who are generally pro toture and are also generally christains. What ever happen to the golden rule of "Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you?" Or does this not apply to people with brown skin? Given the history of our nation and christian nations in general I think there are patterns.
Oh Palease! This isn't like what the idiots at Abu Garab did for their own entertainment. I will tell you straight. If someone kidnapped my wife or son and I caught them dropping off the ransom note, They would be praying for a good waterboarding. I would know what they knew before the cops were ever called and I wouldn't lose one second of sleep over it knowing I did what it took to protect my family. I know A LOT OF "LIBERALS" who would do the same thing.

 

[socal57che]

I didn't read any of the posts. I just wanted to throw in a quick vote in favor of drowning, oops, I mean waterboarding.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
http:///forum/post/2508569
I approve of waterboarding to obtain vital information. Whether or not it's on an Al Queda operative.
Example. Police capture a member of a kidnapping plot. In order to find the victim and/or other perpetraters.....waterboard them.
As long as the practice doesn't get abused.
We could probably find Natalee Holloway pretty quick that way...

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by itom37
http:///forum/post/2508881
You're rather... imaginative? I don't think beheading is torture, for one thing. It's brutal murder, but not torture. I think the whole argument that waterboarding is not torture is pathetic. It's an attempt to avoid the application of a label most people find morally indigestible to something that our country does and defends. It's torture, let's not do it.
You've never watched the videos of chechnyan seperatists (read terrorists) sawing off the heads of prisoners...

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by itom37
http:///forum/post/2509078
No, reefraff asked where torture was addressed in the constitution.
Numerous international agreements forbid torture, and to definitions that waterboarding clearly fit. The UN, of which we are a part, forbids torture. The Geneva Convention, whose standards we have agreed to follow, also forbids it.
The Geneva Convention, at least what I have read, does not cover terrorists.