Is waterboarding torture?

[For-Life]

I think that the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishments" was speaking only to formal sentences handed down by the judicial system.

I don't know. To me, that sounds like it is far more broader than that.

[AdmiralKnight]

Where does it stop though? Ok, so it's fine as long as it's in a military setting, not on US soil, etc etc... then the next step, if it's thought that a US citizen might have information about a terror plot, it's then ok to steal him from his home, wisk him to another country and pretend to drown him to get information? Then if that's alright, why not do it to terror suspects IN country? Well, jeeze, this is working great for terror suspects, and everyone is behind it, why not do it to the suspected non-terror criminals? Think that guy's a drug dealer, DUNK EM!

I'm not stupid, I understand that I'll never have to deal with some of the situations that people who have to make these choices do, but if we start en masse watching these things happen and think "Well, hey, it's ok, they could potentially do something to us!", it's a slippery slope, and opens doors to more things, both abroad and domestic.

[chip anderson]

Of course we could start executing women if they suggest a Teddy Bear
could be called Mohamed. Don't the Baptist have any respect? Just think of the irrevolkable harm that could be done to his followers all over he world if the woman doesn't loose her head.
Shame dose folks ain't civilized and sensitive like us.

Chip




Nothing is fool proof unless you eliminate fools. Chip

[For-Life]

Of course we could start executing women if they suggest a Raggedy Ann doll could be called Mohamed. Don't the Baptist have any respect? Just think of the irrevolkable harm that could be done to his followers all over he world if the woman doesn't loose her head.
Shame dose folks ain't civilized and sensitive like us.

Chip




Nothing is fool proof unless you eliminate fools. Chip

So if it is wrong for them to do it, shouldn't it be wrong for us to do the same thing?

What are you going to say when a couple of Iraqi's capture an American soldier and perform torture. I mean didn't we just execute Saddam for doing the same thing?

[chip anderson]

The precise point is that they do torture captured American soldiers and civilians. No "civilized behaviour" on our part will make the enemy immatate our social concience. These people are not going to see our shining example and become what we would have them be.

I had a friend who was in military intelligence in the Middle East back in the cold war. He related that the only time allied agents felt safe in the area was when they were being shadowed by the KGB. Why did they feel safe then? Because the enemy had captured a Russian diplomat and treated him badly. The KGP captured a high ranking enemy leader, cut off his private parts and sent them to the enemy in a box. After that the enemy never bothered Russian citizens or agents. This the enemy fully understood.

In the words of Little Orphan Annie: "It's amazing how much respect people have for a flag as long as they understand that it's backed up by something swift and terrible."

Chp

[For-Life]

The precise point is that they do torture captured American soldiers and civilians. No "civilized behaviour" on our part will make the enemy immatate our social concience. These people are not going to see our shining example and become what we would have them be.

I had a friend who was in military intelligence in the Middle East back in the cold war. He related that the only time allied agents felt safe in the area was when they were being shadowed by the KGB. Why did they feel safe then? Because the enemy had captured a Russian diplomat and treated him badly. The KGP captured a high ranking enemy leader, cut off his private parts and sent them to the enemy in a box. After that the enemy never bothered Russian citizens or agents. This the enemy fully understood.

In the words of Little Orphan Annie: "It's amazing how much respect people have for a flag as long as they understand that it's backed up by something swift and terrible."

Chp

First, they clearly do not understand, because we are fighting them, doing our little things, and they are not changing.

Second, one of our reasons for fighting them is because they do these things. So now, because we do them, then what is the point?

When Iraq happened, everyone for the War brought up how Saddam tortures people and we have to stop him. So now we are going to stop these guys from torturing people by torturing people?

[Grubendol]

To answer rinsel,

It's back to a question of spirit and intent. The Constitution also makes no reference to those rights being exclusively for citizens. They are for "the people."

Also, in regards specifically to torture:

Published on Saturday, December 17, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times

America's Anti-Torture Tradition

by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

It is nice that the Bush administration has finally been pressured into backing a ban on cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners. But what remains shocking about this embarrassing and distasteful national debate is that we had to have it at all. This administration's newfound enthusiasm for torture has not only damaged our international reputation, it has shattered one of our proudest American traditions.

Every schoolchild knows that Gen. George Washington made extraordinary efforts to protect America's civilian population from the ravages of war. Fewer Americans know that Revolutionary War leaders, including Washington and the Continental Congress, considered the decent treatment of enemy combatants to be one of the principal strategic preoccupations of the American Revolution.

"In 1776," wrote historian David Hackett Fischer in "Washington's Crossing," "American leaders believed it was not enough to win the war. They also had to win in a way that was consistent with the values of their society and the principles of their cause. One of their greatest achievements … was to manage the war in a manner that was true to the expanding humanitarian ideals of the American Revolution."

The fact that the patriots refused to abandon these principles, even in the dark times when the war seemed lost, when the enemy controlled our cities and our ragged army was barefoot and starving, credits the character of Washington and the founding fathers and puts to shame the conduct of America's present leadership.

Fischer writes that leaders in both the Continental Congress and the Continental Army resolved that the War of Independence would be conducted with a respect for human rights. This was all the more extraordinary because these courtesies were not reciprocated by King George's armies. Indeed, the British conducted a deliberate campaign of atrocities against American soldiers and civilians. While Americans extended quarter to combatants as a matter of right and treated their prisoners with humanity, British regulars and German mercenaries were threatened by their own officers with severe punishment if they showed mercy to a surrendering American soldier. Captured Americans were tortured, starved and cruelly maltreated aboard prison ships.

Washington decided to behave differently. After capturing 1,000 Hessians in the Battle of Trenton, he ordered that enemy prisoners be treated with the same rights for which our young nation was fighting. In an order covering prisoners taken in the Battle of Princeton, Washington wrote: "Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren…. Provide everything necessary for them on the road."

Even since before we were a nation we took great lengths to make sure that we were above such heinous actions.

[chip anderson]

Simple:
Torture them to find out what they intend to do to our people before they do it. Torture them in order to find more of them and kill them before they do anything to us. Even a liberal should be able to understand this. Google Terrorist and see the list of terrorist, see what they have done. Imagine what they will do if not stopped, then you just maybe will discover just how real and how numerous our enemies are and what will be done if the are not stopped. Until I did, I was also afraid that this was "Bush's War." It isn't, the president and other government agencies around the world have information that we do not or do not choose to hear. Not all politics is self centered.


Chip

Opening line from "Beachead" :
"Suppose my enemy is too strong Lord, what shall I do?"
"Then die on this beachead."

[For-Life]

Simple:
Torture them to find out what they intend to do to our people before they do it. Torture them in order to find more of them and kill them before they do anything to us. Even a liberal should be able to understand this. Google Terrorist and see the list of terrorist, see what they have done. Imagine what they will do if not stopped, then you just maybe will discover just how real and how numerous our enemies are and what will be done if the are not stopped. Until I did, I was also afraid that this was "Bush's War." It isn't, the president and other government agencies around the world have information that we do not or do not choose to hear. Not all politics is self centered.


Chip

Opening line from "Beachead" :
"Suppose my enemy is too strong Lord, what shall I do?"
"Then die on this beachead."

Wouldn't that just make us them?

Also, what do you think the main motive is behind terrorism?

[Grubendol]

I realize that you probably posted your comment at the same time I did, Chip, but it seems to gloss over the historical attitudes of our founding fathers. We don't do what our enemy does simply because it's easy or convenient or any other reason. We have our own rational understand of right and wrong and torture is wrong so even IF it were truly effective it is wrong and therefore you don't do it.

We win people over to our way of life by treating them better than they expect us to.

[fvc2020]

I am soooo going to regret the next comment I'm about to make, just because people are going to think I'm a war mongering righty, who's cares little for people.

I quote the following:

Main Index > Cases and Codes > U.S. Constitution > Eighth Amendment

U.S. Constitution: Eighth Amendment


Eighth Amendment - Further Guarantees in Criminal Cases
Amendment Text | Annotations


Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. First off in specificly states only in criminal cases. Next our Constitution was created for citizens of the United States, not enemy combantants, terrorists, pow's or anyone else not a citizen.
I want to state for the record that I'm a fan of 24 and think the world needs more Jack Baurs not less. What it takes to protect my country from attack works for me. Do I need to know about it? Heck no:-)
Do I think torture should be done wily nily absoulutly not, but what Jack does for us works for me. I have faith in my country and I hope that when and if it happens it will saves lives and protects us all. As for John McCain, his torture was horrible. The Viet Cong was not really know for their mental balance if you get my drift. There is evil in the world that tortures just(this is going to sound bad)for the fun of it. Sick, evil minds, with no thought of saving lives, feeling bad about doing it, and can't wait to do it again.
Extremist terrorists hate us..All of us...not just the ones who think like me. They want us gone...They want their way of life to superceed ours.

The real question is at what point do we make a stand against people who want us gone?

Christina
ps I am bracing for the onslaught on attack on my person and thoughts

[chip anderson]

Grubendol:
War is wrong. Killing (at least without a personal endangerment) is wrong. You must do things that are morally wrong in War because war itself is morally wrong. But there is no nice way to kill people. People must be killed, and tortured and mangled, and lots of horrible things in war. And war must be if something presents a threat.
If I see a snake in the woods, I don't kill it (even though it presents a potential for harm). If I see one in a position to strike with the intent of striking, I blow it's head off. War is much the same. If I felt this snake and all his friends would seek me out and do me harm, and I felt I he would tell me where his friends were if tortured, you can bet I would torment the animal. One must decend to an animal level in war.
What do you think would have happened in WWII (Or WWI for that matter) if we had behaved nicely and adopted a live and let live attitude.
We send nice Christian men who wouldn't have harmed a fellow citizen for any reason out and killed everyone who presented a threat by any means we could devise.
Did these people regret this action, most did not. Did thier decendents (and I am one) feel they were ashamed of thier parents actions? I sure don't. Get used to it, the real world (especially that outside our borders) is not the bunch of spoiled brats you see in Beverly Hills.

Chip

[For-Life]

If you torture people, they will only want you gone more.

[Grubendol]

But Chip, you're response reads as though you didn't even look at my quote from Washington. He refused to treat his enemies, even full blown soldiers, mercenaries even, the same as the British did to us (i.e. torture). Because "we are better than that" It has been the American ideal and tradition since before we were a nation to rise above the fray and treat our enemies better than they treat us. Just because the tactics used against have changed does not mean we forgo our moral compass.

[Grubendol]

If you torture people, they will only want you gone more.

what he said.


Also, as for the Beverly Hills thing, remember that we have a VERY large Persian community here. Many of our patients are Persian (i.e. Iranian). And their families were tortured. They escaped Khomeini. As surprising as it may seem, Iran had/has a very large Jewish population and they were massacred. These people understand what torture is, and they are also reticent to use it because they understand the backlash it creates (I have talked to them about this issue)

[rinselberg]

The "slippery slope" (quoting from AdmiralKnight) is an argument that cuts two ways. I think it explains why high-ranking intelligence officials (like the director of the CIA) seldom (if ever) say anything very specific about the matter of interrogation techniques for public record. And why they will not explicitly rule out waterboarding. They're concerned about stepping onto a slippery slope of public controversy and exposure that could put the use of other enhanced interrogation techniques at risk.


As far as waterboarding, specifically ... all of the foregoing discussion may well be a moot point; to wit:

On September 14, 2007, ABC News reported that sometime in 2006 CIA Director Michael Hayden asked for and received permission from "the White House" to ban the use of waterboarding in CIA interrogations. The source of information is current and former CIA officials. ABC reported that waterboarding had been authorized by a 2002 Presidential finding ... On November 5, 2007, The Wall Street Journal reported that its "sources confirm... that the CIA has only used this interrogation method against three terrorist detainees and not since 2003."

I think that falls well within the definition of "reticent" - a word that Grubendol used in this context.


As to the Eighth Amendment and "cruel and unusual punishments":

On July 20, 2007, U.S. President George W. Bush signed an executive order banning torture during interrogation of terror suspects ... While the guidelines for interrogation ... do not specifically ban waterboarding, the executive order refers to torture as defined by 18 USC 2340, which includes "the threat of imminent death," as well as the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

So that executive order refers to the Eighth Amendment - but what does it say about it? Are interrogation methods within the scope of the Eighth Amendment? Or beyond the scope? I would not draw a conclusion before resorting to the actual text of the executive order for reference.


Ancillary remarks:

1. The full text of the executive order is available here, except for details about specific, permissible interrogation techniques.
2. I'm quoting Wikipedia on "waterboarding" and I have not checked any of the sources that are referenced in the Wikipedia report.

[shanbaum]

Rinslberg is exactly correct and the presumption of innocence afforded under the constitution does not have application in a military or similar action. The argument against paramilitary police force is based on the presumed innocence afforded under the constitution that would disallow shoot to kill or shoot on sight orders and the like and grant due process based on the presumed innocence.

Hmm... and where does the Constitution afford a presumption of innocence?

[DragonLensmanWV]

Grubendol:
War is wrong. Killing (at least without a personal endangerment) is wrong. You must do things that are morally wrong in War because war itself is morally wrong. But there is no nice way to kill people. People must be killed, and tortured and mangled, and lots of horrible things in war. And war must be if something presents a threat.
If I see a snake in the woods, I don't kill it (even though it presents a potential for harm). If I see one in a position to strike with the intent of striking, I blow it's head off. War is much the same. If I felt this snake and all his friends would seek me out and do me harm, and I felt I he would tell me where his friends were if tortured, you can bet I would torment the animal. One must decend to an animal level in war.
What do you think would have happened in WWII (Or WWI for that matter) if we had behaved nicely and adopted a live and let live attitude.
We send nice Christian men who wouldn't have harmed a fellow citizen for any reason out and killed everyone who presented a threat by any means we could devise.
Did these people regret this action, most did not. Did thier decendents (and I am one) feel they were ashamed of thier parents actions? I sure don't. Get used to it, the real world (especially that outside our borders) is not the bunch of spoiled brats you see in Beverly Hills.

Chip

So are you saying we need more Lt. Calleys? Killing combatants in direct combat is one thing, but torturing after combat is reprehensible.

It's impossible to have the high moral ground if you're as sunk in the morass as the terrorists.

I hope you don't think liberals are stupid enough (and I know you do) to think that if we send them flowers they will stop.
My point is, they hate us, pure and simple, nothing we will do will make them not hate us except killing them. But do we want to make them martyrs so their descendants ad infinitum will hate us for the torture we inflict,not only to combatants but to civilians too?

[AngryFish]

"Innocent Until Proven Guilty
First, it should be pointed out that if you did it, you're guilty, no matter what. So you're not innocent unless you're truly innocent. However, our system presumes innocence, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise.
The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, in so many words, it is not codified in the text of the Constitution. This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury."

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#innocent

[HarryChiling]

To help our conscience, "NO TORTURE, INCLUDEING WATERBOARDING", to help us sleep better at night, "DO WHAT YOU GOTTA DO JUST DON"T GET CAUGHT".

This message brought to you by a Democrat with some liberal views.:D

BTW - Our constitution does not apply to those outside of our borders, or those under 18.

[AngryFish]

DragonLensManWV,

“But do we want to make them martyrs so their descendants ad infinitum will hate us for the torture we inflict,not only to combatants but to civilians too?”

The assumption that aggressive methods, including torture, cannot crush the terrorist mentality out of the cultural lexicon of productive options is not based in consideration of much historical fact. In the late 1950’s the French Army embarked on a ruthless counterterrorism campaign that crushed the terrorists and basically won the peace in Algiers, only to have to surrender it back because of the international outcry over tactics. The tactics worked and the truly sick and depraved mentality that seeks to infect the world by terrorist acts was shown to be not so brave, in that the “descendants ad infinitum” cowered at the vengeance that was raged on them when France decided enough was enough.

[braheem24]

It is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.

- Benjamin Franklin

[chip anderson]

If war is procecuted properly, our enemies would have no decendents, therefore no problem with them rising up later.

Chip

[HarryChiling]

It is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.

- Benjamin Franklin

Unfortunately the world is a different place as reflected by the numerous changes to the laws these founding fathers gave us. Benjamin Franklin didn't have the pleasure or the terror of seeing the devastation that could be caused by nuclear weapons, biowarfare, and the genocides that have been carried out by many a nation since the founding of this country. It is also naive to think that the founding fathers lived in a perfect society, women weren't allowed to vote back then, slavery was still common, and many here would have been marrying cousins:D. Not my idea of utopia.

I don't necessarily condone it, but untill someone offers an acceptable alternative to extracting intell, I leave those decisions up to the CIA.

Actually if you ask me we lost the respect of the middle east back in the '70's when we pussed out and stopped killing these dictators before they were able to become a threat, there was a point where Sadam wouldn't have even been a second thought to many, but we backed out becasue of a weak policy.

I'm all for peace, but who's going to force everyone to be peacefull?

[HarryChiling]

If war is procecuted properly, our enemies would have no decendents, therefore no problem with them rising up later.

Chip

And I woulnd't be here and unless you are of german decent with blond hair blue eyes neither would you, this war you refer to would be called genocide .:finger: