Is waterboarding torture?

[1968]

"Is waterboarding torture?" That was the question asked of Mitt Romney by Anderson Cooper in last night's Republican CNN/YouTube Debate. Romney refused to answer and John McCain took him to task for it. What say you?

Video: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/pol...errogation.cnn

[For-Life]

It is torture and no Country should use it.

[Steve Machol]

Posts with racist language removed.

[braheem24]

I quoted the 'language' and got my whole post deleted :(

Keep the place spic and span :cheers:

[Grubendol]

Mr. Clean is the man with the plan!

Would Mr. Clean torture? Only dirt and grime!

[DragonLensmanWV]

While it's not strictly physical torture, it still is a mental torture.
I feel it's quite hypocritical for us to condemn torture by others and do it ourselves.
For those who approve of it - suppose you're in another country and get kidnapped, would you want it done to you?

Where's the Golden Rule?

[Bill West]

....I only use this on my "most difficult" customers.

[chip anderson]

Would you really worry about the civil rights of spy and sacrifice Boston?

[rinselberg]

Former CIA Director George Tenet said the "aggressive interrogations" of top al-Qaida leaders brought the U.S. more valuable information about planned terror plots than all of the government's other intelligence gathering efforts ...

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...6/120537.shtml


I can't dismiss that statement from George Tenet. Even if the statement is distorted by some very carefully calculated "spin", I don't think that Tenet would fabricate a misleading statement that doesn't have at least a kernel of truth behind it. I voted for "Yes. It is torture and the U.S. should [allow] it ..." but if I could change my vote I would change it to "No. It is not torture. It is an 'enhanced interrogation technique' ..."


Waterboarding is like abortion: It should be rare, safe and legal.

[HarryChiling]

I would take waterboarding over the customer that walks in to browse at 5 minutes before close anyday, now that's torture.:drop:

[Johns]

Waterboarding is iike abortion: It should be rare, safe and legal.

So that's the technique we should use on "potential" terrorists?

Hmm...pretty creative!

[AdmiralKnight]

What is it exactly that makes it not torture? The fact that there's no physical pain involved? I'm not quite sure I understand that... Lets say I shoot a member of your family unless you tell me the truth, would that not be torture? You're not experiancing any physical pain. Different, yes, but both are still torture.

And how, exactly, do you make 'pretending to drown someone' safe? The only way to do that is to make sure there's no risk of the person dying. For it to be an effective 'interrogation' technique, the person has to believe he might die. I'm sorry, but that's not acceptable to me. We talk and talk about how countries who condone torture are horrible, and shouldn't be tolerated, but it's ok when we do it? Please.

[braheem24]

Just so everyone knows and we're on the same page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding


BTW,

John Mccain, the only candidate that has been a POW and tortured during his imprisonment was disgusted at the though of the U.S. entertaining the idea.

[DragonLensmanWV]

Would you really worry about the civil rights of spy and sacrifice Boston?

Would you really throw away the Bible to save Boston?

[AdmiralKnight]

Nevermind the Bible, would you throw away the founding priciple of America, the Constitution, to save Boston?

[Grubendol]

Nevermind the Bible, would you throw away the founding priciple of America, the Constitution, to save Boston?

:cheers:

[AngryFish]

That has to be the best answer to the torture question I have heard and I can't wait to hear it articulated in a debate. "Mrs. Clinton, what is your position on waterboarding?" "I am proud to say that I am 'Pro-choice' in my stance."

[AngryFish]

We agree that it is wrong to kidnap someone yet we punish that wrong by taking someone and doing essentially the same thing to them. We agree that it is wrong to take something from someone else and the laws remedy is to take back with the power of the state, again the state has the power/obligation to seek and gain equity, inasmuch as that is possible, by using its greater force to commit the same act under the premise of justice. We further agree that it is wrong to kill, yet we take life both as punishment and pre-emptively in military and similar action to enforce security and justice. So is it that big a leap to consider that aggressive persuasion used to prevent or hold accountable those who kill en masse is truely a unprecedented wrong?

[braheem24]

So is it that big a leap to consider that agressive persuasion used to prevent or hold accountable thoes who kill in mass is truely a unprecidented wrong?

Considering it's done without a trial, it's a huge leap from our "eye for an eye" justice system.

You have an eye to give back if the person turns out to be innocent?

[hcjilson]

We sit in comfort, knowing full well that we will never have to make a decision like the one contemplated by the questions above. Easy for one to take the high road and say he would never torture anyone because its against the ideals of the United States. He's not going to be the one to do it or order it anyway so nothing is risked by his stance. Similarly it's easy to say torture anytime you need information from terrorists. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. And for a similar reason, anyone taking that position will never be in a position to either carry it out or order it. Its about the easiest thread to take a position on because there are no absolutes involved. Its safe to post here.

Now put yourself in the position of being able to prevent the world trade center attacks by a little "waterboarding". Lets go one further and put your wife and 2 children under 5 in one of the planes slated to hit at about the 87th floor. All you have to do to prevent this from happening is to put someone inverted on a piece of plywood and put a hose into a terrorists mouth/nose to get some information. Would you do it?......... Well Would you?....

For those of you who don't think Boston is worth saving from a nuclear attack ( there can't be that many Colts and Yankee fans), you may have killed all my friends and neighbors depending on which way the wind was blowing, to say nothing of myself and the young lady who appears as my avatar.

[rinselberg]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The Eighth Amendment.


RE: AdmiralKnight; Grubendol; braheem24 et al.

I don't see a conflict with the Constitution, which (I think) is actually mute on this topic. Waterboarding isn't a punishment. It's not a sentence, imposed by the judicial system on a defendant that's been tried and convicted. It's a method of interrogation or detainee conditioning. So it's inherently not in conflict with the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishments".

[AngryFish]

Braheem24,

“Considering it's done without a trial…”

There is still a legal process involved established under the authority of the state. The “due process” involved may not be identical but then neither should it be in military or combatant application.

[For-Life]

but when a person is actually choking to death, isn't that a punishment?

It is physical abuse.

[AngryFish]

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.

[rinselberg]

But when a person is actually choking to death, isn't that a punishment? It is physical abuse.

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 think that there's any real distinction between the second and third poll options. (One man's "torture" is another man's "enhanced" interrogation technique.) The only material question is whether the possibility should be left open that one of "our" interrogators could resort to waterboarding (under an extreme circumstance) without being subject to judicial punishment for having done so.

I'm going with George Tenet. Even if he's something of a spinmeister, I don't think that he tells bald-faced lies. If it weren't for that recent statement by Tenet, I would vote against it; i.e., I would select a poll option that says "The U.S. should declare for public and international record that it will never consent to any (more) waterboarding of anyone, under any circumstances."