Is waterboarding torture?

[revelarts]

yes it's torture.
It's been known as torture for 500+ years.
In 2002 some americans decided that was to scary a word, sounded to harsh,
and began pretending that "its not really that bad."
To salve their conscious maybe or keep up a righteous appearance ("we don't torture")... i don't know. Or some have said elsewhere that "it's not torture because it doesn't cause permeant damage." Well i don't believe electric shocks to the nuts causes any real permeant damage ether. So it cannot be considered torture if that's done too, right?

The legal definitions of torture generally start with the use of pain in an attempt to coerce a wanted response from a captive. But many folks seem to want to debate at what level of pain, harm or discomfort they personally consider it "torturous" instead.

Then there's all the comments about not caring if it's done on terrorist anyway.
so why the wrangling over the definition, if you don't care what the gov't does? F' the law.
not sure where you draw the line on that type of thinking "what ever's necessary" is pretty arbitrary. No laws or constitution to worry about ever with that line in the sand.

And few seem to consider that some of the people waterboarded might (were) just accused, suspected or mistaken for terrorist. Should you care then? or as one poster said, "they're just Arabs" so why the fuss?

[jimnyc]

Then there's all the comments about not caring if it's done on terrorist anyway.
so why the wrangling over the definition, if you don't care what the gov't does? F' the law.

I'll say this much, I personally don't believe it's torture. And being that they are terrorists, I wouldn't care even if they were tortured, even if by the worst means imaginable.

Outside of that, I don't believe people are saying "F the law" as you imply, but rather they disagree with you as to what torture is. But that's different than me personally. Since it's more than a-ok to shoot them in the face out in the field - then I simply don't have an issue with treating them as human garbage either.

[revelarts]

I'll say this much, I personally don't believe it's torture. And being that they are terrorists, I wouldn't care even if they were tortured, even if by the worst means imaginable.

Outside of that, I don't believe people are saying "F the law" as you imply, but rather they disagree with you as to what torture is. But that's different than me personally. Since it's more than a-ok to shoot them in the face out in the field - then I simply don't have an issue with treating them as human garbage either.

so you are saying, that in your opinion, if they are terrorist, f' the law. do whatever. f the law.

Because you can only legally kill a terrorist in the field as he's trying to commit an act or evade capture.
But once in captivity other laws are suppose to apply.
so should they or not?

[jimnyc]

so you are saying, that in your opinion, if they are terrorist, f' the law. do whatever. f the law.

My personal opinion, YES, in capital letters. I see them as human garbage deserving of not much more than death. But I would prefer that they suffer on the way out.

Because you can only legally kill a terrorist in the field as he's trying to commit an act or evade capture.
But once in captivity the law is suppose to apply.
so should it or not?

Should it? Of course. And the law at the time did apply. And now things have changed, even though I disagree 100%.

But inside of me, I pray that there's a secret division out there in the world, that takes on things like this and tortures and kills terrorists anyway. Because while it may not be legal, I still want them to suffer and die.

My apologies, I don't intend this to sound mean or sarcastic towards you - I just hate terrorists and their buddies. I can't extend anything to them personally. If one of them was about to take his very last breath, I would quickly put a pillow over his mouth.

[revelarts]

My personal opinion, YES, in capital letters. I see them as human garbage deserving of not much more than death. But I would prefer that they suffer on the way out.

understandable

Should it? Of course. And the law at the time did apply. And now things have changed, even though I disagree 100%.
...

that's the legal question.

But does a few memos by Admin lawyers and an order from the President make it "legal"?
Obama thinks it does. W thought it did as well. But still 1st came denials and lies of the practice, and then word games with definitions. Then came some shyster style legal paper shuffling' in congress and USSC maneuvers. All after the fact BTW. Which would make the new "legality" somehow apply RETROACTIVELY? Because by that time it supposedly had stopped.

So it seems clear to me that it was in fact illegal when it was done. But was then sorta kinda maybe declared temporally legal... after the fact. Then acknowledge to be illegal again. Obama will love that kind of "law" as well.

But the half arse BS retroactive legal cover of U.S. doesn't wipe away the international war crime legal aspects.
This is why Cheney, Bush and others don't fly to certain countries. because they broke well established laws.
Even though it made people feel "safer" and feel a sense of righteous revenge.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

While I don't think it would always be efficient, and I agree some of the more knowledgeable and hardened terrorists might take the simulation and stay silent or lie. But I would waterboard all high value targets for awhile and gather as much as possible. Those folks stay separated. Keep at it for 6 months for all I care, and continue to compare the information divulged. Suppose there are only 20 of truly high value targets... I think after such a period they should be able to find similar information, or enough to at least have the intel agencies peek into it. I'm certainly not saying to go to war with every link they give out. Worst case? They lie. Then they get free water out of it, and yes, we wasted some time looking into what they divulged. While I personally would want to water all of them at Gitmo, I don't think a small handful of them would kill the resources. Hell, it took 10 years to find the pork eater. If there were 20 of them on the drinking list, looking into their information wouldn't set us back that much in comparison.

Plus it's just good clean fun for all.

They water boarded that stinking muslim sheik bastard and got loads of damn good info.
To get good info all they had to do is say we do this until we get verifiable information that pans out.-Tyr

[Gunny]

I'll say this much, I personally don't believe it's torture. And being that they are terrorists, I wouldn't care even if they were tortured, even if by the worst means imaginable.

Outside of that, I don't believe people are saying "F the law" as you imply, but rather they disagree with you as to what torture is. But that's different than me personally. Since it's more than a-ok to shoot them in the face out in the field - then I simply don't have an issue with treating them as human garbage either.

It IS torture. But my my give a shitter's broken. We treat prison inmates worse in this country and they ARE Americans and nobody cares. Why should we treat POWs better?

[Drummond]

I don't care whether it's torture or not. It's a means to an end. Terrorists undergoing such a procedure don't have a right to human consideration, since they're obviously not human in the first place .. therefore, discussions of legality are meaningless.

Pest exterminators, surely, aren't required to consider the 'human rights' of the vermin they kill ? So, why do terrorists - who, after all, WILL survive waterboarding - deserve superior consideration ? The very idea that they 'should' is as ludicrous as it is offensive.

[hjmick]

It ain't jumper cables to the testicles torture, but it is torture.





Albeit torture I can live with as it has reportedly been used against those who would do us harm in the last 14 years...




I'm not proud of that, but it is what it is and after much thought and reflection I came to the conclusion that if giving a terrorist a modified swirly might garner information that could save my daughters' lives... I can live with it.

[Gunny]

I don't care whether it's torture or not. It's a means to an end. Terrorists undergoing such a procedure don't have a right to human consideration, since they're obviously not human in the first place .. therefore, discussions of legality are meaningless.

Pest exterminators, surely, aren't required to consider the 'human rights' of the vermin they kill ? So, why do terrorists - who, after all, WILL survive waterboarding - deserve superior consideration ? The very idea that they 'should' is as ludicrous as it is offensive.

If it worked, I wouldn't have a problem. History however dictates that torture doesn't work.

[Drummond]

If it worked, I wouldn't have a problem. History however dictates that torture doesn't work.

It NEVER works ? Are you sure ?

Say you've got a terrorist locked up in Gitmo, and he's being uncommunicative towards his captors. Nothing else will work on him, because he's a 'hard case to crack'. How can anyone guarantee that the application of sufficient torture definitely will not yield useful results, saving innocent lives ?

There's also the point to consider that, even if detainees do lie under torture, cross-referencing of what a number of them might say, could still yield useful, discernible, information that'd not otherwise be gained.

[fj1200]

I don't care whether it's torture or not. It's a means to an end. Terrorists undergoing such a procedure don't have a right to human consideration, since they're obviously not human in the first place .. therefore, discussions of legality are meaningless.

Pest exterminators, surely, aren't required to consider the 'human rights' of the vermin they kill ? So, why do terrorists - who, after all, WILL survive waterboarding - deserve superior consideration ? The very idea that they 'should' is as ludicrous as it is offensive.

You lose an argument in one thread, no worry, just rehash them in another.

[Drummond]

You lose an argument in one thread, no worry, just rehash them in another.

When I ever DO lose an argument .. show me how I have. If I'm in the wrong, I'll concede.

Unfortunately for you, I've never yet reached that point in any of our debates. I don't anticipate ever doing so, frankly.

[Russ]

How about sleep deprivation? I've heard it works well, even though it takes time. And there is no physical coercion whatsoever.
I've also wondered truth serum drugs. Are they effective, and if so, why aren't they used more?

[NightTrain]

How about sleep deprivation? I've heard it works well, even though it takes time. And there is no physical coercion whatsoever.
I've also wondered truth serum drugs. Are they effective, and if so, why aren't they used more?

I've read that the truth serum drugs are Hollywood... the CIA experimented with them a long time ago but they didn't work.