Is waterboarding torture?

[Kohster]

Ricerocketgal do you now understand what I meant in my post? I'll quote it so you can remember:

Has anyone seen Body of lies? I prefer how the saudi gov't gave the guys mom a condo, food, and money and turning him into an informant rather than torturing a guy.

[RiceRocketGal]

Im going to post a part of the wikipedia entry for the SECOND time now:

Coercion is not synonymous with torture. I hope you understand me better now.

The fact that Wiki missuses the word COERCE does not mean you are correct. It means you didn't know what the word meant when you read the WIKI article and assumed it was correct.

What happened in the movie was persuasion... not coercion. The two are not the same thing. Torture is a clear example of coercion.

Coercion is forcing someone to do something against their will. (check the dictionary)

That is what torture is... unless you think terrorists WANT to be water-boarded... in which case this goes from being a discussion on torture... to a discussion on BDSM.

[RiceRocketGal]

Seriously ricerocketgal, if you really do own the movie watch that scene again and come back and tell me that its clearly obvious the terrorlst is extorting Hani.

What I am telling you... if you will read my posts... is that it is foolish for a nation to pay terrorists not to blow them up. What you watched on the movie was FICTION. 100% FICTION. In reality... the nation the MOST willing to pay their enemies to become their friends... is the nation with the LEAST amount of real allies and the MOST incidences of terrorists living within it's borders. Look at Pakistan. For years they have been coddling the Taliban and AlQaeda.. now they are fighting for their very existence.

There are NO international terrorlst groups living, hiding, or training in the USA. No one bases themselves in our mountains and goes out from there to blow up train stations in Spain, subways in the UK, embassies in Iran, etc. You know why?

Because WE DON'T BEFRIEND, SUPPORT, OR PAY TERRORISTS IN ORDER TO KEEP THEM FROM ATTACKING US.

[DroptopDrifting]

to you ricerocketgal, i like how you think

[Kohster]

Jesus Christ.

If someone tells me that I better turn into his informant or else he is going to tell my terrorlst buddies that I work for the government, THAT IS COERCION. TELLING MY BUDDIES THAT I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT IS A DEATH SENTENCE FOR ME.

How can you not understand this? It is so plainly obvious.

[Kohster]

I mean seriously rocketgal, how do you not understand that the gifts were merely an incentive. The gifts were not meant to persuade him, the fact that Hani has the power of life and death over him is what truly persuades him, NOT THE GIFTS.

Jesus Christ go take some online reading comprehension classes.

[C-Kwik]

Semantics aside, the problem with torture is that it may not yield credible info. There is an issue of relativity here. A person who has to give up information or face torture is likely going to yield similar results as one who faces having to make up information or face torture. Pain is a powerful force. People have jumped off burning buildings to their death over getting burned alive. Its the easier way out. With torture, a quick death is not an option. In many types of torture, there may not be a threat of death at all. The only option is to give the person what they want to know. But what if the person being tortured actually doesn't have any info? How would they make them stop? If answers of I don't know aren't getting them to stop then what will? Perhaps telling them something will.

Torture can indeed be an effective way to get information if the person being tortured has said information. But if we know that information they have then why would we need to torture them. There is no way to be sure.

[Kohster]

Semantics aside, the problem with torture is that it may not yield credible info. There is an issue of relativity here. A person who has to give up information or face torture is likely going to yield similar results as one who faces having to make up information or face torture. Pain is a powerful force. People have jumped off burning buildings to their death over getting burned alive. Its the easier way out. With torture, a quick death is not an option. In many types of torture, there may not be a threat of death at all. The only option is to give the person what they want to know. But what if the person being tortured actually doesn't have any info? How would they make them stop? If answers of I don't know aren't getting them to stop then what will? Perhaps telling them something will.

Torture can indeed be an effective way to get information if the person being tortured has said information. But if we know that information they have then why would we need to torture them. There is no way to be sure.

AMEN

Thank you good sir for posting!

[DroptopDrifting]

when you're being tortured, you do not have the capacity to improvise a false satisfactory answer. not to mention, without torture, not a single bit of intelligence will be given up by those in captivity. most countries throughout the world, especially those in the middle east, use extremely inhuman ways of extreme physical torture AND evoke psychological duress. waterboarding simply evokes psychological duress, which in turn does not constitute as torture to most. there is no physical damage left behind. i'd rather be held captive by the US and be waterboarded than have my fingers cut off one by one, then my toes, then other body parts, or having my skin burnt off, etc. by one of these militant regimes.

but back to the topic. the information obtained through these forms of interrogation have proven to lead to successful and helpful intelligence ATLEAST more than 50% of the time, or on a business perspective, these activities would have been shut down. if after waterboarding or torturing over 100 international criminals/terrorists leads to saving just one innocent life, i feel we've achieved success. these people wouldn't be there in the first place if they weren't tied to the crimes either directly or indirectly. yes, theres a chance they do not have the information we're seeking, but we wouldn't think they did if they weren't involved in the situation or criminal group. these people we waterboard are mostly extremists who have made it their goal in life to destroy capitalism, the U.S., and all of it's people. if it were up to me, i'd line them all up in one room, have questions written out that i'd like answers to, and ask one person, one at a time, just once. if he doesn't answer, shoot him dead. move on to the next guy. eventually you'll get to someone who knows something and is willing to speak in order to save his life that moment. unfortunately, we have people in our country who feel that the lives of 100 terrorists are not worth the life of one innocent victim. in this modern day, they're called liberals.

[smockers83]

Here's a question to ponder. I'm not sure if this has ever been talked about before. If we didn't waterboard someone and they had valuable info on an upcoming attack, and that attack happened, wouldn't it be torture to the people who either survived or survived a loved one? Wouldn't it be torture for the rest of their lives with the post traumatic stress disorder they may incur after the incident? So, we shouldn't "torture" the ones trying to kill us but if they do kill us, we'll have multiple people tortured and going to therapy for the rest of their lives for a single incident?

I don't see this as torture. Does it cause the brain and body to freak out? Yeah, sure. But this could happen in a pool anywhere around the world. Last time I checked, no one was suing pools because someone didn't know how to swim. If someone has sued, I hope they appealed it multiple times and spent an ungodly amount of money trying to win, only to lose.

The reason I don't see this as torture, and I see that I'm in line with a few others, is that it doesn't result in bodily injury. The process can be stopped immediately. Electrocution, whipping, beating, those are methods of torture.

Permission to treat the subject as hostile.

[C-Kwik]

when you're being tortured, you do not have the capacity to improvise a false satisfactory answer. not to mention, without torture, not a single bit of intelligence will be given up by those in captivity. most countries throughout the world, especially those in the middle east, use extremely inhuman ways of extreme physical torture AND evoke psychological duress. waterboarding simply evokes psychological duress, which in turn does not constitute as torture to most. there is no physical damage left behind. i'd rather be held captive by the US and be waterboarded than have my fingers cut off one by one, then my toes, then other body parts, or having my skin burnt off, etc. by one of these militant regimes.

Its not so simple as you seem to think. Torture can indeed coerce information out of one. But an interrogator in such a case will likely have some idea of the type of info they think the person has. Its not uncommon to end up asking leading questions and have it evolve into a leading yes or no question. Such types of questioning even without torture can suggest the answer a person wants to hear. In a case of torture or any case in which the person being questioned (forcibly or not) wants to provide the answer that the person asking the question wants to hear, then there will be a propensity to do so. That said, a person being tortured would likely end up "confessing" to something that may not be true. Case in point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Shaykh_al-Libi

Keep in mind the information obtained was highly related with our decision to go to war with Iraq.

but back to the topic. the information obtained through these forms of interrogation have proven to lead to successful and helpful intelligence ATLEAST more than 50% of the time, or on a business perspective, these activities would have been shut down. if after waterboarding or torturing over 100 international criminals/terrorists leads to saving just one innocent life, i feel we've achieved success. these people wouldn't be there in the first place if they weren't tied to the crimes either directly or indirectly. yes, theres a chance they do not have the information we're seeking, but we wouldn't think they did if they weren't involved in the situation or criminal group. these people we waterboard are mostly extremists who have made it their goal in life to destroy capitalism, the U.S., and all of it's people. if it were up to me, i'd line them all up in one room, have questions written out that i'd like answers to, and ask one person, one at a time, just once. if he doesn't answer, shoot him dead. move on to the next guy. eventually you'll get to someone who knows something and is willing to speak in order to save his life that moment. unfortunately, we have people in our country who feel that the lives of 100 terrorists are not worth the life of one innocent victim. in this modern day, they're called liberals.

The irony in your statement is that terrorlst groups use the same equation. One suicide b0mber's life is worth it in exchange for the lives of 100 of their "enemies." I would hope even modern conservatives are well beyond this type of antiquated thinking...

[AZhitman]

I have mixed feelings on this, which isn't surprising - If there were a simple answer, smarter people than me would have resolved it by now.

I conduct investigative interviews as a function of my job. Typically, the subject of my investigation is one of the interviewees, and by the time I get to them, I have a pretty good feel for what they've done (or not done).

I'd say siting in a room while I machine-gun questions repeatedly is a form of "torture", lol.... Hell, for me, being someplace I don't want to be (like a meeting) is torturous.

It's all relative, and there's a continuum of discomfort to be considered. Drawing the line somewhere on that continuum is the tough part.

[DroptopDrifting]

Its not so simple as you seem to think. Torture can indeed coerce information out of one. But an interrogator in such a case will likely have some idea of the type of info they think the person has. Its not uncommon to end up asking leading questions and have it evolve into a leading yes or no question. Such types of questioning even without torture can suggest the answer a person wants to hear. In a case of torture or any case in which the person being questioned (forcibly or not) wants to provide the answer that the person asking the question wants to hear, then there will be a propensity to do so. That said, a person being tortured would likely end up "confessing" to something that may not be true. Case in point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Shaykh_al-Libi

Keep in mind the information obtained was highly related with our decision to go to war with Iraq.

i agree, when you want to hear a certain answer, as in the case of Bush wanting to invade Iraq, you can make it happen. but not everybody is George Bush. for the most part, those envoking these methods of interrogation in our country are doing so for unbiased data, or atleast not swayed by those doing the questioning. Most of the time, the detainee will not be asked questions that lead them to certain answers, they'll be asked open ended questions, and vague ones, in order to not let them establish how much you already know. that way they cannot lie to you. that's like interrogation 101. i might be conservative, but i did not support most of what came out of Bush's presidency, most of which i do fear to believe came as a direct result to the idiocracy of those around him, like Mr. Cheney.

you are 100% right in what you said, i just feel that the vast majority of those currently using these tactics have the right motivation behind them, unlike our ol' pal d!ck. even during the last regime, i still believe most of what was asked then was still honorable. it was just a handful of interrogators, such as the ex-VP, that seemed to lead them on to certain answers.

The irony in your statement is that terrorlst groups use the same equation. One suicide b0mber's life is worth it in exchange for the lives of 100 of their "enemies." I would hope even modern conservatives are well beyond this type of antiquated thinking...

they couldn't care less about the b0mber's life or his family. they believe that they are serving their god and therefore, these people will by no means hesitate giving up the lives of their own for their "greater purpose."in the equation i introduced, i suggested exchanging the lives of murderers and accomplices for an innocent. in your equation, everyone dies. that's not ironic, those are two totally opposite equations. in any case, my suggestion is not in use today, so we'll veer off that topic.

they've publically and verbally declared that we are their "enemies" for 3 simple reasons. 1. we support israel. 2. we preach our beliefs on them. and 3. we put making money as a higher priority than our faith. why do you think they targeted the twin towers? they feel everyone should be idolizing allah, not money. they hate capitalism. they hated the idea that our tallest buildings were business centers of the world and not mosque's, like theirs. they want to kill us for our sins. we on the other hand are not looking for people to die. so much so that we are trying hard to change the regimes in their countries to stop the murdering of innocents there as well. this, i do not support, as i feel it's not our duty to force our beliefs on the world as all that does is cause more wars.

in actuality, what it comes down to is that they dont care if you die during their torture process, although they'd prefer to get info out of you first. and even if you do talk, your life is still not guaranteed. when we interrogate, we are totally different. we are not looking to let you die. in fact, we aren't even looking to physically harm you. all we want is information on how we can stop an attack on innocent people from happening, or how to take down the people that are plotting these attacks. we are looking for information on how to stop their flow of finances, who the benefactors are, etc. sh*t, we even prosecute against our own citizens when we catch them treating inmates wrong, even if they are known terrorists. i.e. if they whip an inmate, publically humiliate em, etc, which are crimes still not nearly as bad as the forms of torture used by the extremists. yet the extremists not only allow the more inhumane treatments, but they tell their subordinates to do so!

in the end, until someone suggests a different method that is atleast just as effective in gathering intel, waterboarding will continue to happen. and i have no problems with that whatsoever.

[dusred]

If we didn't waterboard someone and they had valuable info on an upcoming attack, and that attack happened, wouldn't it be torture to the people who either survived or survived a loved one?

Dude. You can't punish somebody for something they might do or something they might know.

We Americans are supposed to be above torturing people. When the Iraqi's tortured our troops we all went nuts we were so pissed and one of the things said was "When we capture Iraqi's we put them in clean facilities and treat them very well. We don't stoop to torture." and now here we are talking about how we should torture everyone cause they might have info we need/want. There are drugs and other things that are used to get info out of people but torture should not be used.

[C-Kwik]

i agree, when you want to hear a certain answer, as in the case of Bush wanting to invade Iraq, you can make it happen. but not everybody is George Bush. for the most part, those envoking these methods of interrogation in our country are doing so for unbiased data, or atleast not swayed by those doing the questioning. Most of the time, the detainee will not be asked questions that lead them to certain answers, they'll be asked open ended questions, and vague ones, in order to not let them establish how much you already know. that way they cannot lie to you. that's like interrogation 101. i might be conservative, but i did not support most of what came out of Bush's presidency, most of which i do fear to believe came as a direct result to the idiocracy of those around him, like Mr. Cheney.

you are 100% right in what you said, i just feel that the vast majority of those currently using these tactics have the right motivation behind them, unlike our ol' pal d!ck. even during the last regime, i still believe most of what was asked then was still honorable. it was just a handful of interrogators, such as the ex-VP, that seemed to lead them on to certain answers.

The point there was that your logic about a person under the duress of torture can't falsify info. Keep in mind, even an interrogator who is trying to be honest can end up unintentionally influencing the outcome of an investigation if they have any preconceptions. Problem there is its hard to know what to ask without those preconceptions. There is the human error factor involved and therefore, torture is not necessarily a reliable source of info. As I said before though, if the person indeed has good info then torture can indeed be a good method of extracting the info. But as it can be unreliable in the bigger picture, this does not mean its reliable as we don't necessarily know what it is they actually know...

they couldn't care less about the b0mber's life or his family. they believe that they are serving their god and therefore, these people will by no means hesitate giving up the lives of their own for their "greater purpose."in the equation i introduced, i suggested exchanging the lives of murderers and accomplices for an innocent. in your equation, everyone dies. that's not ironic, those are two totally opposite equations. in any case, my suggestion is not in use today, so we'll veer off that topic.

When it comes down to it, 1 of ours equals 100 of theirs (based on your prior indication that you'ld shoot 100 of them one by one until you get what you want. And for them, 100 of ours equals one of theirs.

in the end, until someone suggests a different method that is atleast just as effective in gathering intel, waterboarding will continue to happen. and i have no problems with that whatsoever.

As per the prior example I gave it would seem our intel was not 100% (it appears that it was indeed false). I'd imagine there was some good intel but how much? I doubt we'll know that info anytime soon. It would be speculation either way on anyone's part at best unless you are actually involved.

The part I tend to disagree with in any form of torture (real or perceived) is that it ultimately gives terrorlst groups more ammo in their attempts to recruit. In some areas, we are already disliked. In thinking about a long term solution to terrorism, the use of torture needs not be on any list of things we do...

[DroptopDrifting]

The point there was that your logic about a person under the duress of torture can't falsify info. Keep in mind, even an interrogator who is trying to be honest can end up unintentionally influencing the outcome of an investigation if they have any preconceptions. Problem there is its hard to know what to ask without those preconceptions. There is the human error factor involved and therefore, torture is not necessarily a reliable source of info. As I said before though, if the person indeed has good info then torture can indeed be a good method of extracting the info. But as it can be unreliable in the bigger picture, this does not mean its reliable as we don't necessarily know what it is they actually know...

this we pretty much agree on.i understand it's not 100% reliable, whether we're talking about torture or any borderline methods of interrogation. in fact, if it's even 66% reliable i'd be shocked. but it's really all we got right now. i'm 100% for finding better techniques and methods more humane and more reliable. but i am not for more humane and less reliable, nor am i supporting more reliable and less humane at all.

When it comes down to it, 1 of ours equals 100 of theirs (based on your prior indication that you'ld shoot 100 of them one by one until you get what you want. And for them, 100 of ours equals one of theirs.

ok, i get what you're sayin now in simple numbers.

As per the prior example I gave it would seem our intel was not 100% (it appears that it was indeed false). I'd imagine there was some good intel but how much? I doubt we'll know that info anytime soon. It would be speculation either way on anyone's part at best unless you are actually involved.

in that example, it seems our intel wasn't reliable at all. it's like a textbook case of what NOT to do EVER lol. but what i was sayin is that even if something such as waterboarding has only achieved 50% reliability, it's still 50% more than nothing at all, and until someone can come up with a new method that's just as reliable at that 50% margin but also more humane, this is what we will continue to use inevitably.

The part I tend to disagree with in any form of torture (real or perceived) is that it ultimately gives terrorlst groups more ammo in their attempts to recruit. In some areas, we are already disliked. In thinking about a long term solution to terrorism, the use of torture needs not be on any list of things we do...

i still feel that this pseudo-drowning experience is not that big of a deal when compared to how the rest of the world brutally tortures people. they can't really use that as ammo when what we do to them is far lesser than what they do to their own people. even though waterboarding is harsh, these people are known to brutally torture their own people for many reasons. but in either case, the media is so censored and their gov't's use so much propaganda to lie to their people and convince them of plenty of things that aren't true or taken out of context. basically, they do what the media does here but to a much larger extent and is purely ran by the gov't tyrants who are usually terrorlst-group sympathizers. they don't need any more ammo than what their imaginations can come up with. in fact, waterboarding is probably nothing compared to what the people are already told about us and what we do.

but in any case, i do not believe they even need ammo above and beyond their own fundamentalism.

[smockers83]

Dude. You can't punish somebody for something they might do or something they might know.

I guess I don't see it as punishment.

[themadscientist]

so it's recreation?

[C-Kwik]

in that example, it seems our intel wasn't reliable at all. it's like a textbook case of what NOT to do EVER lol. but what i was sayin is that even if something such as waterboarding has only achieved 50% reliability, it's still 50% more than nothing at all, and until someone can come up with a new method that's just as reliable at that 50% margin but also more humane, this is what we will continue to use inevitably.

IF torturous methods were 50% reliable, then we might imply that up to 50% of our decisions could be based on poor information. From what I gather in the case of the Tipton Three, they were detained because they were have thought to have heard Bin Laden speak. Sometime after they were "coerced" to admit that they did indeed hear Bin Laden speak, it was determined that they were lying because they confirmed they were in the UK when Bin Laden had spoken. The better technique is simple. Better investigations.

i still feel that this pseudo-drowning experience is not that big of a deal when compared to how the rest of the world brutally tortures people. they can't really use that as ammo when what we do to them is far lesser than what they do to their own people. even though waterboarding is harsh, these people are known to brutally torture their own people for many reasons. but in either case, the media is so censored and their gov't's use so much propaganda to lie to their people and convince them of plenty of things that aren't true or taken out of context. basically, they do what the media does here but to a much larger extent and is purely ran by the gov't tyrants who are usually terrorlst-group sympathizers. they don't need any more ammo than what their imaginations can come up with. in fact, waterboarding is probably nothing compared to what the people are already told about us and what we do.

The type of generalization you are applying is precisely what you are claiming they do. And certainly, I realize that many of them do indeed hold certain generalizations of us. But it becomes much much easier on their part to uphold such generalizations when we live up to it. As far as they are concerned, everytime we get involved, their lives get screwed up.

As for comparing to other countries' torture and such, that does not make any justification for what we do. Say a parent beats the s*** out of their kid every night. And then one day, someone else's parent spanks their kid for something. Is the parent who beats their own kid not going to feel upset about it? And in this case, we don't even spank our own kids...

but in any case, i do not believe they even need ammo above and beyond their own fundamentalism.

Put yourself in their shoes and you might find they can probably say the exact same thing of us...

[Kenrik]

As someone who has been waterboarded in the past I can tell you that it is NOT torture. I did feel as if I was going to die but it was purely physiological.

If that is the worst we did to the terrorists we should be ashamed.

I say we waterboard Congress!

[DroptopDrifting]

As someone who has been waterboarded in the past I can tell you that it is NOT torture. I did feel as if I was going to die but it was purely physiological.

If that is the worst we did to the terrorists we should be ashamed.

I say we waterboard Congress!

+1

[Kohster]

I did feel as if I was going to die but it was purely physiological.

do you mean it was purely psychological?

[C-Kwik]

As someone who has been waterboarded in the past I can tell you that it is NOT torture. I did feel as if I was going to die but it was purely physiological.

If that is the worst we did to the terrorists we should be ashamed.

I say we waterboard Congress!

Elaborate please...

[themadscientist]

I've got people in my college courses citing wiki in papers and speeches. It's epidemic.

[DroptopDrifting]

wiki isn't always 100% objective nor does it give all the info. sure there are plenty of legal experts, politicians, war veterans, etc all sayin it's torture, but theres plenty of the same kind of people with those credentials who say it is not torture. google waterboarding debates and you will see this. it's always on all the news stations and depending on which channel it is, is what kind of bias you get. they just interview those who help 'prove' their case. if you watch cnn, you'll see experts sayin it's torture; if you watch fox, you'll see other experts saying it's not. what's written in wikipedia is not carved in stone, it's written and put together by people like you and me. as long as you have your work cited, wiki allows the post. in fact, if you dont cite your research then they still allow the post, they just put a disclaimer saying that what's written below has not been verified. come on now people.

[Kohster]

by the way, one of the citations is an article about torture by John McCain. Here is what he thinks of waterboarding:

For instance, there has been considerable press attention to a tactic called "waterboarding," where a prisoner is restrained and blindfolded while an interrogator pours water on his face and into his mouth--causing the prisoner to believe he is being drowned. He isn't, of course; there is no intention to injure him physically. But if you gave people who have suffered abuse as prisoners a choice between a beating and a mock execution, many, including me, would choose a beating. The effects of most beatings heal. The memory of an execution will haunt someone for a very long time and damage his or her psyche in ways that may never heal. In my view, to make someone believe that you are killing him by drowning is no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank. I believe that it is torture, very exquisite torture.

[Kohster]

if it were up to me, i'd line them all up in one room, have questions written out that i'd like answers to, and ask one person, one at a time, just once. if he doesn't answer, shoot him dead.

Well, then I am very glad that it's not up to you.

[DroptopDrifting]

and like i said in my post prior to my last...there are experts who will back up both sides on this. this is a subjective debate and therefore will never come to a true black or white answer. to many, torture by definition is any sort of pain prolonged to exceed one's personal pain threshold. to an 25 year old woman, getting mugged and beat in an allyway is torture. to a 25 yr old guy, it's just gettin robbed and a few bruises. there is no one-size-fits-all threshold level. no definitive answer of yes it's torture of no it's not. and then there are many who do believe it is torture but still feel it is not the same level of other kinds of torture, i.e. getting your flesh burned off.

[DroptopDrifting]

Well, then I am very glad that it's not up to you.

atleast my way with the quick deaths isn't considered torture heh

[Kohster]

John McCain, a former POW , and the 2008 Republican nominee for president, plainly said waterboarding is torture. nuff said.