1.- The video might take a while to load
2.- It can be quite upsetting to watch.
Amnesty unveils shock waterboarding film – The Independent: An American expert in torture techniques has denounced his government for allowing “waterboarding” to be practised against terror suspects, just as a graphic advertisement showing the brutal reality of the technique is unveiled to British cinema-goers.
Malcolm Nance, who trained hundreds of US servicemen and women to resist interrogation by putting them through “waterboarding” exercises, demanded an immediate end to the practice by all US personnel.
He said: “They seem to think it is worth throwing the honour of 220 years of American decency in war out of the window. Waterboarding is out-and-out torture, and I’m deeply ashamed President Bush has authorised its use and dragged the US’s reputation into the mud.”
There seems to be a lack of understanding by many on this thread, of the difference between torturing an innocent to proclaim hatred towards a group, and torturing a conspirator to save many lives of the group they hate.
Those two scenarios are NOT equal. One scenario is pathetic, knuckle dragging, regressive act .. the other is an unfortunate but sometimes necessary progression to save the lives of innocent people before they are murdered. As one person pointed out, there is little difference between waterboarding, and tossing a grenade, or shooting off 100 rounds in a war when you are being attacked.
Also, torturing someone under extreme measures where the lives of thousands are or may be at stake, does not lead to torturing thousands for possessing marijuana and other misdemeanors. Stop with the slippery slope drama already!
Just to weigh in, these two articles are absolutely EXCELLENT on anyone who seeks further information on this. Oddly enough both are found on “How Stuff Works”. No kidding, they are excellent articles which go into detail about the history and legalities of waterboarding.
http://tinyurl.com/26tsv9
http://tinyurl.com/5rg8ow
These are a must read.
I don’t yet know where I fall on this issue. On the one hand, I would love to take the high road and skip down the merry lanes of life without a worry in the world, and enjoy the admiration and respect of my peers, like #39 and #46.
On the other hand, I am not comfortable with #39 and #46 sacrificing MY family so they can feel comfortable with their moral convictions.
You can’t tell me water boarding isn’t torture.
Once, for about ninety seconds, I thought I was going to drown in the Kings river.
Drowning is an deeply primal and visceral fear.
That was twenty years ago and I can still taste the terror.
No. Anyone who says water-boarding isn’t torture is , to me, either a liar or ignorant.
#61 – Ben Eficial,
There seems to be a lack of understanding by many on this thread, of the difference between torturing an innocent to proclaim hatred towards a group, and torturing a conspirator to save many lives of the group they hate.
You seem to be missing a crucial bit of information Ben. These people were not tried first. They were not allowed legal representation at all. People must be considered innocent until proven guilty. You have failed to do so. These people, by never having been convicted in a court of law, were innocent.
Further, you have clearly failed to read what the international law states. Since you won’t follow the link, I will quote a bit from the very first paragraph regarding the legality of waterboarding.
That should be clear to any thinking individual. But, if not, try this instead.
And, if you’re still not convinced, try this little bit.
And, just in case you think our government can ignore both international and U.S. law at will despite explicit statements that there are to be no exceptions to these laws, you may wish to consider that the information received by interrogating people with torture is probably the least reliable information one can ever obtain. Torture victims will admit to doing things they never did, will implicate people who did nothing wrong, will lie about anything to make the torturer stop.
Sorry Ben, you haven’t got a leg to stand on.
#62 – Ah_Yea,
Great links! It was already clear to me. Now it’s clearer.
Nice post Scott, but nowhere did I say that torture was legal under international law. You can’t see the difference in my scenarios then?
On your subject, if United Nations can prohibit torture under any condition with authority, then they can also prohibit war under any condition with authority. After all blowing someone’s legs off, or shooting holes in their lungs is so much more humane than waterboarding [sarcasm].
Scenario: You catch the guy who kidnapped your wife and he claims he has buried her alive with only a straw to breathe through. there’s enough free space for some red ants to bite her relentlessly. It’s been several days, and the guy hates your guts for whatever reason. you plead with him, you offer money, you’ll offer, lie or say anything to get him to talk but he just sneers and describes how she is starving to death and terrified and if you get close to the straw you can hear her screaming.
You would do nothing else because it’s illegal?
Misanthropic Scott, Your welcome!
64. Misanthropic Scott
So then sounds like you’d be okay with
“…another states that “cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him.” CIA officers who have subjected themselves to the technique have lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in.” Wikipedia Waterboarding
And if this 14 seconds produced information that could be verified, like a sought after location.
Or should war be kept to less degrading bullets through jaws and guts on the battlefield?
RBG
I think that the root of the problem is this: Who defines what an “enemy of the state” or “terrorist” is…It’s easy enough for an individual to decide for themselves when to cross the line (ie the scenario in #66), but when government agencies decide to use torture instead of following the laws of their own country, you’re starting down a path that ends in the torture of the citizens of your own country. What if Senator McCarthy had used torture to find communists??? I’m sure he thought that communists were as much as a threat to America as we think terrorists are today.
220 years of American decency, that’s the best part. Some people still believe, that’s nice. Torture is a tool of war, always has been always will be. Anybody tells you otherwise is full of she-it. Question is how far will you go. Water boarding maybe uncomfortable and scary but it’s not the same as electrifying somebody’s balls, or using a vicegrip pliers to crush tooth or bone. War is hell, if you’re afraid to get your hands dirty, stay home!
Its always “funny” to see on contested issues how seldom the opposing sides actually address the same set of facts/issues?
Worse, as also demonstrated here, is no one slows down enough to even offer, or wait for acceptance, of a premise to be stated?
The set up only says “here is a shocking video” and we are all off and running on our set of facts/issues.
As I peruse the thread, I see 5-6 issues connecting only thru tangents?
Because I have discussed issues with Scott the longest on this blog, and I find him to always be concise and rational, I will look at his first posting.
#59–
1–“I can’t believe there’s actually debate about this on this board.” /// Mock outrage? “Everything gets discussed on this board, few things debated, but that’s a tired issue. What is the “this” that is being discussed? After 58 entries, quite a few subjects were covered?
2–“To those who denounce waterboarding because it is torture, keep up the good work.” /// Very few (if any?) besides myself offered up the notion that waterboarding was not torture, and I did it to show only that as stated, waterboarding/torture can be defined in various ways leading to different conclusions.
Most of the thread legitimately is about whether or not torture can be justified.
3–The remainder of your post establishes that “it” is illegal. No identification of it. Of course torture is illegal. And waterboarding amounting to torture is illegal. Enhanced interrogation techniques are not defined or discussed.
Well, this is a blog and not a novel, so I’ll cut to the chase.
1. Legality is a dry discussion and only used when it supports a desired outcome. It has ad hominem appeal and nothing more.
2. Very few notions are “absolute” and the inequity of waterboarding is not one of them.
3. If you can’t imagine a situation where waterboarding can be justified, you are lying to yourself, or dull witted, or just not making it personal enough.
4. RBG at #49 made a most cogent point. Sad and silly that no one responded to it.
The other 36 issues fairly raised are not responded to in order to keep the pontification overload light on a low dim status.
PS–there are a whole series of psychological test questions establishing a “natural morality” that basically establishes most people (across cultures) agree that if people must die, it is better that fewer people die rather than more people. Even as that is true, many fewer people are willing to actually kill those fewer people themselves. Its OK for fate or others to kill fewer people to save more people, but active participation in the better outcome thru horrible ends is personally acceptable.
I wonder how many of you absolutists are just taking things too personally and avoiding the natural morality?
Penultimate sentence above should read “ends is NOT personally acceptable.”
Oh man oh man. It seems to me that US is the new NAZI Germany. Welcome to the future!
#73–Bloom==why is that?
#66
The End cannot justify the means.
What part of that can’t you wrap your head around?
Cursor_
#66 – Ben Eficial,
Again. Your scenario is not at all analogous. You have someone claiming responsibility. In the real world, what we had was someone who confessed after torture, not before. Correct me if I’m wrong here.
Further, you are talking about vigilante justice. What we have in the real world is an official of a government performing the torture. You may have noticed that this was one of the four conditions for torture that was clearly met in this case.
We also do not have the same immediate threat of someone already buried in the ground. What we have is people threatening to perform terrorist acts, not people already being victimized by an act in progress with a chance of saving them.
So, I would suggest that you make your analogies a little closer to the real world scenario if you want to make your point.
How about this for a better analogy.
I receive an anonymous note from someone stating intent to perform the action you describe. Last month, this was done to someone. I meet someone who may or may not be the person who sent the note. Do I get to torture him to find out?
#68 – RBG,
What about the other 15 people you tortured this way that turned out to be innocent of all charges and produced information that was not verified?
The person being tortured tomorrow may be you.
You see, your name is very similar to a known terrorist. You have not yet been given any legal counsel or any opportunity to prove your innocence.
Further, you should not have to prove your innocence, the government should be proving your guilt in a court of law with a jury of your peers, correct?
But, none of this matters. You’re in Gitmo now. The mistake is made. You are strapped to the table and are drowning. Oops. The torturer screwed up. You really did drown … or die of a heart attack. Oh well. It was worth it to get whatever information you would have given had you not died. And besides, everyone will just assume you were guilty. No one will mourn.
Why do you presume to know more than the international organizations that formed these treaties and the U.S. government officials who signed them? They were clear in their statement that there were no exceptions.
#73 – Bloom,
Too bad I didn’t read your post before I replied to Ben and RBG. Can we close this thread now on Godwin’s Law?
#71 – bobbo,
I’m going to need more time to reread your post. And, I’m going to have to read in detail the original 58. Be back later with a reply.
(So much for Godwin’s Law)
geeez, Scott, again it all comes down to the “Bush is a war crimial” defense. I wish the Democrats would put him on trial, or shout up about it! Republicans managed to get Clinton impeached for lying about a BJ, but the Democrats can’t put Bush on trial for murder and torture. Democrats have the House and the Senate, and a near majority in the Supreme Court. If it were possible to call him a war criminal and take him to trial, they would have a long time ago.
Let’s see, I’ll try one more time. WAR = torture, you can’t have one without the other. Perhaps we should give it a nice eufemism, like collateral damage or friendly fire. War is not for pussies, people trying to kill people in every way possible. If the war is necessary then so is the torture. And if we get right down to it there are other things about war I like a lot less than torture.
“Decency in war…” – there’s no such thing. War is war – let’s stop pretending it’s a child’s game.
War is the answer for the weak and fearful.
Torture is the answer to the evil and hateful.
Cursor_
#83 “War is the answer for the weak and fearful.”
Like Neville with Hitler? Oh, that’s right. He was weak and fearful of war with the result being millions killed.
Absolute statements are made by absolute idiots.
#71 – bobbo,
3. If you can’t imagine a situation where waterboarding can be justified, you are lying to yourself, or dull witted, or just not making it personal enough.
I think this is one of the most important points in your post and I’d like to address it.
Here is the set of circumstances under which I would consider government sponsored torture acceptable despite both national and international laws against it.
1) There is an immediate and specific terrorist threat to civilian lives.
2) The individual to be tortured has been convicted through due process. (Else how can we know that the individual is not innocent of all crimes?)
3) We have no other source of the information required to avert the attack.
4) We can independently confirm the veracity of the information given. (Don’t blow up the terrorist camp until we indeed know for sure that it is a terrorist camp, for example.)
Now, given these requirements, I say to you that they cannot ever be met under any circumstance. 4 implies another source of the information and so, contradicts 3. Yet, without another source, the information is not reliable at all since tortured people will say anything to stop the torture.
So, I’m sticking with existing U.S. and international law that has been well thought out and created with very good reason, in this case at least.
77 M Scott
“What about the other 15 people you tortured this way that turned out to be innocent”
That argument also doesn’t work in our justice system where innocent people, unfortunately, suffer occasionally. (We try to compensate those people, or even prosecute those who caused the miscarriage of justice.) It’s not possible to live in a perfect world, just one that utilizes the best option.
Your statements presume everyone but you is an idiot. Well, in real life, thousands of people like doctors, judges, rescue personnel, even economists must make life and death judgements every day- and you have no squawk about that. Not all of them are perfect decisions- some dead wrong.
Famous civil-libertarian Alan M. Dershowitz advocates “torture warrants” provided by a judge.
http://tinyurl.com/62mlk9
At least if there is going to be torture, more of it will be under carefully supervised conditions and consideration.
Vancouver, Canada does the unthinkable and actually helps drug addicts get their normally illegal fix, in the name of harm reduction – against UN rules about supporting drug addiction.
I think torture is an unthinkable option in the name of overall harm reduction. That harm being against Americans and other allies who you’d let die in Iraq so you can enjoy a distant clear conscience over 14 seconds of waterboarding.
I take it you do support the Iraq War because why do you presume to know more than the legal President of the US and the US officials who prosecute the war?
RBG
#49 – RBG,
I hate to be the one to break the news but everyone appears ok with the “civility” of bullets and bombs randomly sending metal pieces through bodies causing damage that can hardly even be expressed.
Being opposed to torture does not mean that one is OK with warfare. However, the old statement that “all is fair in love and war” is a truly contemptible lie. There are indeed rules of engagement. Taking someone off the battle field and torturing them at your leisure is not OK.
We have standards for how prisoners of war are treated.
Deliberate targeting of civilians is terrorism, plain and simple. This is why when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, it was an act of war, not an act of terrorism. And it is why, IMNSHO, the deliberate choice of a non-military target for Hiroshima was an act of terrorism.
Compare that to a minute of waterboarding in war time. This, plus Tasers, Riot Gas and much more are already administered on various recruits and volunteers in training. Where’s the outrage there?
Apparently, according to the training of Navy Seals that used to undergo waterboarding as part of their training until it was deemed to break their spirit too badly. Tasers, riot gas, etc are not nearly as bad as this. Bullets are another concept. However, we do not take suspects out and shoot them. We shoot people on the battle field. There is a difference. And, one hopes that civilians are not being deliberately targeted.
Let’s just try to convince all sides to conduct war as a tiddly-winks contest.
Great idea!! I’m all for it. Chess might be better. It would be great not to have to actually use live humans killing each other to settle our conflicts.
Unfortunately, we do live in the real world. Fortunately, we can at least play by a certain set of rules that makes the conflict horrific but more tolerable than without such rules.
#85–Scott==like I said, “concise and rational.”
But all you have done is make torture an issue of law. You are no longer an absolutist (always my bugaboo) and are ready to actually discuss the issue.
Alan Dershowitz gives us the “torture warrant” which I do assume you already know all about:
http://tinyurl.com/69w4sy
so, with legality and timeliness out of the way to “actually” considering torture, now you only have to remove “natural morality” and tell me what value supercededs getting a torture warrant to question a kidnapper of your family who has them buried underground in an airtight box.
The clock is ticking.
After your answer, I will tell you why I am also against torture as a practical matter==all except for made up hypotheticals.
#87 – “We have standards for how prisoners of war are treated.”
The POW argument has been made and dismissed. Terrorists aren’t POWs under the Geneva Convention.
#88–Whoops, I jumped the gun. Reason comes in incremental steps.
Make the hypo above the kidknapper is an enemy combatant on the field of battle who has hidden a captured platoon of marines in a room filled with explosives to detonate if USA does not agree to leave Iraq, given them a Billion Dollars, and convert to Muslim Time.