Waterboarding

[Bill of Rights]

On the other hand, the Bill of Rights recognize God Given Human Rights, not just rights thought up by man. These rights should be afforded to all men women and children without bias.

This is the point I was going to make when I finished reading. I'm glad to see that someone finally got to it.

I am an American. I am proud of my country, I am proud of my Constitution. I've taken as my screen name one of the founding documents that makes this country so great.

Another of those documents is the Declaration of Independence. I'm going to quote from it here, because I think the quote is important:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

Gentlemen, with respect, that does not say "...that all Americans are created equal...", it says "all men". To further drive that point home, our wise Founders added another layer: "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". Clearly, our Founders were saying that the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and indeed all rights belonged to all men, no matter the line that divided them.

Now... We are presented with a situation in which enemies caught may have information vital to saving lives. Many if not all of us, given those specifics, would say that there is no line we cannot cross in retrieving that information. As long as the enemy is olive skinned, wears a turban or a robe, or in short is Not Like Us, it's easy to make that statement. When the "enemy" starts looking a lot more like us, and his status as "enemy" is decided by one guy in an office, especially one who already defines himself as better than the rest of us or whose loyalties and even citizenship are questionable, the line becomes very blurred. Once the concepts of waterboarding, of torture, of psychological warfare, etc exist, they are available for use, especially when there is no outside knowledge or oversight that does not come with a "wink wink, nudge nudge". We cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Pandora's box is open. What we can do is define strict rules which we, the people, emplace upon our servants, government, setting the use of that knowledge as beyond the pale, and further, strict punishment for those who violate those rules.

Is there a place for torture, for psy-ops, etc.? I don't know. Part of me knows that to dissuade criminals, you have to create a possible penalty they will not want to pay. Loss of life is usually what we've chosen, saying that to defend ourselves (on a personal level) means that the criminal has already chosen that someone will die and it is our job to ensure that the one who does so is not us. Alternatively, given that analogy, would we, individuals, be justified in torturing a criminal before calling the police to take him away? Of course not, but the terrorist has many times already made peace with the idea of dying as a martyr.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt

I do not pretend to have the answers. There are probably multiple answers, but that then leads to the quandry that we are a nation of laws, not of men, and thus, the law must be the differentiation, not the specifics of which man stands accused and may be interrogated by which method.

I don't know what's right, but I know what's wrong. I'm just not always sure when or if two wrongs make something right, or if "necessity" should be our plea-if it is, is it our argument or our creed?

Blessings,
B

 

[DarkLight]

Rep added to Bill of Rights for his Bill of Rights quote along with the outstanding explanation and persuasive argument!

 

[semperfi211]

Yes I support waterboarding or any other form of torture like pulling their teeth out one by one with a pair of pliers etc.. If it is used to extract information that may save innocent lives I don't think we should hold back one bit.

 

[turnandshoot4]

There is always danger and there will always be an enemy. How can we call them the savages, terrorists, bad guys if we act just as savagly. How can we preach to others that we are the good guys when we torture people in the back ground? War is more than just guys, guns, and bombs. War is in our hearts, and our minds; if we can't win over people mentally and emotionally it will never matter how many 'enemies' we destroy, the next generation will just pick up where the old one left off because we proved to them that we were the 'evil ones'.

Great Post!

 

[dburkhead]

And if we lose? If, by playing nice, the barbarians conquer and Rome is sacked? Wither then our ideals, our freedom, our respect for others? Gone, that's where.

A lot of people seem to be having trouble with the idea that we, as a society, are in a fight for our life. The Vandals are at the gates and people are complaining that swords are messy.

When you're in a fight for your life, then everything takes second place to winning the fight. Keeping the fight civilized is all well and good when fighting civilized foes and where loss of the fight doesn't mean the loss of all you hold dear. But clinging too hard to that idea when the other side doesn't? Well, you can line up for a nice, civilized Cavalry charge at your Crecy but that won't save you from the yeomen on the hilltop.

Lose the fight and all that you're "protecting" through your restraint is lost with it.

That said, restraint is good. We are, after all, a civilized people. However, with that restraint must come a realization that there are times and situations where you have to loosen, or even completely release, the restraint. There are times you have to let Orwells rough men be rough, otherwise all will be lost.

 

[techres]

There are times you have to let Orwells rough men be rough, otherwise all will be lost.

Orwell wrote another book. That is a future that could still happen if you let it out of fear and supposed "necessity".

 

[SavageEagle]

Great post David.

Let's think about waterboarding in and of itself for one second. Putting one into the mental sensation that they are drowning. Seems kind bad when you think about it, right? Sounds pretty inhumane?

Now let's think of other aspects to war.

Napalm. Nasty stuff. Gelatin liquid that when is ignited turns into a flaming liquid that sticks to, and burns the enemy. The intial explosion of a napalm bomb does in fact sound pretty inhumane also. At impact, the bomb sucks in all available oxygen from the area, including air in the lungs of the enemy causing them to suffocate, then exploding the gelatin all over the area burning up everything in the blast radius. I would rather be waterboarded for information.

What else...

Oh here's a good one. Land mines. "Bouncing Betty's" Nasty little buggers. Buried just below the surface out of sight. Step on it, step off it, it jumps and effectively explodes. Now if this thing doesn't kill you, you're going to lose body parts, go blind, deaf, maybe even be cut in half. I'd rather be waterboarded.

Oh here's the kicker that I'm going to take some Flak on.

Bullets. Oooooo bullets. You shoot them from a boom stick at your enemy. If your aim is off but you it a non vital organ, that organ must be removed and discarded. The bullet may hit a major Artery. Bleed outs are pretty nasty. I'd hate to get shot in the neck. BOOM! 50cal shot to the leg! No more leg! BOOM! HEAD SHOT! Your buddies head explodes in your face.... I'd rather be waterboarded.


I can go on and on here and show you things that most people wont bring themselves to think about in war. Can we not agree that Waterboarding is a lot more humane than other ways of war? It would be nice to do away with war altogether, but as long as there is evil in this world, that will not happen. So in order to preserve our way of life we must take measure to ensure that good prevails. Waiting for a POW to talk without persuasive measures will surely lead to a greater attack on Americans or others around the world. Without these techniques we would be worse off. We are not taking their life, we are saving others lives.

What would you do if you found out the bomb that killed your family could have been prevented if they had just made the POW who knew about it talk?

 

[dburkhead]

Orwell wrote another book. That is a future that could still happen if you let it out of fear and supposed "necessity".

And it can happen just as easily, perhaps even more so, by leaving the other side the freedom to so whatever they want while hamstringing yourself in search of some "moral superiority" which the enemy doesn't recognize.

The enemy doesn't care about your scruples. I don't think you've internalized what that really means.

And, I would simply point out that you are making the exact same argument that the antis make against gun ownership and armed self defense. Just as some folk seem to think that it would be better for my wife to be raped and strangled with her own pantyhose then to be alive with a dead rapist at her feet, some folk here seem to think it would be better to be an extinct society (and make no mistake, that's exactly what our enemies want for us) than to continue to exist with some messy incidents in our history.

Yes, yes, if we permit waterboarding or even torture (and, again, I do not consider waterboarding to be torture) in some extraordinary circumstances then pretty soon it will be used to coerce confessions to infamous crimes out of traffic offenders. And if we allow people to carry guns we will see fender benders turn into gun fights and blood will run in the streets.

It's the same argument in both cases (what is known in logic as the "slippery slope fallacy") and is neither more nor less valid because one does or does not agree with its conclusions.

Frankly, I have no problem with the scene from Dirty Harry (the original) where Harry steps on the bad guy's wounded hand to get the location of the kidnapped girl from him. Harry had every reason to believe that getting that information quickly might save the girl's life and that she was already dead by that point doesn't change that. Attempting to save innocent life trumps keeping the bad guy comfortable in my book.

Using such tactics, however, is not, or should not be, a simple decision (unless you want to just go ahead and write off the deaths of innocents--or our own civilization--when they might have been saved) and needs to involve the likelihood of actually being able to save innocent lives, the likelihood that you might be questioning/torturing an innocent individual, and the level of effort needed to obtain the information. In the Dirty Harry case, it was pretty clear cut: there was no question that the person being questioned was the Bad Guy (for example, for others there might be a question about whether Harry beat up the BG but Harry knew he hadn't--therebye establishing making false charges as the least of the bad guy's crimes), there was very little question at that point that the BG had the girl, and the BG himself was claiming kidnapping rather than murder so he had only himself to blame that Harry thought the girl could be rescued. The "torture" used was the minimum necessary to extract the information. The only "moral dillema I see there is that the girl was already dead. Others may be of a different opinion, but that's mine.

"Protect the innocent" takes first priority. So long as that remains the watchword and is taken seriously rather than being simply a meaningless slogan, there is really little danger of any "slippery slope." And when "protect the innocent" no longer is the watchword all the prohibitions on torture out there won't save you.

 

[Prometheus]

Great post David.

Let's think about waterboarding in and of itself for one second. Putting one into the mental sensation that they are drowning. Seems kind bad when you think about it, right? Sounds pretty inhumane?

Now let's think of other aspects to war.
Napalm
....
Mines
...
Bullets

So you see no difference in fighting for your life and using (bombs, bullets ect) and torturing someone you have already captured that doesn't pose a direct threat to you? That maybe, just maybe this idiot who got caught might know something that might save someone, somewhere at some time so maybe if we almost kill them we might get some information that is highly suspect out of some idiot that is just saying crap so you stop torturing him? Brilliant.

People, since this country was founded there have been "grave threats" that no one had ever seen before. Do you really expect us to believe that the threat of today are any more dangerous than those of years past? Do you really think some random jihadi is any bigger a threat than the Nazi's and an atomic bomb of WWII?

I think what we have here is people who are completely ignorant of history. Rush Limbagh likes to say that "peoples view of history starts on the day they are born". I think some of the replies in this thread are rock solid proof of that.

I am disgusted that so many here are no different than the terrorists they proclaim to despise.

I cannot believe the government apologists who claim that because their government is a complete failure in carrying out it's duties to defend the nation that somehow that justifies the use of state sponsored terrorism.

Cowards use torture. Torture has no place among the brave and certainly not among those of honor.

 

[SavageEagle]

So you see no difference in fighting for your life and using (bombs, bullets ect) and torturing someone you have already captured that doesn't pose a threat to you?

This is the problem. That person DOES pose an immediate and SERIOUS threat! They hold the information as to where the bomb is, or the ground attack, or when and where. It's not cowardly to find the where who how and when. If a person is staunch in their convictions as our enemy is, they will not willingly tell you without persuasion. Fighting for your life is nothing compared to fighting for the lives of hundreds of thousands of your Countrymen's lives. Period.

 

[Prometheus]

The enemy doesn't care about your scruples. I don't think you've internalized what that really means.

It means that no matter how low the enemy sink, you don't sink to their level. EVER. If the enemy is really evil (I assume thats why they are the enemy) and you allow yourself to do the same evil things they do, exactly how does that make you any less evil? Your actions determine who you are. I can say I'm not hurting you over and over as I hit you in the head with a hammer. Just because I say it doesn't hurt doesn't change the fact your skull is crushed and oozing brain matter.

Yes, yes, if we permit waterboarding or even torture (and, again, I do not consider waterboarding to be torture) in some extraordinary circumstances then pretty soon it will be used to coerce confessions to infamous crimes out of traffic offenders. And if we allow people to carry guns we will see fender benders turn into gun fights and blood will run in the streets.

Consider that the government has; turned RICO statues meant for Al Capone gangsters into justification to steal someones car over 2 ounces of marijuana, they have used RICO to seize cars over a DUI (even when the driver doesn't own the car).

Consider that people who have mailed back dozens of business reply envelopes to credit card companies have been charged under the patriot act and "paper terrorism".

Those are just some examples.

I certainly don't think it would be out of line for the government to take what is meant for "the worst people" and ultimately apply it to everyone they can.

Government has a track record of abusing it's powers. This is, IMO, no different.

As a society we cannot condone torture. We cannot condone pacifism either. As to "blood in the streets" on gun permits, that argument is pathetic as well. We also have a track record of that sort of thing never happening.

Like I said in a previous post. History. Most people are ignorant of it.

 

[turnandshoot4]

How then, are we not the same as them? If they are so evil, then so are we.

"Yes, yes, if we permit waterboarding or even torture (and, again, I do not consider waterboarding to be torture) in some extraordinary circumstances then pretty soon it will be used to coerce confessions to infamous crimes out of traffic offenders. And if we allow people to carry guns we will see fender benders turn into gun fights and blood will run in the streets"
The point here is to prevent the expansion of gov. power. The more power they have, the less we do.

We are fighting a war of ideas. We can not kill terrorism. It will forever be here. As long as the people are scared of it they will give up the rights of others, and consequently, their own.

 

[dburkhead]

It means that no matter how low the enemy sink, you don't sink to their level. EVER.

So you prefer sinking to six feet under?

Do you also believe in not sinking to the level of murderers who shoot people with guns?

Why, and under what circumstances, one does something are a big part of whether it constitutes "sinking to their level."

 

[dburkhead]

How then, are we not the same as them? If they are so evil, then so are we.

"Yes, yes, if we permit waterboarding or even torture (and, again, I do not consider waterboarding to be torture) in some extraordinary circumstances then pretty soon it will be used to coerce confessions to infamous crimes out of traffic offenders. And if we allow people to carry guns we will see fender benders turn into gun fights and blood will run in the streets"
The point here is to prevent the expansion of gov. power. The more power they have, the less we do.

We are fighting a war of ideas. We can not kill terrorism. It will forever be here. As long as the people are scared of it they will give up the rights of others, and consequently, their own.

And I ask you: if you shoot someone in self defense, how are you different from a murderer?

If you cannot make one distinction, you cannot make the other. They are the same argument.

 

[turnandshoot4]

They are a different argument and here is why:

1. Crime, just like terrorism, is an idea. You can not kill, hurt, or even stop it. It will always be there. I am not fighting the idea of crime, rather shooting someone who is going to kill me.

2. I am not going to waterboard someone who might know who wants to kill me. Even if it will give me a jump on the ALLEGED attacker.

3. Most importantly, when shooting in self defense, it is not murder. Even if I kill the attacker, I am not a murderer. The difference in this case is that I can see the attacker as he is attacking. I am different because I did not set out to kill someone.

The case is I am not telling the world that I am not a murderer then going out and killing the people that might be planning to kill me. How is it different when the US says that these people have comitted horrible human rights violations then violate their human rights?

The scariest thing is what if they got the wrong person? What if they got you? Who is and isn't a terrorist? Who's word is right and who's is wrong? YOU the terrorist will always be wrong, not the government. Of course there is the argument that the government never makes mistakes. Are you saying that?

[SIZE=-1]Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.[/SIZE]
​

[SIZE=-1]GEORGE ORWELL, Politics and the English Language[/SIZE]
​

 

[SavageEagle]

Actually a terrorist is trying to MASS murder people; big difference. Terrorism can only be stopped by the terrorist. So what is it they want? It can't be extinction of our culture in general. If it is, the only way to kill them is with kindness. Show them we are not the monsters they think we are. But if we capture one that is going to kill thousands of people we have an obligation to save them. How else do you plan on discovering HIS plan before it's too late? Feed him cake and crumpets? Seriously. There is a fine line between criminals and terrorists, but we all can make the distinction. If we can make that distinction, we can tell the government we won't tolerate their abuse of power even once.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Yes I support waterboarding or any other form of torture like pulling their teeth out one by one with a pair of pliers etc.. If it is used to extract information that may save innocent lives I don't think we should hold back one bit.

[...]
Now... We are presented with a situation in which enemies caught may have information vital to saving lives. Many if not all of us, given those specifics, would say that there is no line we cannot cross in retrieving that information. As long as the enemy is olive skinned, wears a turban or a robe, or in short is Not Like Us, it's easy to make that statement. When the "enemy" starts looking a lot more like us, and his status as "enemy" is decided by one guy in an office, especially one who already defines himself as better than the rest of us or whose loyalties and even citizenship are questionable, the line becomes very blurred.

According to one of the misnamed "Patriot Acts", the President has the power to determine on his own authority who is an "enemy combatant".

The person who will be sworn in in 22 days to that office is an avowed enemy of our rights, as proven by his voting records in the IL State Senate and the US Senate as well, at least for those times he was actually there to vote.

Is it such a stretch to think that such a person would (ab)use that power to define any gun owner who does not surrender his firearms, all of them, on demand, to police, without remuneration, as an "enemy combatant"?

Recall that if that happens, a person so defined may be denied the right of habeas corpus, be held incommunicado, may be tried in secret, without access to evidence, witnesses, or even the right to testify in his own defense.

When one's only "crime" is to stand in defense of his rights, the rights which you serve(d?) to defend and protect, against a tyrannical government run amok, I cannot think that justifying torture is acceptable.

As I said above, I don't know what's right in this case, but I know what's wrong. There are no easy answers, however sometimes I wonder if the greater enemy is over on the other side of a big puddle in a giant Devil's Sandbox or living/working behind walls of white stone, protected by men and women sworn to do so and paid by our taxes.

Blessings,
B

 

[dburkhead]

They are a different argument and here is why:

1. Crime, just like terrorism, is an idea. You can not kill, hurt, or even stop it. It will always be there. I am not fighting the idea of crime, rather shooting someone who is going to kill me.

2. I am not going to waterboard someone who might know who wants to kill me. Even if it will give me a jump on the ALLEGED attacker.

3. Most importantly, when shooting in self defense, it is not murder. Even if I kill the attacker, I am not a murderer. The difference in this case is that I can see the attacker as he is attacking. I am different because I did not set out to kill someone.

The case is I am not telling the world that I am not a murderer then going out and killing the people that might be planning to kill me. How is it different when the US says that these people have comitted horrible human rights violations then violate their human rights?

The scariest thing is what if they got the wrong person? What if they got you? Who is and isn't a terrorist? Who's word is right and who's is wrong? YOU the terrorist will always be wrong, not the government. Of course there is the argument that the government never makes mistakes. Are you saying that?

[SIZE=-1]Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.[/SIZE]
​

[SIZE=-1]GEORGE ORWELL, Politics and the English Language[/SIZE]
​

The argument you're using is "bad guy does X, if we do X we are just as bad."

Same argument whether X is shoot/kill, bomb, waterboard, or slice open with a sharp knife.

As for "got the wrong person." What if you miss when shooting in self defense and kill the wrong person?

And afterwards, would you go around telling folk you weren't a murderer even though you killed someone?

And what if you didn't waterboard/torture/whatever and the WMD goes off in downtown, oh, pick a city, in the height of rush hour?

Again, the reasons for doing something and the circumstances surrounding the choice to do it make a big difference as to whether one is "just as bad" or not.

 

[dburkhead]

According to one of the misnamed "Patriot Acts", the President has the power to determine on his own authority who is an "enemy combatant".

Did you actually read that in the actual act or are you repeating what the Media has said about it? Frankly, I can't find either "enemy" or "combatant" in the text of the Patriot Act.

If it's what you've actually read, could you please provide a reference so I can see it for myself.

If it's what the Media has said, could you please remember that the media lie a lot.

 

[turnandshoot4]

The argument you're using is "bad guy does X, if we do X we are just as bad."

Same argument whether X is shoot/kill, bomb, waterboard, or slice open with a sharp knife.

As for "got the wrong person." What if you miss when shooting in self defense and kill the wrong person?

And afterwards, would you go around telling folk you weren't a murderer even though you killed someone?

And what if you didn't waterboard/torture/whatever and the WMD goes off in downtown, oh, pick a city, in the height of rush hour?

Again, the reasons for doing something and the circumstances surrounding the choice to do it make a big difference as to whether one is "just as bad" or not.

I read your first line and I knew I had to quote you. If we torture aren't we just as bad? How about if we bomb innocent people and know it? Are we not the same? How about if we torture people? Oh wait, we do. So then we are the same. The same as the radical islamic retards. If you get cut off on the road does that then entitle you to cut them off? Or do you hold yourself to a higher regard? To a higher standard?

Furthermore, what happens during a gun battle/gun fight happen. I can not prevent the wrong time/wrong place situations.

So your argument is that we should do anything that is necessary to protect our people? Isn't that same argument the same one regarding taking guns out of the hands of citizens? For the government to protect them, the people have to lose a couple of rights.

You didn't answer me on one question, what designates a terrorist?