NationStates Jolt Archive

Based on what you know about waterboarding, should it be legal as an interrogation technique? And should the information garnered from an interrogation session using waterboarding necessarily be considered valid?

based on what i know, no it should not. if we found it to be illegal in ww2, it should still be illegal today.

Waterboarding is cruel and wrong and bad and dangerous and immoral and stuff.

I don't think it should be legal.

Waterboarding talk is so tedious that soon the CIA will be sitting terrorists down and asking them what they think about the legality of waterboarding.

Osama will be found withing hours.

All I know is that the US considered it torture when the Soviets did it to people.

Should waterboarding be legal?Only if it's consensual.

No, it should not be legal, seeing as how it was already found to be illegal for a good reason and that reason still stands today.

Waterboarding talk is so tedious that soon the CIA will be sitting terrorists down and asking them what they think about the legality of waterboarding.

Osama will be found withing hours.

That almost seems more cruel.

All I know is that the US considered it torture when the Soviets did it to people.

Did they really? Sourceplz. Kthx.

Only if it's consensual.
"Waterboarding? Good, first line on the left, one plastic bag each."

Did they really? Sourceplz. Kthx.

Waterboarding as an interrogation technique has its roots in some of history's worst totalitarian nations, from Nazi Germany and the Spanish Inquisition to North Korea and Iraq. In the United States, the technique was first used five decades ago as a training tool to give U.S. troops a realistic sense of what they could expect if captured by the Soviet Union or the armies of Southeast Asia. The U.S. military has officially regarded the tactic as torture since the Spanish-American War.Link (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/120907B.shtml)

Link (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/120907B.shtml)

Thanks. Didn't they also hang Japanese officers for it?

Thanks. Didn't they also hang Japanese officers for it?I heard that on the Daily Show, so it must be true! :p
No clue, but I doubt they were lying about it.

It should be illegal.

AND WHO VOTED YES?

Seems like it should to me.

According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding), it has been used by such luminaries as the Spanish Inquisition, the Dutch East India Company, the Japanese during WWII and the Gestapo.


Spanish Inquisition

A form of torture similar to waterboarding called toca, along with garrucha (or strappado) and the most frequently used potro (or the rack), was used (though infrequently) during the trial portion of the Spanish Inquisition process. "The toca, also called tortura del agua, consisted of introducing a cloth into the mouth of the victim, and forcing them to ingest water spilled from a jar so that they had the impression of drowning."[23] One source has claimed that the use of water as a form of torture also had profound religious significance to the Inquisitors.[24]

Colonial times

Agents of the Dutch East India Company used a precursor to waterboarding during the Amboyna massacre, which took place on the island of Amboyna in the Molucca Islands in 1623. At that time, it consisted of wrapping cloth around a victim's head, after which the torturers "poured the water softly upon his head until the cloth was full, up to the mouth and nostrils, and somewhat higher, so that he could not draw breath but he must suck in all the water."[25] In one case, the torturer applied water three or four times successively until the victim's "body was swollen twice or thrice as big as before, his cheeks like great bladders, and his eyes staring and strutting out beyond his forehead."[26]

After the Spanish-American War of 1898

After the Spanish American War of 1898 in the Philippines, the US Army used waterboarding which was called the “water cure” or “Chinese water torture.” at the time. Major Edwin Glenn was court martialed and sentenced to 10 years hard labor for waterboarding a suspected insurgent.[27] President Theodore Roosevelt ordered the court-martial of the American General on the island of Samar for allowing his troops to waterboard, when the court-martial found only that he had acted with excessive zeal Roosevelt disregarded the verdict and had the General dismissed from the Army.[28][29]

World War II

During World War II, Japanese troops, especially the Kempeitai, as well as the Gestapo,[30] the German secret police, used waterboarding as a method of torture.[31] During the Japanese occupation of Singapore the Double Tenth Incident occurred, which included waterboarding consisting of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach.[32][33]


It goes on to talk about the French Algerian War and the Vietnam war, the Pinochet regime in Chile, and the Khmer Rouge.

I don't think I really want my country to be doing the same activities as this crowd. Looks like torture, reportedly feels like torture, so it's probably torture.

I heard that on the Daily Show, so it must be true! :p
No clue, but I doubt they were lying about it.

Then your word on seeing it on the Daily Show at some point in time shall be my source for this claim *nod*

why do they call it Waterboarding? that sounds like a Sport...

I say call it what it is, i.e., sticking someone's head underwater until they almost drown to interogate them.

I think it should ONLY be used as an interrogation technique if they've run out of other, less drastic methods already that didnt work.

it IS torture, and it IS cruel, but at least they dont drown the guy. im not taking either side here.

Then your word on seeing it on the Daily Show at some point in time shall be my source for this claim *nod*

i saw it on the daily show too, if that adds to the credence that it was on there.

also on coundown.

also on coundown.

Olberman is a pompous turd, so aggressively trying to channel Edward R. Murrow that it makes me want to vomit.

Thanks. Didn't they also hang Japanese officers for it?

Oh, I don't think that's all that they did.

why do they call it Waterboarding? that sounds like a Sport...

I say call it what it is, i.e., sticking someone's head underwater until they almost drown to interogate them.

I think it should ONLY be used as an interrogation technique if they've run out of other, less drastic methods already that didnt work.

it IS torture, and it IS cruel, but at least they dont drown the guy. im not taking either side here.
I don't think that any interrogator is going straight for waterboarding, unless there's some extreme time sensitive crisis happening. And now that the CIA knows not to do it, it's unlikely that it'll be used anymore at all (not that it was used to regularly in the first place, and at the time the American public would have supported anything that could have gotten them closer to catching/killing terrorists).

Olberman is a pompous turd, so aggressively trying to channel Edward R. Murrow that it makes me want to vomit.

yeah thats why i love him. he gets to say stuff that none of the other guys get to say.

but at least they dont drown the guy
Usually. It can, of course, result in death sometimes.

Waterboarding=bad. Torture=bad. Waterboarding=torture. j+g/h*1/8=Q.

Need I more explanation?

It cant be torture. Because America does it, and America. Does. Not. Torture.


:rolleyes:


And according to Justice Scalia, its not unconstitutional, because while cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden, waterboarding isnt, get this, punishment. I fucking hate that guy.




It ought to be illegal, and regardless of who the nex president is, it will be. Fucking Bush only has a few months left.

It is funny that America considered it torture since the Spanish American War, but now suddenly its not.

It is funny that America considered it torture since the Spanish American War, but now suddenly its not.

Suddenly? I don't know if you noticed, but the Spanish American War was 100 years ago, opinions change, especially when the government isn't concrete.

I shall put it this way:

I have never met anyone who supports torture and I suspect that if I did I would try to stay pretty far away from them.

its stupid, dangerous, doesn't give results and is 14th century thinking lets not forget the fact that its such a disgusting act that I don't think it belongs in the civilized world

Suddenly? I don't know if you noticed, but the Spanish American War was 100 years ago, opinions change, especially when the government isn't concrete.

clearly America has gone backwards then and its time for government by concrete

Suddenly? I don't know if you noticed, but the Spanish American War was 100 years ago, opinions change, especially when the government isn't concrete.

It was torture up until the Bush admin. Thats suddenly.



Do you understand what "since" means in the context of time?



This is just another idiotic "Its not wrong when America does it damnit!"

It cant be torture. Because America does it, and America. Does. Not. Torture.


:rolleyes:


And according to Justice Scalia, its not unconstitutional, because while cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden, waterboarding isnt, get this, punishment. I fucking hate that guy.

Haha, there was a segment about that on the Daily Show yesterday. "That's my view and it happens to be correct." He's such a douche.

But yeah, waterboarding is definitely torture and anybody who says otherwise is either extreeeemely uninformed or lying. That much I'm sure about. I am, however, on the fence about whether torture should be legal when the torturee in question is a 100% completely confirmed terrorist, with absolutely no doubt.

why do they call it Waterboarding? that sounds like a Sport...



when I first heard about it I thought Dang those Iraqis in Gitmo are getting to Surf.

All rules & limitations to warfare are ridiculous concepts.

Wasn't there already a thread about exactly this subject?

Didn't it die with everyone agreeing waterboarding should be banned?

I don't think there's much debate over that here.

Based on what you know about waterboarding, should it be legal as an interrogation technique?
No, it should not, because it is torture, and torture is illegal for good reason and in all circumstances. Designation as an "interrogation technique" doesn't matter.

And should the information garnered from an interrogation session using waterboarding necessarily be considered valid?
No, it should not, because information gotten by torture is coerced, and because of the pressure of coercion, it cannot be relied upon to be true. If it can't be taken as reliably true, then it is useless.

And according to Justice Scalia, its not unconstitutional, because while cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden, waterboarding isnt, get this, punishment. I fucking hate that guy.

You know, as much as I recognize that's a really dick argument, I can kind of see it.

It doesn't matter, though, because we have other laws (both domestic and in the form of treaties that we're party to) that outlaw torture, waterboarding included.

I shall put it this way:

I have never met anyone who supports torture and I suspect that if I did I would try to stay pretty far away from them.

I'm assuming you mean in person. I've seen several people on these forums do just that.

it IS torture, and it IS cruel, but at least they dont drown the guy. im not taking either side here.
Except the guy getting waterboarded doesn't know that they going to stop just before he drowns.
And sometimes they screw that up, too.

All rules & limitations to warfare are ridiculous concepts.

So lets go rape some civilians!

And according to Justice Scalia, its not unconstitutional, because while cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden, waterboarding isnt, get this, punishment. I fucking hate that guy.
If that's true, then he won't mind me going round to his place and forcing him to eat a big sack of dogshit.
Cruel and unusual, certainly. But I'm not doing it to punish him. I'm just doing it for kicks.
No punishment there. nosirree.

If that's true, then he won't mind me going round to his place and forcing him to eat a big sack of dogshit.
Cruel and unusual, certainly. But I'm not doing it to punish him. I'm just doing it for kicks.
No punishment there. nosirree.

Well, unless we count me doing because I fucking hate him as "punishment".

All rules & limitations to warfare are ridiculous concepts.Have you really thought this through? Typically war is not a goal in itself. Sure if you want to perpetuate war indefinitely, it's a good idea to make people hate you as much as you can. But if you want to win a war and have a chance of a lasting peace afterwards it pays not to breed resentment.

It was torture up until the Bush admin. Thats suddenly.



Do you understand what "since" means in the context of time?



This is just another idiotic "Its not wrong when America does it damnit!"

You know what else happened, after the Bush administration started? Oh, yeah, you do. The fact that this only happened a few times, right after 9/11, when the CIA had a pass from the country to get what they needed to get from the terrorists that they had in custody in order to prevent further attacks makes this a regrettable but acceptable act in my book. Right now, since some time has passed without any further attacks being shoved in our face, we're much more upset about what happened way back when it was deemed acceptable by the general population, also known as the people who set policy for the CIA.

Now as for the rest of the world's opinion, we got hit and we were doing our best to defend ourselves, perhaps if you had lived in our country at the time you'd understand. I'm not trying to say that the US is perfect, obviously we're not, but some slack is in order here.

Try reading my other posts before you pigeonhole me, I'm not the idiot that you think most Americans are.

I think waterboarding is a pretty cool guy. eh scares the shit out of people and doesn't afraid of anything.

You know what else happened, after the Bush administration started? Oh, yeah, you do. The fact that this only happened a few times, right after 9/11, when the CIA had a pass from the country to get what they needed to get from the terrorists that they had in custody in order to prevent further attacks makes this a regrettable but acceptable act in my book. Right now, since some time has passed without any further attacks being shoved in our face, we're much more upset about what happened way back when it was deemed acceptable by the general population, also known as the people who set policy for the CIA.

Now as for the rest of the world's opinion, we got hit and we were doing our best to defend ourselves, perhaps if you had lived in our country at the time you'd understand. I'm not trying to say that the US is perfect, obviously we're not, but some slack is in order here.

Try reading my other posts before you pigeonhole me, I'm not the idiot that you think most Americans are.

I live in a country that has undergone brutal foreign occupation, violent communist insurgency, and a racially motivated civil war that was almost as bloody as the other two incidents, all within living memory. The institutions that have been raised to "keep them from happening again." and "defend ourselves" are just instruments of the corrupt government to do away with inconvenient people. These same types of instruments that your government is playing around with.

If you want to rubber stamp your government in these actions, I suggest you take a look at mind and not dismiss such a possibility out of hand. Because the more you dismiss it, the easier it becomes to implement it.

Interesting that there are far fewer people defending waterboarding than the last time it was discussed. Whether that is because people have changed their opinions or people have left to take part in Nazi style orgies is another matter.

Interesting that there are far fewer people defending waterboarding than the last time it was discussed. Whether that is because people have changed their opinions or people have left to take part in Nazi style orgies is another matter.

I noticed that too. Usually there's a bunch of people insisting that we torture people to protect freedom or beat the terrorists or some such nonsense.

All rules & limitations to warfare are ridiculous concepts.

Doesn't that make America no better than the terrorists then? Seeing as the terrorists also have no limitations on what they will do?

Doesn't that make America no better than the terrorists then? Seeing as the terrorists also have no limitations on what they will do?

No no no, you see, America is fighting for Freedom(tm) and Democracy(tm) and trying to protect the glorious America Way Of Life(tm). The evil moslem terrorists are all out to destroy those things and force their twisted morality on America. And the Republican party already called that position.

You know what else happened, after the Bush administration started? Oh, yeah, you do. The fact that this only happened a few times, right after 9/11, when the CIA had a pass from the country to get what they needed to get from the terrorists that they had in custody in order to prevent further attacks makes this a regrettable but acceptable act in my book. Right now, since some time has passed without any further attacks being shoved in our face, we're much more upset about what happened way back when it was deemed acceptable by the general population, also known as the people who set policy for the CIA.

Now as for the rest of the world's opinion, we got hit and we were doing our best to defend ourselves, perhaps if you had lived in our country at the time you'd understand. I'm not trying to say that the US is perfect, obviously we're not, but some slack is in order here.

Try reading my other posts before you pigeonhole me, I'm not the idiot that you think most Americans are.
The interesting thing is that I know of nothing that proves or even serves as supporting evidence to the claims that (A) only the CIA engaged in this illegal action; (B) the CIA only did it a few times during a specific time period; (C) that any real, true information was gained by it; or (D) that the lack of further terrorist attacks on US territory so far has anything to do with it.

On the other hand, I have heard numerous reports in the media from both intelligence/interrogation experts AND officials of the US government who were recently engaged in interrogating prisoners suspected of terrorism and/or captured during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. They ALL -- without exception -- say that (A) the illegal actions may still be going on; (B) that renditioning to foreign countries makes it impossible to know how much of it is going on; (C) that NO useful information has been gathered by it; and (D) that the lack of terrorist attacks on US soil so far has NOTHING to do with it but is, in fact, due to other factors unrelated to the treatment of prisoners, factors such as increased general security measures, law enforcement training, more open inter-agency communication (of which we need more), a vigilant and informed civilian population; and luck. These experts and first-hand witnesses to the events in question also universally agree that waterboarding is torture, it's illegal for good reason, it should stay that way, and the US should never, ever do it, ever again.

I would be very interested to hear what you know that officials from the CIA, the Pentagon, and the US Justice Department don't know about what they've been doing. Just what is it that makes you right and them wrong?

And as to your remark about the opinions of other nations, I would remind you that many of those other nations have been dealing with terrorist attacks on their own soil for many decades while the US sat safe and snug, yet they have not seen fit to toss the law into the trash bin in response. Considering their far more extensive experience with this, I think their opinions have value. (By the way, for the record, I'm an American.)

"Waterboarding? Good, first line on the left, one plastic bag each."

"Ah, no. It's freedom for me, actually..."

It should be illegal.

AND WHO VOTED YES?

Someone who voiced their opinion through their vote? Surely you're not denying someone the right to disagree, are you?

I don't think that any interrogator is going straight for waterboarding, unless there's some extreme time sensitive crisis happening. And now that the CIA knows not to do it, it's unlikely that it'll be used anymore at all (not that it was used to regularly in the first place, and at the time the American public would have supported anything that could have gotten them closer to catching/killing terrorists).

Right. The CIA would never do anything illegal or outside the bounds of ethical behavior. Never.

:rolleyes:

Suddenly? I don't know if you noticed, but the Spanish American War was 100 years ago, opinions change, especially when the government isn't concrete.

The current administration is very concrete. Unfortunately, it's between the vast majority of its ears.

Doesn't that make America no better than the terrorists then? Seeing as the terrorists also have no limitations on what they will do?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ7auLWUWdk&NR=1

section 1, most person's detained in US custody are non-US nationals. Thus they are afforded the protection of the constitution such as the right to a speedy and fair trial.

section 2, as enemy combatant don't fight in a national standing army with proper uniforms and the like, they are not granted Geneva convention protections.

section 3, cruel and unusual punishment is not valid as waterboarding is not a form of punishment but rather a means in which to obtain intelligence.

section 4, seeing as the war on terror is a new kind of war there is little precedent. In applying stare decisis one would be referred to hamdi v. Rumsfeld granting habeas corpus to only US nationals in custody, reinforcing sec. 1.

suggested remedy: waterboarding should remain a legal practice for non-US nationals.

You know what else happened, after the Bush administration started? Oh, yeah, you do. The fact that this only happened a few times, right after 9/11, when the CIA had a pass from the country to get what they needed to get from the terrorists that they had in custody in order to prevent further attacks makes this a regrettable but acceptable act in my book. Right now, since some time has passed without any further attacks being shoved in our face, we're much more upset about what happened way back when it was deemed acceptable by the general population, also known as the people who set policy for the CIA.

Really? The CIA came out and said that they were torturing people? Bullshit. They kept it hidden until it got leaked. Because they knew it was unacceptable.

Now as for the rest of the world's opinion, we got hit and we were doing our best to defend ourselves, perhaps if you had lived in our country at the time you'd understand. I'm not trying to say that the US is perfect, obviously we're not, but some slack is in order here.

I am American bud. I did live here during 9/11. Just because I dont wave a flag around and say AMERICA IS TEH PERFECT doesnt mean Im not.

Try reading my other posts before you pigeonhole me, I'm not the idiot that you think most Americans are.

Never said you were an idiot. Just that this post is idiotic.

Oh this will be FUN.

section 1, most person's detained in US custody are non-US nationals. Thus they are afforded the protection of the constitution such as the right to a speedy and fair trial.

Even though SCOTUS says that they are protected by the US Constitution, Bush pretends that never happened.

section 2, as enemy combatant don't fight in a national standing army with proper uniforms and the like, they are not granted Geneva convention protections.

SCOTUS disagrees.

section 3, cruel and unusual punishment is not valid as waterboarding is not a form of punishment but rather a means in which to obtain intelligence.

Everyone on SCOTUS but Scalia disagrees.

section 4, seeing as the war on terror is a new kind of war there is little precedent. In applying stare decisis one would be referred to hamdi v. Rumsfeld granting habeas corpus to only US nationals in custody, reinforcing sec. 1.

Rasaul V Bush in essence overturned that, because it said that the Constitution does apply to non-US prisoners.

suggested remedy: waterboarding should remain a legal practice for non-US nationals.

Actually, no. Youre wrong. On every position you take above.

Everyone on SCOTUS but Scalia disagrees.

Scalia is proof that some people really are evil.

Scalia is proof that some people really are evil.

Scalia is proof that idiots that defy all sense of how much of an idiot a person can be can make it to the highest legal body in the US.

section 1, most person's detained in US custody are non-US nationals. Thus they are afforded the protection of the constitution such as the right to a speedy and fair trial.

the UN however...

section 2, as enemy combatant don't fight in a national standing army with proper uniforms and the like, they are not granted Geneva convention protections.

US govenrment says no (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071100455.html)

section 3, cruel and unusual punishment is not valid as waterboarding is not a form of punishment but rather a means in which to obtain intelligence.

UN steps on you again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture)

seeing as the war on terror is a new kind of war

okay then honey bun :rolleyes:

suggested remedy: waterboarding should remain a legal practice for non-US nationals.

even though its illegal, inhuman and doesn't work? well thats odd you see I thought the dark ages had ended and all that talk about leading the free world meant something

even though its illegal, inhuman and doesn't work? well thats odd you see I thought the dark ages had ended and all that talk about leading the free world meant something

But its ok when the US does it!

Nö.

It's torture.

No question. No. No torture should be legal.

Waterboarding talk is so tedious that soon the CIA will be sitting terrorists down and asking them what they think about the legality of waterboarding.

Osama will be found within hours.
You're a genius.