House passes bill to ban waterboarding

[JaJae]

I understand where you're coming from, but in the Myanmar incident there are many, many cultural factors that come into play. I also think our personal security is more important than Myanmar's. I think we need to protect ourselves before we start worrying about other nations. There are a lot of mixed views on whether torture receives reliable information. However, the CIA claims to have received solid information they otherwise wouldn't have received from water-boarding, possibly saving many American lives. So before jumping to conclusions and claiming it dosen't work, we should look at the current reality and realize that it has worked and that it has protected America.

There are a lot of cultural differences between us and Myanmar beyond that. As said above, abortion. Myanmar has some of the most strict abortion laws in the world. Speaking of it is taboo. We're a nation that gives minors abortions without their parents consenting. There are a lot of other "immoral" things we do in their eyes, beyond waterboarding that taints us in their view. Also in these countries that use hardcore torture, waterboarding is a joke to them. Myanmar uses electric shock treatments and all kinds of other extremely slow and painful methods of torture.

But I do agree, it makes us hypocrites to tell other people they can't torture if we're using waterboarding and other forms of coerced interrogation. But in my view the moral equivilency simply isn't there and our number one concern should be protecting America before worrying about other nations.

[motivez]

Foreign diplomacy doesn't stop because we have other things going on, my point is that there's more to it than simply how Al Qaeda treats people they capture.

Of course water boarding isn't as bad as sawing someone's head off, but it's a broader issue. If we're willing to torture people we accuse of being involved or this that, how can we talk to China about it's persecution of various religions? Myanmar about torturing monks? Any middle eastern nation about it's treatment of minorities?

Coerced interrogation is a pretty broad phrase, makes it seem like telling someone lies or whatever to coerce them is in the same league as water torture.

Of course there's worse methods than that, but that doesn't mean we should use it. I also don't care if it saves someone. If we lose who we are and what we stand for by abandoning the principles that have made us the envy of the world, America wont be worth fighting for.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Yes, but that is not cause permanent damage or psychosis. You have a fear reaction of the moment. Only later does your rational mind tell you the intent was not to kill. Don't tell me you never took action on raw emotion and leter thought how stupid? That is the trick of it.

How any times of this being done would create that damage?

Are we this strained in our diplomacy and intellegence that this is what we resort to?

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

If I'm not mistaken, it's not a plastic material their head is wrapped in (they would surely suffocate, would they not?) but instead is just a cloth material to keep them from seeing what's around them (in order for them to be unprepared for the next dousing). The inability to see (knocking out one of the senses) hightens the fear of the unknown.

The purpose of torture is yes, to break them somehow.

The purpose of waterboarding is to annoy them to the point they give in and tell all

The gentleman on NPR who is the agent who has been speaking out about this said it was plastic (unless I'm hearing impaired.) It's to mimic the suffocation.

I find it interesting that the particular agent who is talking about this, and he actually had this done to him, and he lasted only a few seconds.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Of course water boarding isn't as bad as sawing someone's head off, but it's a broader issue. If we're willing to torture people we accuse of being involved or this that, how can we talk to China about it's persecution of various religions? Myanmar about torturing monks? Any middle eastern nation about it's treatment of minorities?

Take them on a case by case basis. We aren't persecuting people on the basis of their religion. We aren't using electric shock on people. And we certainly aren't mistreating our minorities. These are criminal terrorists we've waterboarded, we haven't dismembered the random priest in your neighborhood.

Of course there's worse methods than that, but that doesn't mean we should use it. I also don't care if it saves someone. If we lose who we are and what we stand for by abandoning the principles that have made us the envy of the world, America wont be worth fighting for.

That's a respectable position. But to test that position, if you were in the position of authority holding the masterminds of 9/11 and they warned you of a coming attack on our soil what would you do? How would you get the information out of them or would you allow the attack to take place on principle? There can be a very strong case to be made for both sides here. It's an interesting position to be in. On one hand we've waterboarded a few people. On the other hand the information we got probably would not have been obtained and we could very well have been hit with another terrorist attack. If you could go back in time would you say don't waterboard that man for 35 seconds and instead allow hundreds of people to die? Would you be willing to sacrifice your family on that principle? The waterboarding is direclty responsible for preventing a terrorist attack on our soil. Would you prefer to sacrifice your family to that attack and not waterboard a mastermind of 9/11? By saying we shouldn't be waterboarding you're essentially saying we should have instead sacrificed American lives to terrorism.

[JaJae]

In the first public comment by any CIA officer involved in handling high-value al Qaeda targets, John Kiriakou, now retired, said the technique broke Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds.

"The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate," said Kiriakou in an interview to be broadcast tonight on ABC News' "World News With Charles Gibson" and "Nightline."

"From that day on, he answered every question," Kiriakou said. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."

Kiriakou said the feeling in the months after the 9/11 attacks was that interrogators did not have the time to delve into the agency's bag of other interrogation tricks.

"Those tricks of the trade require a great deal of time -- much of the time -- and we didn't have that luxury. We were afraid that there was another major attack coming," he said.

Now retired, Kiriakou, who declined to use the enhanced interrogation techniques, says he has come to believe that water boarding is torture but that perhaps the circumstances warranted it.

"Like a lot of Americans, I'm involved in this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that waterboarding may be torture versus the quality of information that we often get after using the waterboarding technique," Kiriakou told ABC News. "And I struggle with it."

But he says the urgency in the wake of 9/ll led to a desire to do everything possible to get actionable intelligence.

That began with Abu Zubaydah's capture following a series of raids in which Kiriakou co-led a team of CIA officers, FBI agents, a Port Authority police officer named Tom McHale and Pakistani police, including a SWAT team.

And, in the case of Abu Zubayda, it ended with waterboarding.

"What happens if we don't waterboard a person, and we don't get that nugget of information, and there's an attack," Kiriakou said. "I would have trouble forgiving myself."

The former intelligence officer says the interrogators' activities were carefully directed from Langley, Va., each step of the way.

It's not something taken lightly. But he comes right out and says if they hadn't waterboarded we would not have been able to prevent a lot of attacks. The argument that waterboarding is ineffective seems to be wrong. They waterboarded this guy for 35 seconds and suddenly a guy who wouldn't give up any information was now giving up everything he knew. Much of it was credible intelligence.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's not something taken lightly. But he comes right out and says if they hadn't waterboarded we would not have been able to prevent a lot of attacks. The argument that waterboarding is ineffective seems to be wrong. They waterboarded this guy for 35 seconds and suddenly a guy who wouldn't give up any information was now giving up everything he knew. Much of it was credible intelligence.

What do you expect somebody that tortured people to say? That it was all for a laugh?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

I find it interesting that the particular agent who is talking about this, and he actually had this done to him, and he lasted only a few seconds.

That should be even more comforting to you...knowing that it doesn't last long and it's not prolonged fear that is invoked.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by bheld

What do you expect somebody that tortured people to say? That it was all for a laugh?

I'm not sure what point you're making. Are you suggesting that because someone involved in waterboarding their opinion isn't valid? Or are you brushing off his opinion as invalid by taking the view to the opposite extreme? I would think people with first-hand knowledge of waterboarding and their results would be the people with the most relevent opinions as to whether it's something we should be doing or not.

In any event:

Now retired, Kiriakou, who declined to use the enhanced interrogation techniques, says he has come to believe that water boarding is torture but that perhaps the circumstances warranted it.

He also says he's battling the idea. He isn't necessarily pro-waterboarding or against it. If anything he declined to use it, but he clearly says if American lives were lost because they didn't waterboard he would feel guilty. He never mentioned anything close to getting a laugh out of it or imply it was in any way a good thing.

He's basically saying:
I declined to use enchanced interrogation techniques, but others have done it and in just 35 seconds we got information out of him that prevented attacks on Americans. Then the threat of waterboarding was enough to get more and more information out of these prisoners to that prevent dozens of other attacks. If we hadn't done it and American lives were lost because of it he would feel guilty. So he's trapped in a moral conundrum over whether or not waterboarding is something we should be doing.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

That should be even more comforting to you...knowing that it doesn't last long and it's not prolonged fear that is invoked.

What would comfort me is that we wouldn't need to do this because our intelligence and diplomacy has such great ties to other countries, that we wouldn't need to torture these people in the first place.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

That should be even more comforting to you...knowing that it doesn't last long and it's not prolonged fear that is invoked.

I agree with this. That's one of the reasons I'm stuck here on this issue. Waterboarding does not subject the person to agonizing pain, nor does it have any dangerous lasting side effects. I think if when we force these people to talk they give us information that prevents dozens of attacks perhaps there's a good argument that we should force them to talk. And if we're going to be forcing them to talk I would much prefer something quick that doesn't involve extreme pain or lasting side effects.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

What would comfort me is that we wouldn't need to do this because our intelligence and diplomacy has such great ties to other countries, that we wouldn't need to torture these people in the first place.

Waterboarding has prevented dozens of attacks according to numerous CIA agents. Is there a limit on the number of American lives you would be willing to sacrifice before you thought we should be doing it? Would you be willing to sacrifice your family as you are asking others to sacrifice theirs?

[bheld]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I'm not sure what point you're making. Are you suggesting that because someone involved in waterboarding their opinion isn't valid? Or are you brushing off his opinion as invalid by taking the view to the opposite extreme? I would think people with first-hand knowledge of waterboarding and their results would be the people with the most relevent opinions as to whether it's something we should be doing or not.

In any event:


He also says he's battling the idea. He isn't necessarily pro-waterboarding or against it. If anything he declined to use it, but he clearly says if American lives were lost because they didn't waterboard he would feel guilty. He never mentioned anything close to getting a laugh out of it or imply it was in any way a good thing.

He's basically saying:
I declined to use enchanced interrogation techniques, but others have done it and in just 35 seconds we got information out of him that prevented attacks on Americans. Then the threat of waterboarding was enough to get more and more information out of these prisoners to that prevent dozens of other attacks. If we hadn't done it and American lives were lost because of it he would feel guilty. So he's trapped in a moral conundrum over whether or not waterboarding is something we should be doing.

So why were you so quick to brush off John McCain's opinion earlier?

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Waterboarding has prevented dozens of attacks according to numerous CIA agents. Is there a limit on the number of American lives you would be willing to sacrifice before you thought we should be doing it? Would you be willing to sacrifice your family as you are asking others to sacrifice theirs?

I think that it is easy to justify torture, at the cost of American lives.

But, being an American has come with collatoral damage.

My Husband works at Disneyland, which has been under the thumb of heightened security because of it's status as a potential target.
But, if my Husband were to die at Disneyland because of a terrorist attack, semi-drowning a poor muslim because of information he MIGHT have isn't going to bring him back or solve the issue that caused the terrorist attack. These problems are alot bigger than just one person we torture.

I want my country to be better than torture. How on earth has this become so acceptable? First its terrorists its ok to do this to, then who is next?

My government has at its disposal the ability to talk to other nations for problem solving, we shouldn't have to do these acts.

It's dirty. Plain and Simple.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by bheld

So why were you so quick to brush off John McCain's opinion earlier?

I brushed off his opinion earlier?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

My Husband works at Disneyland, which has been under the thumb of heightened security because of it's status as a potential target.
But, if my Husband were to die at Disneyland because of a terrorist attack, semi-drowning a poor muslim because of information he MIGHT have isn't going to bring him back or solve the issue that caused the terrorist attack. These problems are alot bigger than just one person we torture.

You're deflecting the issue. Terrorists involved with attacking America were captured and through previous interrogations informed us of more attacks that were coming, but wouldn't give us details on it. We then waterboarded and he gave the details on dozens of attacks. Waterboarding him wouldn't bring your dead husband back. I'm talking about preventing the attacks and not having him die in the first place. Is that worth 35 seconds of this guy being waterboarded? If you had to choose, which would you pick?

PS- It's not fair to answer that question after he left the toilet seat up

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I agree with this. That's one of the reasons I'm stuck here on this issue. Waterboarding does not subject the person to agonizing pain, nor does it have any dangerous lasting side effects.

Go get water torture done to you and then report back, of course there's agonizing, excruciating pain from your lungs filling with water. You think that's pleasant?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

That's a respectable position. But to test that position, if you were in the position of authority holding the masterminds of 9/11 and they warned you of a coming attack on our soil what would you do?

I wouldn't use torture. Why would this country be worth fighting for if we're putting ourselves on the same level as the repressive regime in Myanmar, those who carried out the Spanish Inquisition, and so forth?

How many little girls would you torture to stop 9/11 and save all those lives? Any?

It's a bullshit question, the ticking time bomb fallacy has the word "fallacy" in there for a reason. Life isn't 24, and we don't have a Jack Bauer running around who is always able to extract information from the key suspect who we just happen to capture immediately preceding some attack.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Go get water torture done to you and then report back, of course there's agonizing, excruciating pain from your lungs filling with water. You think that's pleasant?

It happens to me everytime I go wakeboarding.

Oh yeah, and don't forget the time I was SCUBA diving and I forgot I had my mouth on the snorkel instead of the air tank and I inhaled a big one...boy was I surprised when it wasn't air!

I guess the point is, water in your lungs doesn't hurt that bad. Don't forget, as a baby in the womb, your lungs are filled with fluid, and there is no pain.

When you are sick and you have postnasal drip, etc, you cough to get the fluid out. Let's not exaggerate the pain associated with fluid in the lungs. It's not that bad. We've all had it and never complained about the pain, just the nuisance of the gag reflex or having to cough it up. Excruciating pain is never something that comes to my mind.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Go get water torture done to you and then report back, of course there's agonizing, excruciating pain from your lungs filling with water.

Not necessarily. It doesn't have to be painful. Of every person I've heard talk about waterboarding pain is never mentioned. Could it cause severe pain? Sure, but not necessarily.