If it's not torture, why don't US police use waterboarding to interrogate suspects in run-of-the-mill crimes?

Question

Is it because it elicits incorrect information from people who will say anything to make the, um, uh, "interrogation" stop?

Lots of non-answers so far...

Answer 1

Police do not do this because it is torture.

Torture has NEVER been proven to be a reliable way to get a person to tell you something they do not want to, in fact a person will say anything you want to get you to stop torturing them so torture is actually counter productive to gathering information from a person.

All scientific studies have said this, torture is simply that, making some one suffer so you can get sick enjoyment from it, it does not serve any higher purpose like intelligence gathering.

Answer 2

Because Terrorism is not a "run-of-the-mill" crime. Is it?

I am not sure that the average jaywalker would have information that could save the lives of hundreds of others. To compare a B and E suspect to a terror suspect is like comparing a common cold to the Ebola Virus.

You say that it extracts "incorrect information", which is true. But what you don't say is that sometimes, it extracts information about impending attacks, terror group leadership, and the locations of other terrorists.

Waterboarding will not kill, or even injure someone. It just makes them very, very uncomfortable. Five minutes after being water-boarded, the prisoner is completely fine.

Everybody has a breaking point, and if an occasional dunk in the water helps prevent attacks like those seen in London, Madrid, Chechnya, or New York, or attacks that were thwarted like the West Coast Airliner Plot, the East Coast Airliner Plot, the Jose Padilla Plot, the 2004 U.K. Urban Targets Plot, the 2003 Karachi Plot, the Heathrow Airport Plot, the 2004 U.K. Plot, the 2002 Arabian Gulf Shipping Plot, the 2002 Strait of Hormuz Plot, the 2003 Tourist Site Plot, the Danish Bomb Plot, the German Bomb Plot, and the list goes on and on......

I am OK with the waterboarding of terror suspects because it leads to the prevention of attacks, even if a few innocent people are made to feel very uncomfortable for a while.

Like I said, 5 minutes later they are fine.

Answer 3

You are only partly correct.

Torture is unreliable when used to get confessions for past crimes. As you said, it will often lead to false confessions just to end the pain.

However, it is very effective at gathering verifiable information, such as locations of bombs and bases. The morality of using such methods are what is in question.

Also, DOES water boarding constitute as torture? My understanding is that for a method to be considered torture, physical harm must be rendered.

Convincing someone that they might drown will cause no physical harm, although psychological harm may be inflicted.

This question boils down to whether or not psychological harm constitutes torture, and if so where do we draw the line. Solitary confinement causes stress. Should it be outlawed as well?

Answer 4

Because coerced confessions are inadmissable in court. Beyond that, it's a crime for police to assault "suspects," and yes, waterboarding constitutes a form of assault.

Answer 5

Nah, let's go all the way and be-head them. Seriously, do run of the mill crimes threaten our whole country you think? Some do. like drug dealing, and for that I would approve of the tactic to get the suppliers.

Answer 6

Because America citizens are afforded constitutional rights and foreign combatants are not.

Answer 7

Because statements have to be made freely and voluntarily in order to be admissible in court.

Answer 8

not practical in "run of the mill" crimes.

Answer 9

BECAUSE OF THINGS LIKE THE ACLU, THE BILL OF RIGHTS, (CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT)

Answer 10

it is not torture but it is extreme, if there are lives in danger then they should use it.