What do you think of waterboarding-Bush is for it, Congress mixed? What if it's then used on US soldiers?

Question

Waterboarding has a long history, it was used in the Spanish Inquisition.
-Regimes like the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia have used it.
-In some versions, prisoners are strapped to a board, their faces covered with cloth or cellophane, and water is poured over their mouths to stimulate drowning; in others, they are dunked head-first into water.
-The US has used it on al-Qaida suspects.
-Our present CIA Director Michael Hayden thinks the CIA should be able to use it, since they're so well trained
-Vice President Cheney said it's worth using it to save lives. He doesn't consider it torture.
-Human Rights Groups condemn it.

Now Congress is set up to fight Bush over it, since he's for it. Does the end really justify the means? If we use it, why can't other countries and regimes justify their use of it on US soldiers? Does the US want to use an interrogation technique many other countries consider torture? UK Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2223150,00.html

I don't believe might makes right, nor do I think much of the childish excuses such as "they do it too" or "they are worse than us" or "they are meaner than us". When you stoop to the tactics of torturers, no matter how "good" your cause, no matter how "bad" your enemy is, excuses don't cut it, you're a torturer. I will fight for democracy, but not for torture.

Answer 1

I think its embarassing that the United States of America is even having a discussion on which types of torture are acceptable...... At one time the US was looked at as being on the moral high ground when it came to human rights.....we have lost most of that prestige

Answer 2

properly that's no longer precisely what Bush vetoed.. He vetoed making the army instruction manual mandatory for the CIA. waterboarding is barely between the recommendations that would desire to have been banned. it might even have banned different interrogation recommendations that are interior the Geneva convention. The highlighting of waterboarding is merely generic politics because of the fact everybody is against waterboarding and hides what the genuine legislations entailed. Get knowledgeable people and don't in uncomplicated terms study the headlines

Answer 3

The thin is this: U.S. Soldiers aren't water-boarded...no, they're usually threatened with beheading and other much-worse atrocities.

Now, I'm not a Bush fan, but torture can have a justifiable use. Do I think it should be controlled? absolutely! Do I think others should be allowed to use water-boarding? That's kind of a nonsesne question because the typical U.S. enemy rejects anything to do with Geneva anyways... For example, they tend to drag U.S. Marines through crowded streets while onlookers spit, throw rocks, bottles, trash and rather take rather "affectionate" swats at them with sticks.

Another tactic that typical enemies of the U.S. uses is the videotaped beheading of Americans and American alies.

So, to answer your question? I think wateroarding is horrible, but at times it is important, especialy if the information gained is valuable enough to find the nuclear explosives the enemies may have or find the hide-outs of those rather "wonderfully gentle" ececutioners with the large serrated blades.

But don't worry, even as much as I dislike Bush, I dislike people who want to protect those who want to see every American dead even more...

Answer 4

Torture is always wrong. This is one of the few times I say John McCain is 100% correct.

We are just exposing future generations of millions of US troops to torture in foreign lands. At the hands of foreign countries, under the guise of "fighting terrorism" we will see US soldiers being, sleep deprived, starved, sexually assaulted, waterboard, stored in near freezing temperatures and shocked.

What happened to McCain was wrong. No matter what his captors say. Not because he was an American, but because he was a human being.

Answer 5

It has only been used three (3) times by the US since 9-11 and good information was found out and lives were saved. You cannot be nice to terrorists and if your loved ones were in danger and you had someone who knew what was going to happen you would do something to get the answers you need. I am not for torture and water boarding is not like cutting off fingers or disfiguring someone. If it were my loved ones, I would not be so nice. I am also a Nam vet and that was a war and was covered by the Geneva Convention. Terrorist do not merit the same protections or deserve any rights. Peace

Answer 6

Well since no enemy the US has ever fought against, has abided by the geneva convention.

And I mean no enemy ever.

Your point is moot.

Every enemy the US has ever fought against has tortured US military personal captured.

Real torture, not the loud music, stress positions that people are trying to call torture nowadays.

Answer 7

Its fairly well-reported that it is used on American servicemen during training. I think some of the soldiers captured in Iraq (who were later tortured, castrated, and beheaded) would have welcomed some water-boarding.

That doesn't make it right, of course, but I think your question is irrelevant. The bigger question is should the US take the moral high ground regardless of what the enemy does?

Yes.

Answer 8

I feel pretty safe in saying that "most Americans" are against this kind of torture.

There has been a recent faction of people who want to marry our dislike of torture to the anti-war cause... but the two are not necessarily the same.

John McCain is not anti-war but he is not in favor of this torture practice either.

Answer 9

Neo-cons who never served in the military are all for torture. Republican patriots like John McCain and Chuck Hagel are against it.

This is a photo of a pro-torture neo-con who never served.

Answer 10

Waterboarding is fine. Tearing off each toenail with a steaming hot set of pliers after bashing every joint in the body however, is not.