Waterboarding! Should we do it?

Question

First, waterboarding is NOT torture, because it does not cause intense pain:

Torture----------:
Pronunciation: - \ to r-ch r\
Function - noun
DEFINITION: The infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure.
Source: Merriam Webster Online Dictionary

It also will or will not determine how or soldiers are treated when captured.

In every war in which we have participated since the signing of the Geneva Accords the enemy has tortured our captured soldiers, even when the enemy was a signatory to the Accords.

Sadly, the lesson of history is that how we treat captured enemy combatants bears no relationship to how the enemy treats ours.

Amazing how many have responded with the attitude that would prevent waterboarding being used even if it would prevent the death of fellow Americans.

That technique has already resulted in the acquisition of information that was verified and prevented the death of a couple of dozen Americans.

How sad that some of us think that preventing waterboarding is better than preventing the death of fellow Americans by terrorists.

Answer 1

Waterboarding works, therefore we should continue using it because it gets results as witnessed by the use of waterboarding on Khalid Shiek Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11 and the guy who beheaded Daniel Pearl. Mohammed lasted 35 seconds before he gave up the names of over a dozen jihadists planning to attack the US. Waterboarding was too good for this monster.

If waterboarding is considered to be torture, then it is very mild torture as it leaves no permanent physical damage. Our special forces members practice waterboarding in case of capture by the enemy who also use it as a means of extracting information.

The following is torture:
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/silenced/torture.htm

With regards to the destruction of the CIA tapes showing interogation by two CIA interogators, one of the arguments for destroying the tapes was that the interogators faces were shown on the tape. That reason was not acceptable by the lib media and the Democratic party which seems hypocritical since these people made such a big stink about Valerie Plame being "outed" as a CIA operative.

Answer 2

I was "waterboarded" as part of my training in SERE school. This was done so I would know what to expect if I got "shot down" and captured in Vietnam. The VC would have done this to me to gain information about the location of our forces, and their strengths. This would be only to confirm information that they already had.

I believe, that if there was an imminent terrorist threat, and that torturing the subject in this manner would save American lives, I'm all for it. But to arbitrarilly "waterboard" someone without reason or warrant, is unjustified.

America taught the Savak (Iranian Secret Police) how to torture their prisoners. Even though publicly we do not condone torture, we send some enemy combatants to countries that do in order for them to do our dirty work.

P.S. The waterboard is a form of torture. I thought I was going to die. I don't care who you are, Navy Seal, Green Beret, whoever, once you go on it you will tell them everything afterwards.

Answer 3

Waterboarding is considered torture under the Geneva Convention. Further, the US prosecution members of the Japanese military for war crimes because their use of torture (waterboarding).

US laws and treaties to which the US is a signatory prohibit torture. And for those that will try to sell torture by saying the means justify the ends, let me remind them that Paul of Tarsus stated that one should not do evil to achieve good.

Answer 4

It's been proven empirically time and time again that torture only leads to false confessions. Most of the information you recieve is false and we waste time and resources following a fake lead. waterboarding in itself should never be done. Drowning is one of the worst feelings known to man. No one should have to experience it. And for those who claim that these men wouldn't be in custody without evidence just research extraordinary rendition and the atrocities the Bush administration have imposed under the noses of the American people. Some of these people are innocent. But they are being treated as if they were guilty. What ever happen to innocent until proven guilty. There's nothing to be gained from it, cept a bad rap from the Human Rights Organization and lower respect throughout the world.

Answer 5

This is America, We do not behave that way!!!! That is one of many things that makes us different!!! Go ahead and say this treatment is OK, and all it does is make all of us a bit smaller.

Now think about what it does to the young people who are actually the torturer's! They have to carry that with them the rest of their lives!!!

Your suppostion about how we treat enemy combatants affecting how the enemy treats our is not only fallacious, it misses the point that an enemy who fears torture is far less likely to surrender thus putting our troops in much more danger.

Geez a whole new generation of draft dodgers need some lessons in what really goes on out therre!!!!



Let's all try to remember wrong is wrong!!! No amount of justification makes it right!!

Answer 6

With all that's been said on the subject of waterboarding just this week a girl can sure get confused.

For example, we learned the other day that the CIA destroyed videotapes that revealed some of its "harshest interrogation tactics" that may have included waterboarding and other torture despite a court order.

However, it's probably OK because President Bush has said that he didn't know about the destruction of CIA videotapes and we know that President Bush would never outright lie or even mislead about his knowledge of anything important.

Moreover on the one hand, President Bush has said, “We do not torture."

So, cool, right?

On the other hand, the White House will not confirm whether or not the US waterboards suspects.

But on, uh, another hand (you need a lot of hands to follow this story), Vice President Dick Cheney remarked about allowing the CIA to use waterboarding, "It's a no-brainer for me."

So, I guess it maybe all comes down to whether or not you believe that waterboarding is torture.

Now, we know that in 1947 that the United States prosecuted a Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II. We also know that "In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognized "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record, and critics of waterboarding draw parallels between the two techniques, citing the similar usage of water on the subject."

We also know that "On September 6, 2006, the U.S. Department of Defense released a revised Army Field Manual entitled Human Intelligence Collector Operations that prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel. The revised manual applies only to U.S. military personnel, and as such does not apply to the practices of the CIA. However, under international law, violators of the laws of war are criminally liable under the command responsibility, and could still be prosecuted for war crimes."

This would all seem to say that waterboarding is, indeed, torture.

But, wait! Apparently waterboarding is not torture.

How do I know this?

Because Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) has told us so:


GWEN IFILL: I just would like to -- but do you think that waterboarding, as I described it, constitutes torture?

SEN. KIT BOND: There are different ways of doing it. It's like swimming, freestyle,
backstroke. The waterboarding could be used almost to define some of the techniques that our trainees are put through, but that's beside the point. It's not being used.
Now you know: the US does not torture (even if it occasionally must destroy tapes of torture); the US does not waterboard (except when it does); and, anyway, waterboarding is not torture (except when it is).

Answer 7

Not painful? Not torture? Wow. Why did the U.S. consider waterboarding a war crime when it was practiced on captured U.S. soldiers by the Japanese in WWII? Surely there are better ways to gather intelligence since experts have determined that information gathered from torture victims is unreliable since the victim will break down and say whatever the interrogator wants him/her to say.

Answer 8

I've been there. So has John McCain. Both of us despise waterboarding, and those who seek to justify it.

War is a contest of wills, more than a contest to prevent casualties. Sadly, casualties are a measure of national will. In my opinion using torture to prevent casualties sacrifices the national honor in an attempt to reduce the challenge to national will.

Answer 9

Lets see if no water boarding>? No wire taps> No spying>NO ruff talk>No nude girly pictures>How about flowers>Nice talk>& our rights to our court system>The liberals idea to security> Were going to need a lot of body bags> for this stupity>And the liberals want to take away out 2 ammendment>right to bear arms>The terroirts are laughing there self to death> Hoping the DEM'S are elected into office>with the illegals flooding in and the Dem's wanting amnesty>what USA citizens would want this travesty>But there are>Scary>

Answer 10

Fact: water boarding has been deemed to be torture as far back as when the papacy used it during the Spanish Inquisition. Maybe you should not be so myopic as to only look up "torture", if you had looked up "water boarding" you would have found the excerpt below.
When we willingly accept actions done to another that we would find totally unacceptable to be done to ourselves, it we are more diminished because of it than is our victim.