I am going to blow a huge hole in the “waterboarding is torture” theory. For starters, here are three facts:
1. A grand total of three terrorists were waterboarded. Not one of them has died as a result.
2. Also, not one of them received any permanent physical harm as a result of being waterboarded.
3. With the information we received, we were able to find, and kill, Osama bin Laden. Yes, I give Obama partial credit for that. It was a gutsy decision, but it was still because of the interrogations we carried out.
If that’s not enough for you, consider this: there are no fewer than two cases where an American was tortured. They both died as a result.
Case No. 1: Daniel Pearl, an American reporter, was captured by terrorists and beheaded in a very slow and painful way.
Case No. 2: Terry Schiavo, who was in a vegetable-like state for several years, was taken off her feeding tube in 2005. This was a demand from her husband. She essentially starved to death. It took her two weeks to die. Two weeks!
That, my friends, is real torture. Waterboarding is not.
I double dare any liberal to prove me wrong.
Spencer Anderson
Mesa
Slabside posted at 2:51 pm on Tue, May 1, 2012.
Spencer, I agree with you 110%. The liberals here will not prove you wrong. They will ridicule you and call you names. It's the lib way.
Arizona Willie posted at 4:12 pm on Tue, May 1, 2012.
Actually they DIDN'T find Bin Lauden because of torture. They followed his courier to Bin Lauden's lair.
In point of FACT ( which right wingers hate ) they didn't prevent one single act of terrorism by torturing.
chatmandu002 posted at 4:20 pm on Tue, May 1, 2012.
Wait.... Wait.... Wait for it, some liberal/progressive will use the "humane" word. LOL
Slabside posted at 4:23 pm on Tue, May 1, 2012.
"In point of FACT ( which right wingers hate ) they didn't prevent one single act of terrorism by torturing."
Of course you can prove this yes?
Leon Ceniceros posted at 5:46 pm on Tue, May 1, 2012.
Abu Ahmed Al-Kuwaiti was Osama bin-Laden courier. Al-Kuwaiti's discovery led to the surveillance and killing of Osama bin-Laden.
The water-boarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed by President George Walker Bush's Administration led to the naming of Abu Ahmed Al-Kuwaiti as Osama bin-Laden's ...."COURIER"......and his surveillance which led the Seals to bin-Laden's Compound in Pakistan.
Let the Liberals, the Progressives and the Democrats tell the American Public that Osama bin-Laden's ..."HIDE-OUT"....came to Barack Hussein Obama in a dream on the 14th Hole of the Fort Belvoir, Virginia, Golf Course.....all they want......BUSH'S WATER-BOARDING DID THE TRICK.......NOT WHEN OBAMA WAS MAKING...."BOGIES"....ON THE GOLF COURSE........LOL.
Dale Whiting posted at 10:34 pm on Tue, May 1, 2012.
I certainly am no expert on what is and what is not torture. But when the Bush Administration went to such lengths to establish grounds to use water boarding, and when such adversarily methods of treating prisoners has been proven ineffective for decades if not for centuries, something tells me that water boarding is torture. And the international concensus has been that water boarding is torture and that torture is a waste of time.
The world if full of fools and those who advocate water boarding prove this.
Slabside posted at 1:05 am on Wed, May 2, 2012.
Like I said Spencer, the Libs will start name calling. Captain Neo-Con proves this time and time again. [wink]
mvccd1000 posted at 7:26 am on Wed, May 2, 2012.
Spencer, why does it take a liberal to prove you wrong? Shiavo was brain dead. Since torture is generally considered to consist of mental and physical anguish, please explain to the class how a brain dead body can be tortured?
As for waterboarding, as anyone who's been through SERE training in the military. It's no fun, but it won't kill you. If it provides valuable information to protect our national interests, I say go for it.
You're 1 for 2.
CSalafia posted at 11:02 am on Wed, May 2, 2012.
Waterboarding is torture and it is illegal.
If it weren't, then why has the US prosecuted people for waterboarding American soldiers in the past?
The implication in the letter is that of "It's ok when we do it".
Slabside posted at 12:51 pm on Wed, May 2, 2012.
@ Chris Salafia, "The implication in the letter is that of "It's ok when we do it"."
I'm sure you'd be ok with it if it saved someone you loved you libtool.
CSalafia posted at 12:57 pm on Wed, May 2, 2012.
Nope. Waterboarding is immoral, inhumane, and illegal.
Unlike some, I won't sacrifice my ethics and morals for some imaginary "ticking time bomb" scenario/logical fallacy.
openureyes posted at 1:23 pm on Wed, May 2, 2012.
1) "Facts" 1 & 2 presented by Mr. Anderson have no bearing on whether what the detainees underwent was torture.
2) "Fact" 3 is actually pretty murky. John McCain says CIA director Leon Panetta told him that waterboarding KSM did not yield the info about Bin Laden's courier, but that routine, non-enhanced interrogation did a few years later. See http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/12/news/la-pn-mccain-bin-laden-20110512
Besides that "Fact" 3 doesn't prove that waterboarding isn't torture - just that Mr. Anderson believes it worked.
Mr. Anderson includes one verifiable example of torture ending in death, as if that proves it was torture, or negates the many examples where torture did not end in death. Heck, John McCain almost got to be POTUS!
There are some pretty huge holes in your huge-hole-blowing letter, sir.
mrconservative posted at 1:40 pm on Wed, May 2, 2012.
It doesn’t matter if Schiavo was brain dead. She still starved to death. That’s by far more torturous than water boarding.
mrconservative posted at 1:42 pm on Wed, May 2, 2012.
Mr. Whiting, you are a Christian, just like me. If one of your loved ones were captured by terrorists, would you not go to great lengths to get them back?
Dale Whiting posted at 5:01 pm on Wed, May 2, 2012.
mrconservative,
The short answer is an absolute and unequivocal NO. I would not condone water boarding. I would oppose it.
Pease define "great lengths." Am I to assume you suggest I condone the use of water boarding? If so, then know that because water boarding is one of those adversarial forms of questioning [forget calling it torture - that's not relevant to achieving the goal you suggest], a form of questions with proven ineffectiveness, I would advocate for congenial questioning.
Now the question is, "where a detainee is a hardened advocate of whatever movement has my family in custody, will water boarding prove to be effective where congenial methods likely would not?" The answer is still no. Water boarding, like all other forms of "harsh" interrogation techniques, only motivates the detainee to act to stop the mistreatment, not to turn away from his former allegiances and adopt new ones. Where the objective is to get good information, the methods used must address changing the mind of the detainee from being a warrior for his former cause, not necessarily to join our cause, but to help him to see us in a new light. And water boarding does just the opposite. It reaffirms us in the original light of being the bad guys.
Got this yet?
Whether or not water boarding is an interrogation technique, it is a technique that hardens detainees and keeps them from telling us what we want to know.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:08 pm on Wed, May 2, 2012.
P.S. Spender,
Terry Schiavo was not tortured. She was brain dead and had been for years. And it takes a conscious mind to commit torture.
Abstract01 posted at 1:10 am on Thu, May 3, 2012.
It may be true that these terrorists suffered no physical harm after experiencing waterboarding, but what about their mental and emotional capacities? Surely this technique is not humane!!
But wait, aren't these the ones who convince their emotionally and mentally challenged compatriots to strap explosives to their own bodies?
I would say there is no emotional health to worry about, no? They are already twisted.
And as for mental capacities, if those are reduced, what have we lost???
PS, Dale, What is a conscious mind? are you suggesting that if an animal cannot reason, it cannot torture or be tortured?
Dale Whiting posted at 2:20 am on Thu, May 3, 2012.
Abstract01,
Don't assume, as you do, that these nut cases give a darn about inhumanity or harm to mental or empotional capacities. Focus on the total uselessness of waterboarding. Why we have one commenter who maintains that water boarding disclosed the identity of bin Laden's courier. Actually that was not disclosed during or just before or just after water boarding. And the interrogator has admitted it. No cause and effect whatsoever!
And don't call water boarding torture. That just broadens the perspective on the issue at hand, giving more grounds to avoid addressing the truth. Water boarding is senseless and totally unproductive.
Dale Whiting posted at 2:21 am on Thu, May 3, 2012.
Excuse the typos. I typing in the dark with a keyboard lighted by the glow of the monitor.
Rational Human posted at 7:55 am on Thu, May 3, 2012.
"Unlike some, I won't sacrifice my ethics and morals for some imaginary "ticking time bomb" scenario/logical fallacy." so says CSalafia. What a brave soldier he must be. Or has he ever served in our military? In any case, he can stand behind his moral indignation while our brave men and women put their lives on the line so he can continue to sit back and stand by his moral indignation. What a joke.
Jap soldiers who committed water boarding on our POW's were hung. Having said that, I don't care if the torture a million terrorists if it saves even one single American.
CSalafia posted at 11:37 am on Thu, May 3, 2012.
Dear Rational,
Yes, I have served. US Navy.
Thanks for proving my point. With your last sentence, you take the position of "It's ok when we do it", which is what those without ethics or morals say.
VofReason posted at 12:37 pm on Thu, May 3, 2012.
Ok no waterboarding. Put them in a room with Dale or make them read his blowhard lengthy musings. That should get them to give up the goods.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 5:07 pm on Thu, May 3, 2012.
Khalid Sheik Mohammed just would chose ...."WATER BOARDING"....every time. It's more humane than to have to have the comments of our Liberal, Progressive, Socialist, Commie Wanna-Be Democrats..........READ TO HIM....AD NASEUM......[wink]
Rational Human posted at 5:09 pm on Thu, May 3, 2012.
LOL very good idea VofReason, but I'm afraid that may get in the way of CSalafia's morals and ethics concerning immoral, unethical murdering terrorists that would think nothing of slowing carving his head off.
mrconservative posted at 10:22 pm on Thu, May 3, 2012.
Dale Whiting
If water boarding is torture, then so is abortion.
mrconservative posted at 10:25 pm on Thu, May 3, 2012.
One more thing, Dale Whiting,
Sure, Schiavo was brain dead, but she still starved to death. Spencer is 100% correct.
Abortion kills, water boarding does not.
mvccd1000 posted at 11:19 pm on Thu, May 3, 2012.
CSalafia, if you served in the Navy then surely you're aware that many of your shipmates underwent waterboarding during SERE training. It's ok to use this activity as a training technique, but not as an interrogation technique?
sockratties posted at 8:19 am on Fri, May 4, 2012.
Spenser:
Before you can blow a hole in the “waterboarding is torture” theory you need to define torture. The most common definition stated various ways in on-line dictionaries is “the act of injuring someone or making someone suffer in an effort to force that person to do or say what you want to be done or said.” That sounds like a reasonable definition to me.
Your point #1: rather or not anyone died from waterboarding is irrelevant.
point #2: permanent physical harm is not part of the definition.
#3: the usefulness of the information received does not matter in determining if it is torture although it may or may not support justification.
Case #1: Daniel Pearl was executed by terrorists as a spectacle for effect. It was savage, ruthless and brutal. It was not done to force Mr. Pearl to do or say something. It does not meet the definition of torture.
Case #2: Terry Schiavo was deprived of nourishment and died. It is assumed she was brain-dead. She was not being coerced to do or say something as a result of her starvation. That is not torture.
The experts are still bickering about the effectiveness of waterboarding. By definition it does make the victim suffer in an effort to force him or her do or say that the waterboarder wants, so it does qualify as torture. It can be called “enhanced interrogation” but it’s still torture. Euphemisms don’t change facts.
You can try to make the liberal/conservative argument but you first need to separate your own bias and justifications. You can have your own opinions but you can’t have your own facts. You have mixed execution, torture, and the difficult decision of a husband. If you can’t see the differences you can’t determine where to draw the line.
The real questions should be 1) is it okay to use “enhanced interrogation” techniques? 2) if so, are these techniques effective? 3) what is the downside if we do? 4) is there a moral component involved?
mrconservative posted at 1:29 pm on Fri, May 4, 2012.
Excuse me, sockratties,
Terry Schiavo STARVED. What is it about that that you do not understand. If someone is deliberately starrved to death, THAT is torture. I don't give care what you say. Pearl was beheaded slowly. THAT is torture. Accept the facts.
mrconservative posted at 6:39 pm on Sat, May 5, 2012.
It doesn't really matter to me if anyone disagrees with Mr. Anderson. Whether we torture the terrorists or not, they will, one way or another, get what's coming to them - a whole LOT of hell.
Rational Human posted at 8:45 am on Sun, May 6, 2012.
Terry Schiavo STARVED only because you people wont allow for a kinder form of euthanasia. We treat our dogs and cats better than we treat our own.
mrconservative posted at 10:16 pm on Sun, May 6, 2012.
Rational Human,
You're 100% right. It would have been kinder to give Terry a lethal injection.
Dale Whiting posted at 7:00 am on Mon, May 7, 2012.
So gang,
Do we have a consensus yet? We all know what waterboarding is. Some call it torture, others do not. But regardless, if waterboarding is some sort of "enhanced interrogation technique" don't the experts all say that where subjects will say anything to stop it's application [likely why some call it torture] that the results produced are less than reliable?
Whether or not one sees waterboarding as torture, whether or not one would apply it as retrobution, waterboarding is a lousy way of conducting interrogation, a means which has lowered our esteme in the eyes of many of our allies. So why are we doing it? Answer: Retrobution! From the proceeding comments this seems pretty clear.
mrconservative posted at 1:19 pm on Mon, May 7, 2012.
If we don't water board them, then how do we get the information we need? I suppose Dale and other libs would ask nicely. They'd be laughed at. That's about as effective as giving a dog a treat would stop it from digging.
I'm open for other ideas, if you can think of any.
Dale Whiting posted at 12:05 pm on Tue, May 8, 2012.
mrconservative,
First, I am not a liberal. Second, all interrogation experts agree that harsh methods like waterboarding do not produce reliable information. All they produce is lies designed to stop the harsh treatment. It takes time to verify that what was revealed were lies.
I know some of you Neocons out there think that waterboarding produced the lead which produced the identity of bin Laden's courier. That has been denied by the reliable sources in our government. It just ain't so.
And obviously you have never trained a dog not to dig. First you have to find out why he is digging, then you need to show him that digging is fruitless. Waterboarding only confirms in the minds of dedicated terrorist that we are deserving of becoming the objects of their terror. Waterboarding both produces unreliable information and produces more terrorists.
But that in your drooling mouths and chew on it!
mrconservative posted at 10:37 pm on Sat, May 12, 2012.
First of all, you're so-called "interrogation experts" don't know diddly-squat about interrogating.They weren't the ones doing the interrogating! So what do they know?
Secondly, you've yet to provide me with an alternative to water boarding. If we didn't get the information about bin Laden's location via water boarding, then how did we get it? Mmmmmm?
And thirdly, did you not read Mr. Anderson's letter? There are methods far worse than water boarding. We could have slowly cut off their limbs. Not that they don't deserve it.
Bottom line, terrorists don't deserve habious corpus (pardon the spelling if it's wrong). They don't deserve rights under the Geneva Convention. They don't deserve ANYTHING! So why should we treat them kindly? They have proven again and again that they don't care for human life.