Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: I would "bring back waterboarding" [PrinceMax] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
PrinceMax wrote:
One can be against torture on moral grounds yet also acknowledge it's efficacy.

Where do you draw the line. For example, capturing a wanted guy's family and holding them hostage might be effective. Does that make it ok? Would it be ok to tortures family members in order to make someone talk?
Quote Reply
Re: I would "bring back waterboarding" [FishyJoe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
FishyJoe wrote:
PrinceMax wrote:
One can be against torture on moral grounds yet also acknowledge it's efficacy.


Where do you draw the line. For example, capturing a wanted guy's family and holding them hostage might be effective. Does that make it ok? Would it be ok to tortures family members in order to make someone talk?

Trump said he was for it (going after the families of terrorists).

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: I would "bring back waterboarding" [j p o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
j p o wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
M~ wrote:
I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone in this day and age thinks torture is effective for anything other than inflicting emotional and physical pain on a subject.


Torture is taking a US military TA-312 phone and running the bare-wire ends from it to a captured enemy's testicles and then cranking the phone, sending an electrical charge down the wires, in order to get him to talk.

The Pakistanis torture men and women by lowering them down onto a rounded-end steel rod so that the rod slides into the rectum, and then very slowly lowering them further still, all the while telling them it's in their best interests to talk. The world is full of torture techniques employed by governments and militias and the like. Not sure that waterboarding actually constitutes "torture" in the real sense, though I agree on it being classified as "enhanced interrogation."

Whether waterboarding actually works or not is also up for debate. Some say it does and others maintain it doesn't. From what I understand, interrogators had to waterboard Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the operational planner behind the 9/11 attacks, something like 186 (or 156, I forget which) times before he finally spilled his secrets. Other detainees proven to have participated in the 9/11 planning and attack or support phases cracked after only a single session or 2 or 3 of them.

US military personnel being trained in survival, evasion, resistance and escape (SERE) are also subjected to a technique that's similar to waterboarding, by the way.

Whether waterboarding is actual torture or not appears to be a matter of one's ideology, it seems to me.


About that, https://www.newyorker.com/...-sheikh-mohammed-cia

Here are some quotations from C.I.A. records filed during Mohammed’s interrogation:
“Overall view seems to be” that waterboarding “is not working in gaining KSM[’s] compliance,” one officer wrote.
“Against KSM it has proven ineffective,” the deputy chief of the C.I.A. interrogation program wrote. “The potential for physical harm is far greater with the waterboard than with the other techniques, bringing into question the issue of risk vs. gain.”
“We seem to have lost ground,” the deputy chief continued, writing that the practice “may poison the well.”
An official C.I.A. assessment of the interrogations concluded that Mohammed managed to conceal his most valuable information, despite being tortured. (The report was titled “Precious Truths, Surrounded by a Bodyguard of Lies.”) Another report, written after the waterboarding sessions had ended, said that interrogators “remain[ed] highly suspicious that KSM is withholding, exaggerating, misdirecting, or outright fabricating information” on weapons of mass destruction. “Pretend cooperation,’’ another report said. “May never be forthcoming or honest,” said another.

KSM may not have had 183 waterboarding sessions as it turns out. Only one of the three Gitmo detainees (KSM, Abu Zubaida and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri) to have been waterboarded actually gave in after a few waterboarding events (al-Nashiri, at 3 times). The story of the waterboarding of these Gitmo detainees is a bit more complicated than it seems. Also, WaPo says there are credible accounts of others who may have been waterboarded.

As to efficacy, the technique (or torture session, for those on this thread having the vapors over these gentlemen being waterboarded) may or may not be effective, depending on the person and on the training in resisting interrogation the person may have received. But that was why it was only one of numerous interrogation techniques (torture techniques) available to interrogators at the time. Think of these techniques as almost being a salad bar, with interrogators picking and choosing until they found just the right combination of ingredients to make the perfect salad. (Is this a harsh analogy? No doubt, and I freely admit that.)

We also know John McCain thinks waterboarding is torture, so there's that. On the other hand, Medal of Honor recipients, the late (Air Force colonel, retired) Leo Thorsness and the late (Air Force colonel, retired) Bud Day, awarded their Medals of Honor for service in Vietnam, didn't believe it was torture. They both spent nearly 6 years as prisoners of war in various camps in and around the Hanoi, North Vietnam area and Day once shared a cell with McCain. Along with McCain, both experienced severe and prolonged torture at the hands of their captors, giving them a perspective on it that none of us, thankfully, have ever been forced to gain.

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: I would "bring back waterboarding" [FishyJoe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That's a moral calculation you'd have to make. Take the ticking time bomb scenario. I'm morally good with torture in that instance.
Quote Reply
Re: I would "bring back waterboarding" [PrinceMax] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
PrinceMax wrote:
That's a moral calculation you'd have to make. Take the ticking time bomb scenario. I'm morally good with torture in that instance.


There are legal mechanisms for rare situations like that. The President has broad authority to do whatever it takes in the interest of national security. With a specific directive tied to a specific event. The problem post-9/11 was that emergency directives designed for "clear and present danger" gradually became mainstream daily practice for situations with no immediate urgency. Finding OBL, for example, might have been super important. But it's not a literal ticking bomb.
Quote Reply
Re: I would "bring back waterboarding" [PrinceMax] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
PrinceMax wrote:
That's a moral calculation you'd have to make. Take the ticking time bomb scenario. I'm morally good with torture in that instance.

Has there ever been the time bomb situation? It happens a lot in the movies, in real life maybe it happens but it's got to pretty rare. Maybe I would be ok with it if the President had to issue a written on the record authorization. That way there would be direct accountability.
Quote Reply
Re: I would "bring back waterboarding" [jwbeuk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jwbeuk wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
Trump espoused his desire to bring "back waterboarding" in one of the debates during his campaign.

Now he's named Gina Haspel as CIA director. She was in charge of the rendition site in Thailand that waterboarded a number of prisoners. According to the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Zubaydah's treatment was particularly harsh, and was waterboarded 83 times... "at one point, he became non-responsive, with water bubbling up from his lungs. Doctors had to revive him. During his confinement, Zubaydah lost sight in his left eye."

https://www.newyorker.com/...iefs-black-site-past

The US executed Japanese soldiers for crimes that included waterboarding.

Her Senate confirmation hearing could be interesting.


Is this the daily outrage thing? What are you folks going to do if that guy wins a second term? ;-)


Yes, yes it is. It helps them sleep better at night, and of course diverts from Hillary's latest moronic, crazy ramblings in India which the Kay's of the world likely agree with.

On the subject of trying to divert attention...

Last I checked, Hillary is still not president, nor does she hold any public office and is therefore pretty much irrelevant.

On the other hand, the woman in question is up for the post of CIA director, did run a black site that waterboarded and did in fact destroy evidence of it even though congress ordered it to be preserved.

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava
Quote Reply
Re: I would "bring back waterboarding" [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
big kahuna wrote:
j p o wrote:
big kahuna wrote:


Whether waterboarding is actual torture or not appears to be a matter of one's ideology, it seems to me.


Whether one was willing to ignore that waterboarding has been considered a form of torture since the Spanish Inquisition appears to be a matter of whether one wanted to make excuses for a particular administration, it seems to me.

The willingness to condone torture tells me an awful lot about the ideology of a person. Such as whether or not they possess basic human qualities.


Waterboarding was part of the Army's field manual for interrogation for a long time. It's only relatively recently that we've seen this shift to considering the technique to be torture. Maybe that's because we've all become more enlightened or maybe it's for ideological reasons. Or a bit of both.

Honest question. Was it in the field manual as in, "here is how you waterboard somebody"? Or was it in the field manual as in, "this may happen to you if you're captured. be prepared and here is how to cope."? Because depending on the context it is two VERY different things. I know a guy who became a F-15 WSO and almost quit the airforce after his SERE training. My understanding is that in SERE training you are exposed to techniques that "we" aren't allowed to use on enemy soldiers. Is that incorrect?

And as somebody mentioned we punished (I believe executed) Japanese soldiers for waterboarding in WWII.

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava
Quote Reply
Re: I would "bring back waterboarding" [nslckevin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
nslckevin wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
j p o wrote:
big kahuna wrote:


Whether waterboarding is actual torture or not appears to be a matter of one's ideology, it seems to me.


Whether one was willing to ignore that waterboarding has been considered a form of torture since the Spanish Inquisition appears to be a matter of whether one wanted to make excuses for a particular administration, it seems to me.

The willingness to condone torture tells me an awful lot about the ideology of a person. Such as whether or not they possess basic human qualities.


Waterboarding was part of the Army's field manual for interrogation for a long time. It's only relatively recently that we've seen this shift to considering the technique to be torture. Maybe that's because we've all become more enlightened or maybe it's for ideological reasons. Or a bit of both.


Honest question. Was it in the field manual as in, "here is how you waterboard somebody"? Or was it in the field manual as in, "this may happen to you if you're captured. be prepared and here is how to cope."? Because depending on the context it is two VERY different things. I know a guy who became a F-15 WSO and almost quit the airforce after his SERE training. My understanding is that in SERE training you are exposed to techniques that "we" aren't allowed to use on enemy soldiers. Is that incorrect?

And as somebody mentioned we punished (I believe executed) Japanese soldiers for waterboarding in WWII.

I went through USAF SERE training in 1973, where we "benefitted" from the experiences of the recently released Vietnam War POWs. While we faced some sadistic stuff, waterboarding was not part of the program.

Generally, once someone reaches their breaking point, they'll say anything to avoid additional torture. Often times, people just make stuff up. The information gained via torture can be worse than worthless.

At any rate, we (the US military) would prefer to hold the higher moral ground when it comes to how we treat prisoners I was never a POW, but it would have sucked to think that if I had been shot down and captured the enemy could justify waterboarding me and the other US personnel "Because your own President says it's OK." In recent wars, you can find plenty to complain about when it comes to the Japanese, N. Koreans, and N. Vietnamese, but that doesn't mean we need to lower ourselves to their standards. The rest of the world is watching.

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.
Quote Reply
Re: I would "bring back waterboarding" [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
big kahuna wrote:
j p o wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
M~ wrote:
I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone in this day and age thinks torture is effective for anything other than inflicting emotional and physical pain on a subject.


Torture is taking a US military TA-312 phone and running the bare-wire ends from it to a captured enemy's testicles and then cranking the phone, sending an electrical charge down the wires, in order to get him to talk.

The Pakistanis torture men and women by lowering them down onto a rounded-end steel rod so that the rod slides into the rectum, and then very slowly lowering them further still, all the while telling them it's in their best interests to talk. The world is full of torture techniques employed by governments and militias and the like. Not sure that waterboarding actually constitutes "torture" in the real sense, though I agree on it being classified as "enhanced interrogation."

Whether waterboarding actually works or not is also up for debate. Some say it does and others maintain it doesn't. From what I understand, interrogators had to waterboard Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the operational planner behind the 9/11 attacks, something like 186 (or 156, I forget which) times before he finally spilled his secrets. Other detainees proven to have participated in the 9/11 planning and attack or support phases cracked after only a single session or 2 or 3 of them.

US military personnel being trained in survival, evasion, resistance and escape (SERE) are also subjected to a technique that's similar to waterboarding, by the way.

Whether waterboarding is actual torture or not appears to be a matter of one's ideology, it seems to me.


About that, https://www.newyorker.com/...-sheikh-mohammed-cia

Here are some quotations from C.I.A. records filed during Mohammed’s interrogation:
“Overall view seems to be” that waterboarding “is not working in gaining KSM[’s] compliance,” one officer wrote.
“Against KSM it has proven ineffective,” the deputy chief of the C.I.A. interrogation program wrote. “The potential for physical harm is far greater with the waterboard than with the other techniques, bringing into question the issue of risk vs. gain.”
“We seem to have lost ground,” the deputy chief continued, writing that the practice “may poison the well.”
An official C.I.A. assessment of the interrogations concluded that Mohammed managed to conceal his most valuable information, despite being tortured. (The report was titled “Precious Truths, Surrounded by a Bodyguard of Lies.”) Another report, written after the waterboarding sessions had ended, said that interrogators “remain[ed] highly suspicious that KSM is withholding, exaggerating, misdirecting, or outright fabricating information” on weapons of mass destruction. “Pretend cooperation,’’ another report said. “May never be forthcoming or honest,” said another.


KSM may not have had 183 waterboarding sessions as it turns out. Only one of the three Gitmo detainees (KSM, Abu Zubaida and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri) to have been waterboarded actually gave in after a few waterboarding events (al-Nashiri, at 3 times). The story of the waterboarding of these Gitmo detainees is a bit more complicated than it seems. Also, WaPo says there are credible accounts of others who may have been waterboarded.

As to efficacy, the technique (or torture session, for those on this thread having the vapors over these gentlemen being waterboarded) may or may not be effective, depending on the person and on the training in resisting interrogation the person may have received. But that was why it was only one of numerous interrogation techniques (torture techniques) available to interrogators at the time. Think of these techniques as almost being a salad bar, with interrogators picking and choosing until they found just the right combination of ingredients to make the perfect salad. (Is this a harsh analogy? No doubt, and I freely admit that.)

We also know John McCain thinks waterboarding is torture, so there's that. On the other hand, Medal of Honor recipients, the late (Air Force colonel, retired) Leo Thorsness and the late (Air Force colonel, retired) Bud Day, awarded their Medals of Honor for service in Vietnam, didn't believe it was torture. They both spent nearly 6 years as prisoners of war in various camps in and around the Hanoi, North Vietnam area and Day once shared a cell with McCain. Along with McCain, both experienced severe and prolonged torture at the hands of their captors, giving them a perspective on it that none of us, thankfully, have ever been forced to gain.


When you read that piece linked above which quotes the CIA report (which i have not read btw) there is little to absolutely no doubt he was tortured. Sleep deprivation for a week at a time, waterboarding, etc.

Soon after his capture in Rawalpindi, on March 1, 2003, Mohammed was spirited to secret C.I.A. prisons in Afghanistan and Poland, where his interrogators went straight to brutality: slamming him against a wall (a practice known as “walling”), depriving him of sleep (at one point for more than a week), forcing him to stand or crouch in painful positions, stripping him during questioning, and engaging in a bizarre practice called “rectal rehydration.”

We are better than that. Or at least we should be.

I most certainly judge people who are ok with this.

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Quote Reply
Post deleted by windschatten [ In reply to ]
Last edited by: windschatten: Mar 14, 18 2:24
Re: I would "bring back waterboarding" [windschatten] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'll admit, I was for waterboarding if it was an effective means. It appears from what I've read read here(and elsewhere), that it's not.
I can now see, I guess feel, my view changing.
Do you ever have changes of mind coming solely/mainly from the LR?
Quote Reply
Re: I would "bring back waterboarding" [PrinceMax] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
PrinceMax wrote:
Regarding McCain, and that is who I was discussing, he signed a confession admitting to war crimes after breaking under torture.

McCain also signed a confession saying that he was the Supreme Leader of the planet Zultar.

So what?

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: I would "bring back waterboarding" [Sunday] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sunday wrote:
Do you ever have changes of mind coming solely/mainly from the LR?

You must be new here. Oh wait, you are... :)

We all have preconceived views about everything and everyone here has preconceived views about what each other's preconceived views are.

Thou shalt never waver from your preconceived views or your preconceived views of everyone else's views!
Quote Reply
Re: I would "bring back waterboarding" [Alvin Tostig] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Alvin Tostig wrote:
At any rate, we (the US military) would prefer to hold the higher moral ground when it comes to how we treat prisoners I was never a POW, but it would have sucked to think that if I had been shot down and captured the enemy could justify waterboarding me and the other US personnel "Because your own President says it's OK." In recent wars, you can find plenty to complain about when it comes to the Japanese, N. Koreans, and N. Vietnamese, but that doesn't mean we need to lower ourselves to their standards. The rest of the world is watching.

Well said
Quote Reply
Re: I would "bring back waterboarding" [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ever been waterboarded? For shits and giggles.
Quote Reply
Re: I would "bring back waterboarding" [Fishbum] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fishbum wrote:
Ever been waterboarded? For shits and giggles.

I did the ice bucket challenge. that count?
Quote Reply
Re: I would "bring back waterboarding" [nslckevin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
nslckevin wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
j p o wrote:
big kahuna wrote:


Whether waterboarding is actual torture or not appears to be a matter of one's ideology, it seems to me.


Whether one was willing to ignore that waterboarding has been considered a form of torture since the Spanish Inquisition appears to be a matter of whether one wanted to make excuses for a particular administration, it seems to me.

The willingness to condone torture tells me an awful lot about the ideology of a person. Such as whether or not they possess basic human qualities.


Waterboarding was part of the Army's field manual for interrogation for a long time. It's only relatively recently that we've seen this shift to considering the technique to be torture. Maybe that's because we've all become more enlightened or maybe it's for ideological reasons. Or a bit of both.


Honest question. Was it in the field manual as in, "here is how you waterboard somebody"? Or was it in the field manual as in, "this may happen to you if you're captured. be prepared and here is how to cope."? Because depending on the context it is two VERY different things. I know a guy who became a F-15 WSO and almost quit the airforce after his SERE training. My understanding is that in SERE training you are exposed to techniques that "we" aren't allowed to use on enemy soldiers. Is that incorrect?

And as somebody mentioned we punished (I believe executed) Japanese soldiers for waterboarding in WWII.

Regarding the charge that we executed Japanese for waterboarding during WWII....that is not really true. We did execute Japanese after the war, and *one" of the charges was waterboarding, but they were most likely executed for the far more serious crimes they committed, such as mass murder of civilians, etc.

https://www.nationalreview.com/...rong-mark-hemingway/

This is not to say I condone waterboarding, but the notion that we killed people solely for that offense is not true.

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Quote Reply
Re: I would "bring back waterboarding" [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i did a thought experiment last night. i asked myself what i thought was the worst thing trump has done since announcing his candidacy. and the list of finalists was pretty compelling. but in the end it wasn't close.

he's not a war hero. i like people who weren't captured. that one takes the cake. for me. which makes this thread topical for me. if there is anyone in america who deserves to be listened to about torture, it's mccain.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply

Prev Next