It was waterboard Wednesday in the New York Times, as Philip Shenon and Scott Shane filed separate articles on the issue of waterboarding and "torture" in general.
Shenon's article on the positive outlook for Michael Mukasey's attorney general nomination tsk-tsked:
"Even some of Mr. Mukasey's supporters said at the hearing to vote on the nomination that they were troubled by the way Mr. Mukasey handled questions about waterboarding, which the United States has fiercely condemned when carried out by other nations and had prosecuted as a war crime after World War II."
Shenon doesn't give any further context, but the most famous example of a World War II waterboarding prosecution was introduced in hearings last year by Sen. Ted Kennedy. Japanese soldier Yukio Asano was sentenced by the U.S. to 15 years hard labor for waterboarding a U.S. civilian -- a civilian, not a soldier, and certainly not a terrorist -- as just one of a litany of offenses, including burning him with cigarettes and beating him with a club.
Reporter Scott Shane came up with "A Firsthand Experience Before Decision on Torture" and brought in the Spanish Inquisition.
"But three years ago, Daniel Levin, then the acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, decided to bring reality to bear on his deliberations on the torture question. He went to a military base and asked to undergo waterboarding."
….
"Waterboarding has been used in interrogations at least since the Spanish Inquisition and was used by the Central Intelligence Agency on three high-level terrorism suspects in 2002 and 2003, according to officials familiar with the agency's secret detention program. It involves strapping a suspect to a board with feet elevated, covering his face with a cloth and pouring water on it to produce a feeling of suffocation.'"
Question: If waterboarding is so clearly and obviously torture, as the Times implies, why do so many people volunteer to demonstrate it? As Rich Lowry of National Review argues, no one lines up to have their fingernails ripped out.
And if only three high-level Al Qaeda figures have actually been waterboarded, doesn't that make the current spate of self-administered waterboarding by protestors and other curiosity seekers (and the resulting news coverage) rather pointless?
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I was waterboarded when I
November 8, 2007 - 14:03 ET by BruzillaI was waterboarded when I went through SERE school. I was also punched, beaten with hoses, locked in a little box, had cigar smoke puffed in my face till I almost blacked out, forced to stand naked outside in a freezing Maine winter while getting sprayed by a water hose, and was denied food for the better part of a week. That made me a Naval Aircrewman, not a torture victim.
Bruzilla, you brought back
November 8, 2007 - 14:13 ET by bassndudeBruzilla, you brought back some fine memories. I had the pleasure of seeing some of our fine cadets in ROTC through the POW camp at Ft. Riley Ks. We used some of the old single wall lockers and a pipe, rubber hoses, and the famous mud pit...those were the days. E&E training was a trip, and I can honesty say, not one cadet got through on my watch. They all visited the camp:-)
No wonder those poor guys hated to see us NCO's comming their direction.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
SERE
November 8, 2007 - 18:38 ET by doug1950Were you in my Class? I too was waterboarded in SERE in Maine and frankly it was the least rather than the harshest treatment we received. It isn't the horrific experience the media has made it out to be. I had my lip bloused by an open handed slap, did the dancing in the yard nekkid under the hose, etc. The flooded bunker trip in the dark was worse by far as well as doing push ups in a freezing stream while the guards ate food in front of us. Apparently we must have been tortured along with thousands of other American Service men and women. BTW, I was the Senior Enlisted at NACCS (Pensacola) in the late 80s.
If we really wanted to
November 8, 2007 - 14:05 ET by mattmIf we really wanted to torture people all we'd have to do is make them listen to Hillary's cackle, over, and over, and over again...
Cruel and unsual punishment
November 8, 2007 - 15:02 ET by well99I will take water boarding any day.
It is interesting that you
November 8, 2007 - 15:06 ET by jdhawkIt is interesting that you should say that, because that is a favorite "trick" of interrogators. That is, to play loud repetitious music. I remember in SF SERE School my two "favorites" were this little "tune" I named "boots" and the other I named "crying babies." It is just another tactic to wear an adversary down.
Torture works. It has proven to do so over these last five years of war. We have gotten intelligence from the terrorists using torture. It has saved American lives.
John McCain and the rest of them in the camps in Vietnam all broke down at one time or another under torture. Does anyone not remember the signed "confessions?" Long after the tactical information was stale, the communists continued torturing our men in Vietnam to obtain propaganda gambits.
In SERE school, it was taught that we should give only our name, rank, and SSN per the Geneva Convention. It was also taught, unless told otherwise to attempt to withstand torture for 72 hours. In that way tactical intelligence was considered old. It was then taught to keep faith with your fellow prisoners. That you would eventually break. That every man has his breaking point. Some sooner than others - thus "keep faith with your fellow prisoners."
By the way, if not torturing our enemies is so important to Congress, why don't they pass a law against it? This issue is like the draft, that Rangel pushed, authored a bill, and then, voted against. Even the dull, dim witted defeatocrats know that torture is necessary in the right circumstances.
You're on to something
November 8, 2007 - 16:07 ET by KillgraveOur interrogators should all don Hillary masks and mime to a loop recording of her doing her fake southern accent (when she was pandering to a black church).
That would get a terrorist babbling in no time.
My favorite moment of
November 8, 2007 - 14:39 ET by balboaMy favorite moment of Mukaskey's hearings -- as shown on The Daily Show -- was when someone asked him if he thought waterboarding was torture, and he said he wasn't sure what waterboarding was.
Really? You came to this hearing and you don't know what it is? Not familiar with it?
Teddy Teddy Teddy
November 8, 2007 - 14:51 ET by CaringwhiteguyThe thought of Teddy Kennedy holding hearings or making statements about the effects of drowning is hilarious and very sad at the same time.
I agree
November 8, 2007 - 15:00 ET by well99Teddy has no shame.
He is an expert at actual
November 8, 2007 - 15:08 ET by Clear thinkerHe is an expert at actual drowning.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Yes he is
November 8, 2007 - 15:42 ET by well99http://www.ytedk.com...
NY Times went overboard on Gore, too. Right?
November 8, 2007 - 16:21 ET by Gary HallNY Times went overboard on Gore, too. Right?
I'm kidding, of course.
We're all familiar with Al Gore's earlier view, a view which led to the US policy of extroadinary rendition being established by Bill Clinton, and which led to sending these folks to places like Egypt -- for you know what - right (my bold, my bold)?
waterboarding IS torture and
November 8, 2007 - 17:17 ET by katleewaterboarding IS torture and it demeans us as a country to engage in such practices
terrorists DO kill us in the
November 8, 2007 - 17:41 ET by MrShyterrorists DO kill us in the name of Allah (and for that reason only) when we don't get the vital information we need from them, and it potentially destroys our country and forces us to live under Islamic law when we let them engage in such practices
Saving lives is NOT
November 8, 2007 - 17:47 ET by Clear thinkerSaving lives is NOT demeaning!
Damn good thing I'm not an interogator, as I would waterboard all suspected terrorists as soon as possible.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Thank you Clear
November 8, 2007 - 17:55 ET by MrShyThank you Clear Thinker.
The name fits, btw :)
Thanks! Get Email
November 8, 2007 - 17:59 ET by Clear thinkerThanks!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
torture is NOT effective and
November 8, 2007 - 19:10 ET by katleetorture is NOT effective and it disgusts our govenment is doing it in my name
In the name of Katlee, I
November 8, 2007 - 19:26 ET by JerryIn the name of Katlee, I torture thee, wicked terrorist.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
It's in all of our
November 8, 2007 - 21:37 ET by JasonCIt's in all of our names.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Torture may not be
November 8, 2007 - 19:40 ET by Clear thinkerTorture may not be effective, but waterboarding is!
You probably hate your government anyway, so you are wasting your disgust.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
I thought you were going to
November 8, 2007 - 19:55 ET by JasonCI thought you were going to say "Torture may not be effective, but at least its a legal way to vent our Islamophobofascism. And waterboarding's equivalence with torture is a great big subjective gray area...yaaaay!"
What evidence can you produce that waterboarding is effective?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
"What evidence can you
November 8, 2007 - 22:06 ET by Jerry"What evidence can you produce that waterboarding is effective?"
Just as you cannot produce evidence that waterboarding is NOT effective, we cannot prove that waterboarding is effective, since the government does not release those statistics.
If it has stopped ONE bombing or saved ONE life, it has been effective. And I would wager the military has extracted plenty of valuable information that has saved plenty of lives.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
JasonC, "What evidence
November 8, 2007 - 22:22 ET by hydrodynDMJasonC,
"What evidence can you produce that waterboarding is effective?"
Well, according to ABC News, CIA officials claim that waterboarding was an effective interrogation technique against Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
But along the lines of what Jerry said above, people who use techniques like waterboarding for interrogative purposes tend not to open up the results of those techniques to investigation. So ultimately, whether you think these techniques work or not is really a matter of opinion.
Barring any direct analysis, I would offer the following questions: Why, if these techniques are ineffective, would professions (like those in the CIA) continue to use them?
Your snide comment about "Islamophobofascism" seems to suggest that you think it basically just sadism. I really hope for your sake that you were being sarcastic.
I was not being sarcastic.
November 8, 2007 - 23:12 ET by JasonCI was not being sarcastic. And I reject the premise that various suspected enemy combatants being given "a dunk in the water" (as Cheney blithely put it) in various interrogation centers is keeping you or me any safer.
Whether or not its "effective", whatever that is meant to suggest, is less interesting to me than the shadowy moral slippery-slope that it portends.
And to DaveR, on an objective moral plane, our culture is not more worthwhile than any other.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
no jase
November 8, 2007 - 23:15 ET by botgthat would be your subjective moral plain
GoHunter08
JasonC, So I'm not really
November 8, 2007 - 23:29 ET by hydrodynDMJasonC,
So I'm not really sure what your argument is. Either you think waterboarding isn't effective and so the individuals who engage in it do it only to satisfy some personal desire to do harm to others or you accept that it might be effective, in which case, that's a secondary issue to the "moral slippery-slope that it portends."
If it's the first, then I think that says a lot about what you think of people who work in agencies like the CIA. Never mind the extensive psychological checks that they go through, your argument seems to go beyond this to suggest that these people's superiors (all the way up to the president?) sanction the use of government resources to allow people under their employment to engage in sadistic practices for no other purpose than to satisfy a psychological desire to do harm to others. Riiiiight. Don't suppose you could back that up with anything other than an opinion?
Regarding the "slippery-slope" argument, you do understand that throwing that phrase out there doesn't amount to an actual argument. You seem to suggest that if the US government allows waterboarding, then they will allow other, much more harsh forms of interrogation until, in time, we will be lopping of hands and feet. You actually have to back that up. Using the "slippery-slope" boogeyman is a pretty lazy attempt at making a point.
I imagine that those who
November 8, 2007 - 23:40 ET by JasonCI imagine that those who sanction and perform things like waterboarding probably genuinely believe that it is accomplishing some good, or has the potential to do so. I think that a lot of people who casually voice support for it, and who would have no problem with it being upped a notch to what they actually would define as torture, probably have a little Abu Ghraib-syndrome going on.
Read Michael Levin's "The Case for Torture." It makes the same arguments that are made all over this thread, and is widely considered a textbook example of faulty premises and slippery rhetoric.
One way or another, I find it repulsive. I am not "made uncomfortable" by it, as some less authoritative anti-torture proponents claim. But hey, my opinion doesn't really matter, does it? It will happen regardless of what I think
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Oh no...you're not bagging
November 8, 2007 - 23:43 ET by balboaOh no...you're not bagging on me, too, are ya'?
balboa, Yes, I believe he
November 9, 2007 - 00:03 ET by hydrodynDMbalboa,
Yes, I believe he was.
A liberal on liberal burn.
Very rare in these parts.
Ohhhhh snap.
November 9, 2007 - 00:08 ET by balboaOhhhhh snap.
JasonC, Ok, so you accept
November 9, 2007 - 00:00 ET by hydrodynDMJasonC,
Ok, so you accept that people who make use of techniques like waterboarding are not just a bunch of sadist. That's awfully nice of you. Your wording suggests, however, that they are kinda stupid since they use this technique thinking that it does good when, in fact, it doesn't. I'm curious how you know this? And again, it says a lot about what you think of folks who work for the CIA.
Since I'm not "a lot of people" I won't reply on your "Abu Ghraib-syndrome" comment, unless you were attributing that kind of attitude to me. Let me know.
I'm also not "Michael Levin" so I don't feel compelled to defend him or anyone on this board other than myself, unless you think I am Michael Levin. Again, let me know.
By not providing an actual argument to back up your slippery-slope comment, I'm guessing you can't.
And I'm sure we all appreciate you sharing your feelings about how "repulsive" you find waterboarding.
Jason C,
November 8, 2007 - 23:59 ET by Dave R....our culture is not more worthwhile than any other.
And the more people who feel this way, the sooner our culture is going to die. Probably within our lifetime.
There will be no force left to prevent the totalitarian tendencies of the enemies of true freedom from enslaving all humanity. Hell, it may be a thousand years, or many thousands more, before another culture comes along that is able to enjoy the freedoms that we have been privilaeged to, but are rapidly losing.
Sad, it will be.
Clear
November 8, 2007 - 19:45 ET by BlondeUncle Jimbo over at Blackfive put up an interesting piece on waterboarding last week. It's worth a bit of time to read. Some of the links in his blog (both for and against) about the dreaded waterboarding are rather interesting.
As is the attention he's getting from a lefty site for his pro-waterboarding position.
Don't you just love the liberal leap of illogic that "it's torture!". I wish these liberals were capable of some of your Clear Thinking. Yeah...and if frogs had wings....
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Hi Blonde... I don't care
November 8, 2007 - 22:27 ET by Clear thinkerHi Blonde...
I don't care what the candy assed liberals say, if waterboarding works, DO IT!
I'm sick of their whining.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
CT & Blonde...
November 8, 2007 - 22:32 ET by MrShythat's why my new tagline will now be:
"MY end justifies THAT mean"
Blonde, The "illogic" you
November 8, 2007 - 23:00 ET by hydrodynDMBlonde,
The "illogic" you are referring to is actually an example of a pretty common argumentative technique in which a person arbitrarily defines a boundary for a vague term in such a way that it helps support their position.
In this case, the word "torture", like many words, is vague in the sense that it doesn't have a well defined extension. There is no fact of the matter about whether waterboarding is torture of not. It's clearly a borderline case. If you decide to call it that, it's because doing so helps support some other argument - like the "America is evil" platitude that so many liberals are fond of.
Choosing to call waterboarding torture is just another attempt on some people's part to make America look bad.
hydro....
November 8, 2007 - 23:18 ET by BlondeYou've been such a good influence on me. Seriously. Making me think about many, many things, factually.
But this, latest, makes me want to explode.
In a rage. Scientific fact (or discussion) and politics are just so diametrically opposed that I'm kinda, um, ferklempt.
Waterboarding.
A no-brainer, IMO.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
So in this case, the ends
November 8, 2007 - 21:17 ET by balboaSo in this case, the ends always justify the means?
bal....
November 8, 2007 - 21:29 ET by MrShyMY end justifies THAT mean.... you bet.
So as long as it saves you,
November 8, 2007 - 21:59 ET by balboaSo as long as it saves you, anything is fair game?
Bal, my country is
November 8, 2007 - 22:08 ET by MrShyBal, my country is protecting me from my enemy. It saves me, it saves you, it saves us. I believe this (obviously :p)
They're a radical, ruthless, deeply-religious (better put, "all-religious") ideological group. What suggestions/alternatives do you have for getting very valuable information from them, that very potentially allows us to dismantle the next attempted attack?
Yeah, that's the problem. I
November 8, 2007 - 22:25 ET by balboaYeah, that's the problem. I don't have alternatives. So, I'll read up on waterboarding.
Read, Bal
November 8, 2007 - 22:46 ET by BlondeI've posted alot of links.
Read.
Then, we'll love to hear what you have to say.
Please, Bal, enlighten us on your contrarian view.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Get Serious Bal.
November 8, 2007 - 22:09 ET by BlondeQuit waffling.
Why don't you get serious, for a change, and take a stance?
See my post below.
Of course, I'll be waiting for the next bit of snark and diversion.
Par for the course.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
bal... What about saving
November 8, 2007 - 22:30 ET by Clear thinkerbal...
What about saving your family, is it worth that???
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Sure it is. Torture makes me
November 8, 2007 - 22:40 ET by balboaSure it is. Torture makes me uncomfortable, that's all.
Grow up, Bal,
November 8, 2007 - 22:43 ET by BlondeRead what I posted, and quit equivocating.
You sound just like Hillary. Or John Kerry.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Really..... grow up
November 8, 2007 - 22:48 ET by Clear thinkerReally..... grow up bal.
If someone gets waterboarded and it saves you and your family's life you will lose all feelings of being uncomfortable real fast!
Thank God there are people in this country that are willing to do the jobs that make people like bal...uncomfortable.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Blonde, bal sounds like a cross between Mr. Rogers and...
November 8, 2007 - 22:59 ET by Dave RTiny Tim.
LOL.
bal, torture makes you uncomfortable?
November 8, 2007 - 22:47 ET by Dave RI wonder how uncomfortable you will be when we lose a city (and no, I am not kidding).
....or when you are forced down on the chopping block.
Why are you all so dam* worried about those who would as soon kill you as look at you?
Why do you concern yourself with the fate of 7th Century barbarians whose only purpose in life (as they see it) is to kill everyone who does not believe as they do?
Are you all really that deep into self-hatred?
Sheeesh. Can't we have a
November 8, 2007 - 23:02 ET by balboaSheeesh. Can't we have a discussion without accusing me of "self-hatred"?
why coitaintly
November 8, 2007 - 23:06 ET by botgas soon as you stop taking self-defeating positions
enabling terrorists is a self-defeating behavior
GoHunter08
bal, in case you haven't noticed, Western Society is rapidly
November 8, 2007 - 23:16 ET by Dave Rlosing ground to a bunch of bass-ackward, illiterate barbarians who wish us all dead (yes, that means you, too), and you and yours are worried about how we treat the members of said group when we catch them in the very act?
Wake up and smell the coffee. It is not just our way of life that is endangered here, but our very lives.
Just how dense does one have to be not to see this?
First, we're not losing
November 8, 2007 - 23:19 ET by balboaFirst, we're not losing ground to anyone. That's paranoid, and contradicts nearly every press release from this White House.
I understand what's at stake. Forgive me for being a little uncomfortable with the methods, which I don't know if they even work. I'm just not as freakin' ballsy as you are, John Wayne.
bal, paranoid? Tell that to the Spanish, French and the British.
November 8, 2007 - 23:29 ET by Dave RAll of whom are now in seriously deep-squeeze immediate future-wise.
Seriously, we are the only power left that can knock these barbarians back a century or two.
If we wuss out and do not do what is required to survive as a society, then who will remain?
NOBODY.
Spain, France, and Britain
November 8, 2007 - 23:34 ET by balboaSpain, France, and Britain are not us. We're the greatest country on Earth. We survived Germany (twice), Japan, and the Soviet Empire. We'll be just fine.
bal, you're right about us.
November 8, 2007 - 23:48 ET by Dave RBut if we dont start giving this conflict the attention it deserves, we will soon be in the same boat as the Euro-surrenderers.
Political correctness palyed a huge role in bringing them to the brink of extinction (and that is exactly where they are).
It will do the same to us, and that right soon, if we don't get serious.
Sorry, but I am too old to learn Arabic.
We appear pretty serious,
November 8, 2007 - 23:58 ET by balboaWe appear pretty serious, being at war. The protestations and political posturing can get bad, but I don't think it will ever reach the point where it puts our country in jeopardy.
bal, we are in no way serious about this war.
November 9, 2007 - 13:57 ET by Dave RAnd that is exactly what it is, a war.
If we were really serious, Iran's nuclear facilities would be a pile of rubble right now.
Instead, we allow a man who has promised to incinerate a sovereign nation (Israel) and who does not care if his own nation is destroyed in the retaliation that will surely follow, to drop in for a visit inside our very own backyard.
This, to me, was akin to inviting Hideki Tojo to address the Congress. On December 08, 1941.
Today, approximately half the eligible voters in this country are prepared to cast a vote for a political party that has tried every way it can to force this country to surrender to the Islamic horde. I'd say we have sunk pretty far over the last sixty years. I'm not sure how much further we can descend and still survive.
Sure, we have the most tecnologically advanced military hardware the world has ever seen. However, if we lack the will to use it, it may as well be a pile of scrap metal.
_______________________________
In the 1920's & 30's, the world stood by and allowed Adolf Hitler to plug along virtually unmolested. By the time the world finally grasped what was happening, it was too late to stop the man (who, incidentally, had spelled out his intentions in a book), with anything short of an all-out war. A war that killed millions, most of whom weren't even in uniform.
I have a sick feeling that we are about to witness history repeating itself.
Incessant Blather.
November 8, 2007 - 23:42 ET by BlondeWhy don't you try to post a real response, Bal?
You are such a non-entity here.
TRY...Bal, elsewhise we're going to laugh.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Troll on, Bal.
November 8, 2007 - 23:51 ET by BlondeYour continued non-whatever is laughable.
Blather, blather, Bal.
Pathetic.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Well, there you have
November 8, 2007 - 22:49 ET by hydrodynDMWell, there you have it.
We should tie one arm behind our collective backs by chucking out a potentially valuable technique in the fight against those who would do us harm.... because it makes some people "uncomfortable".
and cutting people open
November 8, 2007 - 22:51 ET by botgprobally makes you queasy.
Me? I thank God for surgeons
Point is Bal the right thing is not always what feels good
GoHunter08
Yeah, I tried to argue that
November 8, 2007 - 23:04 ET by balboaYeah, I tried to argue that once on this board. Got clobbered.
I understand that we have to do things to protect America. But is it alright with all of you if I don't jump up and down with glee about them?
Gee, Bal
November 8, 2007 - 21:42 ET by BlondeWhy don't you go over to my linked post and check it out...then get back to me.
And here's a little something else for you to read....a very substantitive article on "torture...or not".
Can you give up the snark for ten seconds?
I'd imagine not.
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Instead of asking silly questions, why don't you for once read....and comment from your own point of view?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Not that I think we should
November 8, 2007 - 17:48 ET by zfNot that I think we should get torture happy, but is there really anyone with a modicum of common sense who doesn't believe that when tourture could obtain info that could save innocent lives that it should, at the very least, be on the table as a possible option?
Of course ZF, However,
November 8, 2007 - 17:50 ET by LeonOf course ZF,
However, the point is that torture isn't an effective way to get factual information.
It doesn't obtain worthwhile information. People under extreme pain and duress will say whatever they think will end the extreme pain and duress.
For example, see the Inquisition.
I'll be damned! Leon, for
November 8, 2007 - 17:56 ET by Clear thinkerI'll be damned! Leon, for once I agree with you. We should not torture everyone. But we could waterboard everyone because it's effective and it is NOT torture.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
You plainly don't know what
November 9, 2007 - 00:55 ET by CTYou plainly don't know what you're talking about Leon.
Why would they "torture" you?
November 8, 2007 - 21:13 ET by WingletDriverAfter all, part of the argument goes that soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are less likely to be tortured if only we treated our prisoners more humanely. So, it seems to me, that we should be training our military in etiquette, not resistance.
The real story is that what we do falls short of torture. It is coercive. It is stressful. It does no lasting damage physically or psychologically. And it works. If it didn't, why has it been around for so long?
Why are we all trying to explain away torture?
November 8, 2007 - 23:02 ET by Dave RIf it saves the life of even one American, then it is worth it.
Or have we all succumbed to the self-hating leftist belief that all cultures are of "equal value."
If we have, then Western Society is doomed.
Been there done that.
November 9, 2007 - 00:51 ET by CTS.E.R.E. School and D-West fall of 1971 down in the mud flats. There is no reason not to waterboard a terrorist if it is done right, for the right reason. It's attention getting, but it's not maiming. The holier than thou crowd need to get over it. Banning waterboarding is not going to prevent or lessen the torture of any American prisoner anywhere anytime.