No doubt they beileved they had a high purpose, though we now disagree. History my judge us differently, as well. The important thing is what they did, not why. Same as in any court.
Wouldn't a true conservative believe that waterboarding is torture since it has been called that for decades? Why the progressive definition for "true" conservatives? Or do true conservatives just believe the opposite of anything that a Democrat believes?
So waterboarding and the other "enhanced techniques" employed are not torture. I take it, then, that those in favor of allowing them on some presumed innocent people would also let people from other circumstances subjected to the same techniques? It would be OK to use them on a suspect's grandmother to make sure she didn't know where he might be, it would be OK to use them on a suspect's priest to confirm that any information passed on [by suspect] is really under seal of the confessional and not discoverable, etc.
And so the argument had moved from "waterboarding is not torture" to "there are worse methods of torture out there". I guess it follows the same logic as, "we need to get those WMDs" which conveniently turned into, "we need to liberate the people of Iraq".
You have the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks in custody, finally.(KSM) You ask him about their next attack. He responds: “Soon, you will know.” If there was anyone, anywhere, that deserved to be questioned in the strictest methods available then it would be that case. What would you tell the families of the LA dead? Sorry, we had the guy in custody but we don't want him to feel the seriousness of his actions in real life. We don't want to use proven non-torture methods to get information from the known war criminal caught in the act. Sorry that you and the thousands of other families just have to deal with the fact that while preventable, we just are too nice.
What L.A. dead? The purported L.A. plot was foiled in 2002, so how did waterboarding a guy we captured in 2003 prevent L.A. dead?
it's not like it's hard to find. google: kahlid la plot link edit: apparently it is! linky no worky. still i just picked the first result - several results listed...
Some of my problems with these techniques: 1. Lower us to (or closer to) the level of those we oppose 2. I believe doing wrong is never justified by one's ends 3. Granting that KSM was guilty, how do we know the next guy is? What if we misinterpret sarcasm or mockery as a confession? What if an "eyewitness" with an axe to grind "positively" identifies an innocent man? I agree that every situation must be evaluated independently, and I concede that some good may have come from this behavior, but we have no concept how much bad will come from it. We could also gain useful information through other unacceptable means, too. My previous example was to show that this is really a question of degree: how cruel is too cruel; how presumed innocent is too innocent to be so treated. It is a moral dilemma, but I do not trust the US government enough to grant the power to hold and torture people without habeas corpus protections, based on its "knowledge" that said people are bad guys. I think we need to stick with the BOR as written: they are inalienable rights, not privileges. More people may die because we respected human rights. More people die from cars and guns because we allow those, too. I don't want to see our Constitution carved up, ignored, or abandoned in part or whole on an ad hoc basis. To me, waterboarding, e.g., (especially dozens of times) is both cruel and unusual as a punishment, let alone an interrogation technique. We should either amend our Constitution to allow cruel and unusual techniques through due process, or we should eschew them.
"waterboarding isn't torture." "Does any one know the percentage of people in this country who believe this?" As to whether it is torture, I think you have to define torture. heritage dictionary defines it as : 1. a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. 1. b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. 2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense. 3. Something causing severe pain or anguish. From watching videos of the proceedure, there is not physical pain involved, but rather fear. The fear is heightened by not knowing when or if the interrogator will stop. (obviously if you are doing a web-based demo, you know the interrogator is not going to really hurt you.) In conclusion, I would say that waterboarding is not in and of itself torture, but could be, if done for an extended period of time. (repeated short waterboarding would not be torture, imho)
77horn. Good post. I disagree with your conclusion, but i appreciate your thoughful and reasoned analysis. I think obviously people have come to their own conclusions. I still remain curious as to where the country as a whole has come down on this. Obviously, HornFans is not a good sampling.
The "pain" is psychological not physical, and come more from not know what the interrogator is going to do, rather from what he actually does. _________________________________________________ kind of like hazing. these guys have gone through hell week...
i have often read or heard something to this effect: "waterbaording is often favored, because unlike other forms of torture it does not leave any physical marks." Sounds like a 'hedge your bet against torture' argument by saying: "see we didn't torture him; no signs of physical abuse."
