CIA man defends 'water-boarding' "Torture"

[pajomife]

This "new"method cause no physical pain,but a enormous panic in the prisoner.
Many life's of innocent peoples could be saved,if the agents could get information using this method,is almost 100% fable.
Why not?Why so many moral problems?

"Mr Kiriakou said the day after water-boarding was used on Abu Zubaydah, the detainee told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to co-operate."



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7137750.stm

[MathiasOfAthens]

Because you dont always get accurate information. And theres always the possiblity hes innocent and/or doesnt know and u tortured him for nothing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7516880/
________
LovelyWendie

[Eskali]

Because you dont always get accurate information. And theres always the possiblity hes innocent and/or doesnt know and u tortured him for nothing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7516880/

Collateral..."Give a little freedom for a little security and you will lose both and deserve neither"

[Sidmen]

Because you dont always get accurate information. And theres always the possiblity hes innocent and/or doesnt know and u tortured him for nothing.

Ok... Waterboarding has been used 3 times... Total. All on people who are pretty much guaranteed to have death sentences on their heads should they ever stand trial.

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

Ok... Waterboarding has been used 3 times... Total.

Sorry but the CIA lost credibility quite a while ago so you can count on them lying through their teeth.

[antaeus]

Ok... Waterboarding has been used 3 times... Total. All on people who are pretty much guaranteed to have death sentences on their heads should they ever stand trial.

see this is the biggest problem. this person will probably never see a trial. irrespective of how wrong waterboarding is, the fact that so many people can be captured and imprisoned without trial for so long, is where legitimacy breaks down.

what is the united states government afraid of? most likely that its own courts will throw out evidence gained through torture and they'll all go free..

[Senno]

see this is the biggest problem. this person will probably never see a trial. irrespective of how wrong waterboarding is, the fact that so many people can be captured and imprisoned without trial for so long, is where legitimacy breaks down.

Legitimacy doesn't break down at all. Geneva Conventions allow a party to hold prisoners without criminal trial til the end of the conflict. If they didn't wish to be prisoner til the end of the conflict, they ought not have participated in the first place.

[antaeus]

Legitimacy doesn't break down at all. Geneva Conventions allow a party to hold prisoners without criminal trial til the end of the conflict. If they didn't wish to be prisoner til the end of the conflict, they ought not have participated in the first place.

even the united states supreme court is conflicted over this one.. you're not going to throw legitimacy claims at me when the US supreme court cant even agree on the legality of it.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Overall I was referring to Torture and not specifically to the Torture technically called Waterboarding. Which has been considered Torture by past US Administrations.

Also Torture is illegal by international Treaty and as such that Treaty must be respected, torture must not occure on who ever, even osama. Pick a side and stick with that side, even during hard times dont just bail out.
________
Sick from nexium

[Sidmen]

Pick a side and stick with that side, even during hard times dont just bail out.

We're being prodded to switch sides on hundreds of things everyday, would you suggest we stick with the side we're on - no matter how times change?

Also Torture is illegal by international Treaty and as such that Treaty must be respected, torture must not occure on who ever, even osama.

I wholly disrespect all international laws and most treaties with more than one signatory. That said, waterboarding doesn't fit into most treaties' definition of torture. (the ones I've read)

Overall I was referring to Torture and not specifically to the Torture technically called Waterboarding. Which has been considered Torture by past US Administrations.

Ahh, the thread is on waterboarding, so I assumed you meant waterboarding.

Sorry but the CIA lost credibility quite a while ago so you can count on them lying through their teeth.

I trust the CIA over most news sources out there. Not saying anything about the CIA, just the horrible quality of news that exists.

[MathiasOfAthens]

It ok that i didnt make myself clearer but nevertheless the Treaty quite cleary outlaws Torture, waterboarding is torture. If you dont respect the treaty then leave the treaty. you have that right.

Whos prodding you to switch sides... ?
________
Expert Insurance

[Sidmen]

Whos prodding you to switch sides... ?

Mostly Europeans.. On issues ranging from health care to gun laws to border control to air emissions standards to everything.

Treaty quite clearly outlaws Torture, waterboarding is torture.

The treaty outlaws inflicting pain on someone, waterbording doesn't inflict pain it induces panic.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Panic is pain. Just like cramps hurt so does water in your face.
________
DIGITAL VAPORIZERS

[Sidmen]

Panic: a sudden overwhelming fear, with or without cause, that produces hysterical or irrational behavior

Pain: physical suffering or distress, as due to injury, illness, etc.

Panic is not pain. Water in the face actually hurts less than a good shower.

[Tiwaz]

That comment about waterboarding not being painful is BS.

Apparently those who claim it is just "panic" have not tried it themselves or try to lie to support it.

If waterboarding is not stopped, victim WILL die. Having water poured into your face and throat will drown you.

How about everyone who supports this method would try it out few times. If it is so easy and safe it should not be big deal to go through at home...

Might also remove some bad genes from humanity.

[Sidmen]

That comment about waterboarding not being painful is BS.

Apparently those who claim it is just "panic" have not tried it themselves or try to lie to support it.

If waterboarding is not stopped, victim WILL die. Having water poured into your face and throat will drown you.

How about everyone who supports this method would try it out few times. If it is so easy and safe it should not be big deal to go through at home...

Might also remove some bad genes from humanity.

Have you tried it yourself, or making stuff up while calling others liars - and suggesting that the deaths of others would be good for humanity.

[metenojo]

Terrorize people who wants to kill thousands,is not torture.
We cant simple ask gently,what they intent to do,if we have strong suspects of any terrorist act preparation.

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

Terrorize people who wants to kill thousands,is not torture.
We cant simple ask gently,what they intent to do,if we have strong suspects of any terrorist act preparation.

Right, being better then they are sucks anyway.
Much better to go down to their level.

[green tea]

Panic is not pain. Water in the face actually hurts less than a good shower.

Who does not love a good shower? Those filthy terrorists should wash more often, then waterboarding would be useless on them. Ever heard of this? It even does not induce panic, so it should be more harmless than waterboarding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_water_torture. This is a method that was used in german concentration camps, but it was invented long before. I assume those nazis were not really bad guys, since their method was even more harmless than the method the USA uses. So I think we can agree that waterboarding is not torture and the nazis in the concentration camps were really nice guys, just misunderstood. But surely more harmless than the CIA guys.

Terrorize people who wants to kill thousands,is not torture.
We cant simple ask gently,what they intent to do,if we have strong suspects of any terrorist act preparation.

Yeah, I think most people would agree that if we assume that some suspects know something that they should tell to save human lives, we can´t gently ask them- at least if they are fanatics. It could of course be that they just tell nothing because they don´t have any more information, but we can not know. We will know it only after we have made them talk, and for that, we have to use "special methods". When they know something, they will surely tell it after enough time- when they don´t know anything, we will just keep on using those methods, since we can never know if they are not still hiding anything. Don´t forget- we have the right to to this, since they are the terrorists. We have the right on our side, the moral high ground, since we believe in the dignity of every human and human rights, and have high principles like "in dubio pro reo" and other stuff, while they stick to their crude ideology of hate and revenge. Of course, we sometimes also kill innocents, but that is a quite different thing, at least we are sorry for that.

But I have an interesting question: If it is right to use "special methods" that just terrorize people, and we have a suspect that surely knows about a big terrorist attack, but would be immune to waterboarding- would it be okay to use other, better torture? Like to tear out his fingernails, or burn him with hot iron bars somewhere where it really hurts, or better perhaps strong electric shocks to the testicles? Let´s say we could 10000 innocent lives with this method. Should we do it?

[Tiwaz]

Have you tried it yourself, or making stuff up while calling others liars - and suggesting that the deaths of others would be good for humanity.

Hmm... Let me see, lots of specialists who do NOT work for CIA tell us it is bad. Even some guys working for CIA tell it is bad.

Would you say that being drowned is pleasant experience? Not at all painful?

Some people suggested that there is no pain or danger of death involved in having rags put on your face and having water steadily poured down on your face and throat.

Are you aware how people drown? By having water, or other substance, preventing oxygen from getting to your lungs. One method of this, specially for liquids, is to flood into your throat and fill your lungs.

That is same thing that happens in waterboarding, and unless carefully monitored victim will drown on dry land.

You tell me that is not painful, I have no need to prove that drowning is painful. To this date I do not think anyone has wanted to drown.

To save my family members, I surely would go far. But this is nearly the same question I asked the public. So I would like to hear other opinions. (I will be away the next hours, so I won´t answer soon to that opinions. But when I am back, I will answer this question).

There is a scenario that describes the torture dilemma. It was a scenario developed some years ago. The scenario is:

A terrorist group plans to use a nuclear weapon in a big city. The security agencies learn about this plan and capture some of the terrorists. The problem is: This bomb will explode in some hours, nobody except the terrorists know where it is hidden, and it is impossible to evacuate many of the people of this city in that short time, so you can expect that thousands, if not millions of innocent people will die. The terrorists refuse to speak. The only way to learn about the place the bomb is hidden and to save all those innocents is to torture the terrorists. The maybe surprising thing is that at that time, there were many people that agreed that torture is never acceptable. I think, today, this opinion has changed somehow, so I will alter this scenario a little bit.

Imagine that the only terrorist that knows where this bomb is is a former secret service agent that was trained to withstand torture and now is resistent enough not to say where the bomb is until it is to late. A psychological analysis shows that he surely will break after one day, but you don´t have this time. But the same analysis shows that this man would give everything for his family, and that he was abused as a child. The analysis suggests that if his only baby was raped repeatedly before his eyes, he would break very soon, and the bomb could be found. Of course the baby is also innocent, but you could save all these lives, and you even find a patriot that would do it- even if he really would hate to rape a baby, he would do it for his country. Would it be okay to use this method to find the bomb (assumed it is really the only way to find it in time)?

And before someone mentions it: The original idea of this torture dilemma was discussed a long time before "24" was on TV.

Bad idea.

What prevents this person from lying to you? He could just put you on your merry chase and have bomb blow up before you find the target. He will say ANYTHING to make torture stop.

Or how do you justify doing it if it is found out he was innocent? You have just tortured innocent man, raped innocent child and achieved nothing. How do you think your society is viewed after that is revealed?

It is this stupid assumption that guy tortured would be right one that is most flawed in these theories. Law enforcement and intel agencies screw up all the time. This is also why death penalty is stupid. Taking action which causes huge unredeemable damage to people is not solution when you have no means of being 100% certain victim deserves it.