Should waterboarding be used in normal police investigations?

[Bovril]

Many people here and across the English speaking world (and elsewhere for all I know), think that waterboarding is not torture, and is an effective way of getting reliable evidence from people. Given that that is the case, aren't we missing a trick by not waterboarding uncooperative people in investigations of drug running, murder, rape and so on? Say a suspected member of a murderous drug gand in Chicago is caught, why shouldn't they be shipped off to Guantanamo and waterboarded for evidence regarding their assosiates? In fact, why should they even need to go to Gauntanamo if its a legitimate practice; why not do it on US soil?

Generally speaking, if waterboarding is a good technique for use on suspected or actual insurgents, why not use it on other people we think might be involved in serious criminal activity?

[D.B. Cooper]

Water boarding is torture, and torture typically doesn't yield reliable information, so you're wrong right off the bat.

[Bovril]

Water boarding is torture, and torture typically doesn't yield reliable information, so you're wrong right off the bat.

You may notice that I only made one statement in my above post. You didn't contradict it. Try a bit harder to read between the lines.

[Thorn777]

Sure, why not, the neocons in the other threads convinced me, and street-crime causes more harm then terrorism.

[NLegari]

I am not sure if waterboarding should be used in normal police investigations. One side of me says "yes it should", but the other side says "no it should not". Of course, ultimately it is not us but the government that is to make the decision.

[Visna]

Completely disregarding that it's a morally and ethically repulsive thing to do in the first place, it's not used because it's torture. And no matter how many times Cheney tries to redefine it, it'll remain torture. And no court with respect for itself will take a confession given under torture seriously.

[Heinz Guderian]

Completely disregarding that it's a morally and ethically repulsive thing to do in the first place, it's not used because it's torture. And no matter how many times Cheney tries to redefine it, it'll remain torture. And no court with respect for itself will take a confession given under torture seriously.

^that

[Göteborgare]

Torture doesnt work, thus it shouldnt be used.


If you want to use it, force all who are going to use it to feel how it is like.
Just like you are tazered, mazed etc if you become a police officer.

[D.B. Cooper]

You may notice that I only made one statement in my above post. You didn't contradict it. Try a bit harder to read between the lines.

You said waterboarding should have more widespread use because it will supposedly speed up interrogations, I said it shouldn't because waterboarding and torture in general doesn't work. What did I miss?

[Thorn777]

You said waterboarding should have more widespread use because it will supposedly speed up interrogations, I said it shouldn't because waterboarding and torture in general doesn't work.

Seconded, they give you anything you like to hear in order to stop it.

"Anything" as in bull-crap.

Damn D.B you where fast at convincing me otherwise.

[Bovril]

You said waterboarding should have more widespread use because it will supposedly speed up interrogations, I said it shouldn't because waterboarding and torture in general doesn't work. What did I miss?

The question marks at the end of the sentences. And qualifiers such as 'if' and 'given that'.

[cottontail]

No, because 1. the criminal has not been convicted yet, so it is immoral
2. Even after the crimianl is convicted, what information could he possibly have that would need the use of torture? (Unless he's involved with the mafia or something...)

If it is a convicted terrorist, then I am fine with it, as it might help find more terrorists, and his leader, and potentially save lives. If he has not been convicted, however, then it is wrong.

Japanese soldiers in WW2 were convicted to 15 year of labor because they waterboarded US soldiers, something that was considered as torture by the US. It is torture, end of story. And as we know, torture is not reliable nor is it effective.

That is different, as the Americans were prisoners of war. Unless they comitted a crime, then it is understandable, but, judging by Japan's record in WW2, I doubt it. Terrorists are not prisoners of war, they are criminals, and if torturing them will save innocents, fine with me. Just try them first!

[C-Rob]

it's not even something that should be done by the military.

[Heathen Hammer]

Yes, but only against CIA agents who practiced it.

[Phier]

Treating terrorists like a normal policing problem is why Bill Clinton turned down a chance to get Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11. You see we just didn't have enough "evidence" to hold him.

Of course, according to Dutch television, we don't have enough evidence now either.

I would not recommend waterboarding for average criminals because the local police should have the means to investigate and monitor the situation.

On foreign terrorists, where our intelligence penetration is weak, break out the shower caps.

[Thorn777]

On foreign terrorists, where our intelligence penetration is weak, break out the shower caps.

^There is another problem, most are no "terrorists" to begin with. Your military can thus torture people on the basis of an suspection, or whatever their shaky grounds are to drag people to Gitmo.

The entire thing is a total fraud to our moral values, and is the stepping stone to future abandoning of whats left of those values, and god knows what else.

+ Its crap info.

[Mr. Pink]

It should never be used.

[Mythos]

Japanese soldiers in WW2 were convicted to 15 year of labor because they waterboarded US soldiers, something that was considered as torture by the US. It is torture, end of story. And as we know, torture is not reliable nor is it effective.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

A common criminal has protection against self incrimination. Enemies of the state don't and aren't criminals. As the name implies, they are enemies.

Torture doesnt work, thus it shouldnt be used.

The P-BO CIA says differently.

If you want to use it, force all who are going to use it to feel how it is like.
Just like you are tazered, mazed etc if you become a police officer.

They do. Many officers in the CIA and military are waterboarded as part of their training.

[Bovril]

A common criminal has protection against self incrimination. Enemies of the state don't and aren't criminals. As the name implies, they are enemies.

So you want democratic countries to have torture camps for political prisoners. Wow. Just, wow.