As many of you know, the CIA uses a form of torture known as "waterboarding" to interrogate prisoners.
What I don't understand is, why is this allowed? Isn't torture like, wrong? Why does the government get away with it?
For more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#Modern_waterboarding
Here is the description of the CIA's waterboarding method:
Quote"The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last over two minutes before begging to confess. 'The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law,' said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch."
Incidentally, the most common response is, "if torturing others makes me safer, it's ok". But think about it -- when you think you're about to drown, and they're saying "tell us that all your friends are terrorists", what are you going to do? You're going to tell them anything they want to hear, true or otherwise, to make them stop. And that's why torture is NOT an effective form of interrogation.
QuoteWaterboarding is due to become a banned practice by U.S. personnel (including CIA officials) pending the release of a revised manual on interrogation procedures.
Yay!
Still, that's terrible.
I think it's one of those uhh... allowed forms of torture...
Incidentally, the reason I read up on it is because a CIA member critisized waterboarding, saying, 'Waterboarding is Torture and Torture is Wrong.', and was fired for saying so. Or that's my understanding from the /. article (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/21/155238&from=rss), anyways. Even if the article is wrong, the fact that waterboarding is still being used is horrible.
The asphyxiation part seems mean, but otherwise...if you're shooting at me I don't really care if somebody tortures you or whatnot. I guess I'd approve of mental torture instead of physical/painful/damaging torture
Quote from: CrAz3D on July 21, 2006, 02:24:10 PM
I guess I'd approve of mental torture instead of physical/painful/damaging torture
I don't know if that's worse, but it sounds it.
This doesn't sound bad. Heh. I'd like to undergo it just so I could truly understand how awful it is.
Quote from: CrAz3D on July 21, 2006, 02:24:10 PM
The asphyxiation part seems mean, but otherwise...if you're shooting at me I don't really care if somebody tortures you or whatnot. I guess I'd approve of mental torture instead of physical/painful/damaging torture
Are you talking about torturing people for the sole purpose of making them suffer? If you are, you have problems.
The reason for torture is usually to get information, but like I said that doesn't work.
And incidentally, they aren't just shooting at you, they're shooting BACK at you. There's a huge difference. I wouldn't want to be captured and tortured for trying to defend my home...
I have no problem with this, the instinct of the prisoner would be to tell the truth and not waste time to fabricate a lie. If they weren't terrorists they wouldn't be in that pridicament in the first place, it's their fault.
I'm against this as well. This is torture and it should not be allowed. What the fuck is wrong with the CIA.
Quote from: OG Trust on July 21, 2006, 03:36:08 PM
I have no problem with this, the instinct of the prisoner would be to tell the truth and not waste time to fabricate a lie. If they weren't terrorists they wouldn't be in that pridicament in the first place, it's their fault.
If your country is invaded, and you're tortured, then I think you'd see it differently. It's always better to be the one doing the torturing, it seems.
And I disagree, if I was afraid for my life and they asked me if xxx was a terrorist, I'd say yes just to make them stop. If they asked me to name all the terrorists I know, and I only knew 1 or 2, then I'd start naming everybody I could, just to stop them from torturing me.
My instinct would be to name names as fast as I could, without regard to whether or not it's true and not waste time trying to remember the names of every terrorist.
Keep in mind that all it takes is a SINGLE mistake made by somebody being tortured (and I think we can agree that they're under some duress), and suddenly innocent people are being forced to name names that they probably don't even know.
And to say that it's their fault, I have a huge problem with. If my country was invaded and my way of life destroyed, I'd do everything in my power to get rid of the occupying force. Would that be my fault? No. I blame the government that destroyed my country. It's like blaming a dog for biting a buglar.
Quote from: iago on July 21, 2006, 02:44:22 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on July 21, 2006, 02:24:10 PM
The asphyxiation part seems mean, but otherwise...if you're shooting at me I don't really care if somebody tortures you or whatnot. I guess I'd approve of mental torture instead of physical/painful/damaging torture
Are you talking about torturing people for the sole purpose of making them suffer? If you are, you have problems.
The reason for torture is usually to get information, but like I said that doesn't work.
Not just to make them suffer (although, that might provide a release of stress & anger), but to get information from them.
Quote from: iago on July 21, 2006, 04:14:28 PM
Quote from: OG Trust on July 21, 2006, 03:36:08 PM
I have no problem with this, the instinct of the prisoner would be to tell the truth and not waste time to fabricate a lie. If they weren't terrorists they wouldn't be in that pridicament in the first place, it's their fault.
If your country is invaded, and you're tortured, then I think you'd see it differently. It's always better to be the one doing the torturing, it seems.
Duh, who would want to be tortured?::)
Quote from: iago on July 21, 2006, 04:14:28 PM
Keep in mind that all it takes is a SINGLE mistake made by somebody being tortured (and I think we can agree that they're under some duress), and suddenly innocent people are being forced to name names that they probably don't even know.
That's just your take on this issue.
I can see people being tortured making up names...but I can also see the investigators check out those named people & if there aren't any matches or anything then I can see the terrorist being tortured again. If he doesn't talk at all, well, his problem...don't be a terrorist.
Quote from: iago on July 21, 2006, 04:14:28 PM
And to say that it's their fault, I have a huge problem with. If my country was invaded and my way of life destroyed, I'd do everything in my power to get rid of the occupying force. Would that be my fault? No. I blame the government that destroyed my country. It's like blaming a dog for biting a buglar.
1) It isnt their country...terrorists dont have countries...they travel internationally and belong to their organization & religion, not any country. Al Qaeda?...they like throughout the mid east, not any single country though.
Furthermore, if you attack the strongest country in the world it only makes sense that we'd go find them since the country they are living in won't turn them over.
Terrorists were the original instigators of conflict. SO, by that (obviously), they are the burglars. They sneak in & hurt us, we retaliate...its instinct, its nature, its justice.
Bottom line: Torture isn't a method we should be using to extract information. It's defined as a cruel and unusual punishment in the United States Constitution.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=6789.msg83518#msg83518 date=1153517897]
Bottom line: Torture isn't a method we should be using to extract information. It's defined as a cruel and unusual punishment in the United States Constitution.
yeah...but there are exceptions to every rule ;) ... at least so far there have been
Quote from: CrAz3D on July 21, 2006, 05:43:58 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=6789.msg83518#msg83518 date=1153517897]
Bottom line: Torture isn't a method we should be using to extract information. It's defined as a cruel and unusual punishment in the United States Constitution.
yeah...but there are exceptions to every rule ;) ... at least so far there have been
Oh so there is an exception to denying the rights guaranteed by the constitution so long as you are tried under the united states courts? Nice. It's great to see that the US government is willing to deny the rights it promised to people and resort to the torture and tyranny seen in Britain.
It all depends how you define torture. To me torture is doing actual physical harm to said captive or people with relations to said captive. This is just a more extreme example of the methods they use. They are also known to make prisoners stand/kneel/whatever for 'excessive' lengths of time.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=6789.msg83524#msg83524 date=1153518476]
Quote from: CrAz3D on July 21, 2006, 05:43:58 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=6789.msg83518#msg83518 date=1153517897]
Bottom line: Torture isn't a method we should be using to extract information. It's defined as a cruel and unusual punishment in the United States Constitution.
yeah...but there are exceptions to every rule ;) ... at least so far there have been
Oh so there is an exception to denying the rights guaranteed by the constitution so long as you are tried under the united states courts? Nice. It's great to see that the US government is willing to deny the rights it promised to people and resort to the torture and tyranny seen in Britain.
So far, there is an exception to basically every rule in the book.
Murder is ok in some case, its fine to limit speech sometimes, I can't take a gun into a school...there are exceptions to rules.
Quote from: iago on July 21, 2006, 04:14:28 PM
And I disagree, if I was afraid for my life and they asked me if xxx was a terrorist, I'd say yes just to make them stop. If they asked me to name all the terrorists I know, and I only knew 1 or 2, then I'd start naming everybody I could, just to stop them from torturing me.
My instinct would be to name names as fast as I could, without regard to whether or not it's true and not waste time trying to remember the names of every terrorist.
Keep in mind that all it takes is a SINGLE mistake made by somebody being tortured (and I think we can agree that they're under some duress), and suddenly innocent people are being forced to name names that they probably don't even know.
It's like I'm reading
The Crucible all over again!
(For those who haven't read it, I suggest you read it. It's not bad and basically describes the above situation perfectly.)
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=6789.msg83518#msg83518 date=1153517897]
Bottom line: Torture isn't a method we should be using to extract information. It's defined as a cruel and unusual punishment in the United States Constitution.
I assume we are discussing people in foreign nations from iago saying that it always seems better to be the country doing the torturing. And if they are foreign, then they have no rights under the US constitution.
I dont really have a say on the issue, in that I feel it is all about individual cases. And it mostly boils down to morals, something which we cant agree upon.
Quote from: leet_muffin on July 21, 2006, 09:40:34 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=6789.msg83518#msg83518 date=1153517897]
Bottom line: Torture isn't a method we should be using to extract information. It's defined as a cruel and unusual punishment in the United States Constitution.
I assume we are discussing people in foreign nations from iago saying that it always seems better to be the country doing the torturing. And if they are foreign, then they have no rights under the US constitution.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't your constitution practically start with, "...all men are created equal...", and not "...all Americans are created equal..."?
To do little more than reiterate: this is a totally unconstitutional course of action. I definitely think that it should be outlawed; it's a disgrace to the American constitution.
While it probably doesn't leave a residual effect like other types of torture (inflictions of pain in cruel ways, etc), it's definitely still torture.
Quote from: iago on July 22, 2006, 01:55:45 AM
Quote from: leet_muffin on July 21, 2006, 09:40:34 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=6789.msg83518#msg83518 date=1153517897]
Bottom line: Torture isn't a method we should be using to extract information. It's defined as a cruel and unusual punishment in the United States Constitution.
I assume we are discussing people in foreign nations from iago saying that it always seems better to be the country doing the torturing. And if they are foreign, then they have no rights under the US constitution.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't your constitution practically start with, "...all men are created equal...", and not "...all Americans are created equal..."?
Yes, it does. Our constitution is also quite contradicting at times. This is a perfect example. Foreigners dont have any protection under the constitution. (It comes in particularily handy when dealing with illegal Mexicans.) Another example is black people being unprotected for several years, and they
were American citizens.
yeah, thats true...the Constitution basically means whatever we say it means...yay for living documents ::)
Quote from: zorm on July 21, 2006, 05:53:50 PM
It all depends how you define torture. To me torture is doing actual physical harm to said captive or people with relations to said captive. This is just a more extreme example of the methods they use. They are also known to make prisoners stand/kneel/whatever for 'excessive' lengths of time.
You should probably update how you define torture, then.
wikipedia:
QuoteTorture is any act by which severe pain, whether physical or psychological, is intentionally inflicted on a person as a means of intimidation, deterrence, revenge, punishment, or information gathering. It can be used as an interrogation tactic to extract confessions. Torture is also used as a method of coercion or as a tool to control groups seen as a threat by governments. Throughout history, it has often been used as a method of effecting religious conversion or political "re-education".
m-w.com:
Quote1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain
Quote from: leet_muffin on July 22, 2006, 03:57:01 AM
Yes, it does. Our constitution is also quite contradicting at times. This is a perfect example. Foreigners dont have any protection under the constitution. (It comes in particularily handy when dealing with illegal Mexicans.) Another example is black people being unprotected for several years, and they were American citizens.
So all people are created equal, but only if they're Americans? That's fucking stupid. Your statements quickly remind me of Animal Farm:
QuoteAll animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
Quote from: CrAz3D on July 22, 2006, 07:52:42 AM
yeah, thats true...the Constitution basically means whatever we say it means...yay for living documents ::)
Yeah, let's just throw white paint next to the statements that give us our "rights."
It's easy to not care about retracting rights from non-Americans, but I highly suspect you'll be whining more when they keep on chewing away on the rights for Americans.
Quote from: Sidoh on July 22, 2006, 01:19:17 PM
Quote from: leet_muffin on July 22, 2006, 03:57:01 AM
Yes, it does. Our constitution is also quite contradicting at times. This is a perfect example. Foreigners dont have any protection under the constitution. (It comes in particularily handy when dealing with illegal Mexicans.) Another example is black people being unprotected for several years, and they were American citizens.
So all people are created equal, but only if they're Americans? That's fucking stupid. Your statements quickly remind me of Animal Farm:
QuoteAll animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
Christ on a stick, calm down. Its not my constitution, there would be some big changes. I support some basic rights for foreigners, I was just stating that the constitution does not protect them.
I believe everyone, even foreigners should have the same fundemental set of rights that we do (Right to fair trial, etc..) but obviously you can't give them all american rights (Right to overthrow an oppresive government, right to bear arms, etc..).
Quote from: leet_muffin on July 22, 2006, 03:57:01 AM
Yes, it does. Our constitution is also quite contradicting at times. This is a perfect example. Foreigners dont have any protection under the constitution. (It comes in particularily handy when dealing with illegal Mexicans.)
IIRC, illegal immigrants are guaranteed certain rights. Due process, right to remain silent, and free from unreasonable searches and seizures are the ones I remember.
Quote from: dark_drake on July 22, 2006, 11:32:34 PM
IIRC, illegal immigrants are guaranteed certain rights. Due process, right to remain silent, and free from unreasonable searches and seizures are the ones I remember.
They're guaranteed this right: The one the border patrol van takes to dump their foreign asses over the motherfucking border.
They need to learn to get in line. Lots of people immigrating here do. Why the fuck can't they?
Quote from: Newby on July 23, 2006, 02:33:24 AM
They're guaranteed this right: The one the border patrol van takes to dump their foreign asses over the motherfucking border.
They need to learn to get in line. Lots of people immigrating here do. Why the fuck can't they?
You seem to make a very dangerous mistake that many people do: you don't seem to remember that foreigners are human beings who have thoughts, feelings, fears, and hopes. You shouldn't treat somebody like garbage, just because they weren't lucky enough to be born in a good country.