Thread: Is waterboarding torture?

Originally Posted by ***COMMANDER***

It's not torture. Also, when you talk, it stops, so it is up to the terrorist as to how far they want to go with this.

It does not physically harm them not even one iota.

Keep in mind, these are not citizens, but enemy combatants and terrorist and cold blooded killers and the information we are trying to extract, saves lives.

Absolutely not torture.

Well let's see............whose word should I take the Navy SERE school Sr. Petty Officer or you the.....the....what is your area of expertise in regards to this subject? ......Yeah, I think I'll side with the actual EXPERT. Waterboarding is torture, and it isn't American, and it is cowardly.

1an·guish
Pronunciation: \?a?-gwish\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English angwisshe, from Anglo-French anguisse, angoisse, from Latin angustiae, plural, straits, distress, from angustus narrow; akin to Old English enge narrow — more at anger
Date: 13th century
: extreme pain, distress, or anxiety

#4 in the definition of torture

Water boarding does meet the definition of torture. I'm still good with it being using as military tactics. No one shows us a safe haven when we are captured. Why should we be the only ones doing it? What is there to fear in combat if your captured and they put you up in a detainment center that caters to you. There should always be fear about being captured. War is not a pleasant thing nether should being a prisoner of war. If information can be extracted without permanant physical damage I say go for it.

It's not like our opinion on it matters. This has been going on long before this country was founded and will continue. Why because it works.

Originally Posted by Highstakes72

Here is my problem with the last few statements...

If we say water boarding is torture why do we continue to train for it per Hawgs SERE reference? On some level it appears neccessary.

:3

At SERE, one of my most serious responsibilities was to employ, supervise or witness dramatic and highly kinetic coercive interrogation methods, through hands-on, live demonstrations in a simulated captive environment which inoculated our student to the experience of high intensity stress and duress.

Some of these coercive physical techniques have been identified in the media as Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. The most severe of those employed by SERE was waterboarding.

Within the four SERE schools and Joint Personnel Recovery community, the waterboard was rightly used as a demonstration tool that revealed to our students the techniques of brutal authoritarian enemies.

SERE trained tens of thousands of service members of its historical use by the Nazis, the Japanese, North Korea, Iraq, the Soviet Union, the Khmer Rouge and the North Vietnamese.


SERE emphasized that enemies of democracy and rule of law often ignore human rights, defy the Geneva Convention and have subjected our men and women to grievous physical and psychological harm. We stress that enduring these calumnies will allow our soldiers to return home with honor.

The SERE community was designed over 50 years ago to show that, as a torture instrument, waterboarding is a terrifying, painful and humiliating tool that leaves no physical scars and which can be repeatedly used as an intimidation tool.

You had the answer right there in your question.. We train for it, we don't train to do it. Sere school, was designed not to train our forces to torture, but to expose them to the torture tactics commonly used by "the Nazis, the Japanese, North Korea, Iraq, the Soviet Union, the Khmer Rouge and the North Vietnamese."

Now my question, were we wrong to convict some Japanese Officers for employing the exact same tactics during the second World War? If not, what makes it any different if we employ it versus them or the NVA or Lil Kim? If we were wrong to convict, should we apologize to the families of those Japanese that we hanged in stemming from the International Military Tribunal for the Far East?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...waterboarding/

Originally Posted by Highstakes72

My other problem is in all the thread in which the members from both sides of the spectrum bash each other relentlessly...I cannot quite pin down when and under what circumstances some members here would actually commit violence for the protection of the American People. The whole sanctity of human life argument is for one sided casualties. Our stateless enemy is just that...stateless and faceless; as long as they drill holes through peoples limbs and savagely torture then execute civilians in their own country I could give a fuck less if their beard gets wet. The world is a raw and savage place no matter how smart we think we have become with our lackluster education system in the past 30 years.

Simply, at what point are the detractors here willing to fight someone else instead of another American?

When that other American begins to listen to reason. Do you truly think that the US will never be in another conventional war again? Because if you don't, I would like to think that the Geneva Convention could be somewhat of a layer of protection for out fighting forces. It doesn't matter who we are fighting, and how they fight, there is an example to set, otherwise we haven't got a leg to stand on, in regards to the conventions that follow after a war is over. A war crime is a war crime, no matter who is doing it, and who they are doing it to. And besides that, it isn't the only tool, and it isn't proven effective. I think I heard more intel was gleaned from giving a detainee a sugar free cookie, than waterboarding. Yep, FBI interrogator Ali Soufan's testimony before the Senate a couple of weeks ago.

In addition the harsh techniques only serves to reinforce what the detainee has been prepared to expect if captured. This gives him a greater sense of control and predictability about his experience, and strengthens his will to resist.

A second major problem with this technique is that evidence gained from it is unreliable. There is no way to know whether the detainee is being truthful, or just speaking to either mitigate his discomfort or to deliberately provide false information. As the interrogator isn't an expert on the detainee or the subject matter, nor has he spent time going over the details of the case, the interrogator cannot easily know if the detainee is telling the truth. This unfortunately has happened and we have had problems ranging from agents chasing false leads to the disastrous case of Ibn Sheikh al-Libby who gave false information on Iraq, al Qaeda, and WMD.

A third major problem with this technique is that it is slow. It takes place over a long period of time, for example preventing the detainee from sleeping for 180 hours as the memos detail, or waterboarding 183 times in the case of KSM. When we have an alleged "ticking timebomb" scenario and need to get information quickly, we can't afford to wait that long.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings...42&wit_id=7906

I don't think ruining the reputation of our country over over highly questionable intel, is a little too much risk for the reward. How about a sugarless cookie?