• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former President George W. Bush: We waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed,

Torturing someone to get info from them will only get you one thing, bad information. They'll say anything to make it stop. Torturing is immoral, and ineffective, we shouldn't do it, and we have better ways to get good info from people.

Your first line is absolutely positively false and makes no sense. "Torture" both the intense kind, the middle of the road kind, and the kind you see depicted in interrogation rooms in Law and Order and NCIS are, to varying degrees, considered to be average to poor means of getting good information in regards to efficiency, with the amount of pain generally decreasing the efficiency of the information. However to say that the ONLY thing one will get is bad information is patentedly false and if it was true our military would have a LOT to answer for. Why? Because we perform much of this "Torture" on some of our men and women in the armed forces. What exactly are we preparing them to "Withstand" if torture absolutely positively ALWAYS gives bad information. Why should we train them to withstand torture so as to hold out on giving information if its impossible for said information to ever be given because torture doesn't work?
 
The Taliban are terrorists, so it's not shocking what they do, especially since 9/11. The American military are not, and should not be. While I admit that sawing off someone's head is much more barbaric than waterboarding, they are both disgusting acts of cruelty. Just because something is not as cruel as the other doesn't make it okay.


In my opinion, it is comparing firecrackers and nuclear warheads; an entirely different class of action.



Never heard of this. Got a link?


Yes. PolitiFact | Duncan Hunter says we have waterboarded our own military as part of training exercises


I love how you downplay waterboarding like it's a stroll in the park. :doh

Several of my friends have been through it in SERE training in the military, and have told me about their experiences. They hated it, it scared the crap out of them, they were ready to comply with any demands quickly... but it did them no lasting harm. The soldiers of my acquaintance who have been waterboarded in training are very contemptous of accusations that it is "torture" and too barbaric for us to use against terrorists... I suppose I "caught their attitude" towards it.


Now let me ask you this. Say the Taliban captured a bunch of US military personnel, and waterboarded them all to "extract information," how would you feel about it?

I am not burdened by the need to justify myself under moral equivalency. I abhor it when the enemy kills one of our soldiers; I applaud when our soldiers kill one of the enemy. This does not mean I would consider anything and everything justified simply becasue we do it to them, it simply means that I know which side I am on.

In point of fact "they" have done far, far worse to our captured troops on many occasions.




PS. How in the hell can you watch that video???

I forced myself to watch it, so that I would have a realistic appraisal of the kind of people we were up against. It was horrible and it gave me nightmares for weeks.... it also gave me perspective on just how horrible the people we are fighting can be. Our halos may be a bit rusty and tilted to one side, but if you watch that horrid video all the way through, with the sound ON, you will be confronted by the fact that the side of greatest evil is most definately them and not us.


Try it, it might give you a whole new outlook on this conflict. Reality in the raw will tend to do that.
 
Last edited:
Never heard of this. Got a link?

I believe check into SERE school as I believe that's where it occurs.

I love how you downplay waterboarding like it's a stroll in the park. :doh

In the torture world I'd say its more like a brisk jog/run through the park. Strenuous, more than a simple walk, but definitely not a marathon.

Granted, things are relative. Someone may have some cheese dip that has some jalapeño ppers in it and go "Wow that's spicey". However if they've just had Buffalo Wings soaked in habanero pepper juices or Phall Curry (Considered possibly the hottest curry in the world), then your "spicey" cheese is likely going to be looked at as far more mild than it did when looking at it alone.

Now let me ask you this. Say the Taliban captured a bunch of US military personnel, and waterboarded them all to "extract information," how would you feel about it?

I'd say I'd be happy that they're going for likely far, far less severe and lifetime impacting forms of "torture" on our men and women then they are likely doing currently.

I'd prefer that they not torture our people at all, and I would be ABSOLUTELY against us waterboarding if they weren't...however they do, so frankly if it was a choice between waterboarding or how they likely torture our men and women then I'd say go grab the water.
 
I was always in the middle with the waterboarding policy debate.

That being said, I see a number of posts within the first page that I thought were the most true: 1) his personal stance with how to respond to another President's actions are admirable 2) His former staff are the protectors of his legacy and have done enough work to criticize various aspects of the current administration, the Democratic party platform, and presenting their view of proper policy.
 
This I just cant understand. You say that you wouldnt torture someone to save a loved on because it would haunt you the rest of your life but say that you would give your live for that same person. So you are willing to be dead to save someone but not haunted for the rest of your life. Some how I find that really hard to belive. Giving your life to save someone is the ultimate sacrifice and you say you are willing to do that but not willing to do something that would give you bad dreams and trouble you for the rest of your life. Sounds to me like either you are either (A) not being honest, (B) not really thinking this all the way through or (C) you are just young and dont havent had to deal with to much life or death isuess.
 
Ya I mentioned that, this assertion as been thrown around a lot and to this day after repeated request no one can provide a case summary, the name of the case, or even the name of the soldier in question. Perhaps you'll have better luck than the rest of the people who all supplied the same un-cited article making the same unsubstantiated claims.

Wasn't an internet then. Still, we have history:

"The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.

History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding - ABC News

PH2006100500896.jpg


On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.

Waterboarding: A Tortured History : NPR

“We prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam,” Mr. Holder said. “Waterboarding is torture.”

In the view of many historians and legal authorities, Mr. Holder was merely admitting the obvious. He was agreeing with the clear position of his boss-to-be, President-elect Barack Obama, and he was giving an answer that almost certainly was necessary to win confirmation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/us/politics/17detain.html

After World War II, U.S. military commissions prosecuted several Japanese soldiers for subjecting U.S. soldiers to waterboarding, according to Human Rights Watch. In 1968, a U.S. soldier was court-martialed for water boarding a Vietnamese prisoner.

Waterboarding: Interrogation Or Torture? - CBS News

The is listed as withheld on this site:

http://usiraq.procon.org/sourcefiles/background_information_waterboarding.pdf


We might have to do something more extensive than can be done on the internet right now, but where are the vocies challenging this? Any serious voices doubtiung this? And no, Glen Beck wouldn't count. ;)
 
This I just cant understand. You say that you wouldnt torture someone to save a loved on because it would haunt you the rest of your life but say that you would give your live for that same person. So you are willing to be dead to save someone but not haunted for the rest of your life. Some how I find that really hard to belive. Giving your life to save someone is the ultimate sacrifice and you say you are willing to do that but not willing to do something that would give you bad dreams and trouble you for the rest of your life. Sounds to me like either you are either (A) not being honest, (B) not really thinking this all the way through or (C) you are just young and dont havent had to deal with to much life or death isuess.

I am going to assume that was directed at me since I said I would give my life to save a loved one, but not torture some one. And yes I am being honest when I say that. I would not be able to live with myself if I were to torture some one. I tend to feel guilty about the little things and so something big like torturing some one would mentally and physically kill me. And I know that may seem like a weird thing to say, but I don't think a person could understand it by me just explaining myself over the internet. This is a type of you have to meet me in person type thing.

As for your second comment I have actually thought it through pretty well because I was helping my girlfriend write a paper about torture last night. And I explained to her that I would not be able to live with myself if I tortured another person, which she sort of already knew, but without a doubt if I had to give my own life to save her life I would. As for you third part yes I am rather young since I will be turning 22 in October, but sadly I have had to deal with some life and death issues. The most recent being my best friend committing suicide which lead to me thinking about life and I honestly feel more comfortable with the idea that in order to save a loved one I am willing to risk my own life.

As I said before I am well aware that my stance of not torturing, but willing to give my own life instead confuses and throws a lot of people off. I just feel you would understand why I feel the way I do if you knew me personally. There are some things that just cannot be explained over the internet.
 
I have been to SERE level 3 which is the least enjoyable of all the SERE classes and they do not do waterboarding there. Now I cant say if they did in the past or not but anyone who tells you that they were waterboarded at SERE and it was in the last 8 years or so than they are straight up BSing you. I do not belive there is anywhere in the US military in the last ten years atleast that waterboards thier students.
 
torture- the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure- From the Webster dictionary.

Waterboarding is torture, and torture is not an effective means to get information out of somebody. It's just a fact, they will say anything to make the pain go away.

I don't consider waterboarding to cause intense pain. The definitions of torture of the U.N. and the U.S. define torture using the subjective qualifier of "severe" mental or physical pain, it is subjective thus open to interpretation and useless. I consider rap music to cause me sever mental pain, but does that make it torture? Get some meaningful legal definitions of what constitutes torture and then we'll talk.
 
I have been to SERE level 3 which is the least enjoyable of all the SERE classes and they do not do waterboarding there. Now I cant say if they did in the past or not but anyone who tells you that they were waterboarded at SERE and it was in the last 8 years or so than they are straight up BSing you. I do not belive there is anywhere in the US military in the last ten years atleast that waterboards thier students.

Even if they did, the experience wouldn't quite be the same as you know you are not in the hands of the actual enemy. Not that it wouldn't be uncomfortable enough to let you know what to expect. It just wouldn't be exactly the same.
 
I suppose we just look at things differently. If someone had my son and I thought that torture might in anyway get him back than that is what I would do. If I thought that torturing the person was going to be something that I couldnt live with than I would still go ahead and do it and if I found I couldnt live with it than I would take my own life happily knowning that I did every thing possible to save my sons life. The one thing that I know I could never live with is not doing what ever I could do to keep my son from harm. If he is ok everything else is a minor concern.
 
Your first line is absolutely positively false and makes no sense. "Torture" both the intense kind, the middle of the road kind, and the kind you see depicted in interrogation rooms in Law and Order and NCIS are, to varying degrees, considered to be average to poor means of getting good information in regards to efficiency, with the amount of pain generally decreasing the efficiency of the information. However to say that the ONLY thing one will get is bad information is patentedly false and if it was true our military would have a LOT to answer for. Why? Because we perform much of this "Torture" on some of our men and women in the armed forces. What exactly are we preparing them to "Withstand" if torture absolutely positively ALWAYS gives bad information. Why should we train them to withstand torture so as to hold out on giving information if its impossible for said information to ever be given because torture doesn't work?

The odds of torture giving you good, and accurate information, is quite low. Like I said, they are more likely to admit to things they didn't do, or lie to make the pain stop than give you solid information. Not to mention you know that its illegal. Interrogation is different than torture, I'm fine with interrogation, I'm not okay with torture. I'm not willing to risk human lives on bad information because of the ineffective policy of torture.

Also we are preparing them for torture, because well it happens. If they get captured we want our soldiers to be prepared for the worst.
 
I don't consider waterboarding to cause intense pain. The definitions of torture of the U.N. and the U.S. define torture using the subjective qualifier of "severe" mental or physical pain, it is subjective thus open to interpretation and useless. I consider rap music to cause me sever mental pain, but does that make it torture? Get some meaningful legal definitions of what constitutes torture and then we'll talk.

I'm sorry, but that's weak.

Waterboarding is Illegal - Washington University Law Review
 
I suppose we just look at things differently. If someone had my son and I thought that torture might in anyway get him back than that is what I would do. If I thought that torturing the person was going to be something that I couldnt live with than I would still go ahead and do it and if I found I couldnt live with it than I would take my own life happily knowning that I did every thing possible to save my sons life. The one thing that I know I could never live with is not doing what ever I could do to keep my son from harm. If he is ok everything else is a minor concern.

And what if you were wrong, you got misinformation, and this cost you time and the life of your son?
 
When did I say it would be the first thing I did because it wouldnt. It would be the last thing I would do but if it was the last chance I had than you better belive I would most certinley do it. And not think twice.
 
Actually no.

Boo,

Actually, yes...

See how unnecessary that was? Please refrain from making empty assertions, as they add nothing to the discussion.

A stopped clock is right twice a day, but you wouldn't argue it works.

A spurious analogy that falsely assumes torture can only obtain intelligence by pure chance. You cannot definitively claim this is or would be the case - you can only assume so.

At any time, you might get something, but that wouldn't make it effective. Nor does it mean you wouldn't get the same intel, or better with another method. The problems associated with torture, misinformation, and the mroal strain, make something so ineffective as it has proven to be, not worth using. If it is wrong nine times, and we use that wrong intel, as we have (see al Libib), getting it right once wouldn't be enough to make it valid.

Suppose you're the President and the CIA captures a high level AQ commander. They use all available interrogation methods except "torture" and nothing is working. The chief interrogator comes to you, the President, and says, "Sir, we've tried everything but nothing is working. We know this guy has actionable intelligence that could severely compromise AQ's ability to attack American interests at home and abroad but we've run out of options. Sir, we think we can get him to talk but we need to apply some additional pressure, perhaps waterboarding or prolonged food and sleep deprivation, maybe both. We need your permission to proceed."

What is your response? I'm genuinely curious to know what you would do.
 
When did I say it would be the first thing I did because it wouldnt. It would be the last thing I would do but if it was the last chance I had than you better belive I would most certinley do it. And not think twice.

I don't recall using the word first. But as torture is not likely to get you want you want, and more likely to get you misinformation, I don't see any other reason for doing it. We may well feel like it. But more likely we would have the wrong person, and not get what we're after.
 
While i agree that the odds of getting good info form torture, low odds are better than no odds and if I feel that I have the person responsible for taking my son and I have no other options than torture is what I will do and I will happily take responsibility for my actions both legal and more importantly to me morally.
 
While i agree that the odds of getting good info form torture, low odds are better than no odds and if I feel that I have the person responsible for taking my son and I have no other options than torture is what I will do and I will happily take responsibility for my actions both legal and more importantly to me morally.

You and many others might well do so, but that doesn't mean it would be effective or anything more than punishing someone who may or may not be the person you want. I think this is why we have laws. What we would do needs to be tempered by something more reasonable and less emotional. Hard to be completely unemotional, but laws help us step back and seek other methods.
 
Our enemy waterboards? o_O

So if its good enough for terrorists, then its a standard the US should live by?

We prosecuted and hanged members of the Japanese and German armies for this as war crimes. So, you are saying, in your book that its ok to be hypocrites, war criminals and stand for nothing....

Unbelievable.

Sorry, my America stand is the home of the free and the BRAVE. We do not compromise what we are about. This is an act of cowardice.

That all said, it was nice of George to confess to be a war criminal.
 
Last edited:

I'm sorry but your article is weak.

Three major treaties that the United States has signed and unambiguously ratified prohibit the United States from subjecting prisoners in the War on Terror to this kind of treatment. First, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which the Senate unanimously ratified in 1955, prohibits the parties to the treaty from acts upon prisoners including “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; . . . outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.”[18] Second, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Senate ratified in 1992, states that “[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”[19] Third, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, which the Senate ratified in 1994, provides that “[e]ach State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction,”[20] and that “[e]ach State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture . . . .”[21]

Yes it says that torture is illegal in the United States, the only problem is that torture is defined in both the UN Convention Against Torture and domestic statute 18 U.S.C. § 2340 using the subjective qualifier of "severe" mental or physical pain, once again severe is a subjective term and thus the definition of torture is subjective and a subjective definition is completely useless, once again I consider rap music to cause me severe mental harm, but is it torture to force me to listen to rap music? I think not. Using the current definitions of torture anything including offering cake and ice cream to the prisoner could be considered torture, I mean they might be vegans and the use of milk and eggs in cake&icecream might cause them severe mental pain. Those poor poor animals forced into bondage, I'm getting weepy just thinking about it. ****ing Ben&Jerry's those torturing bastards, they need to be brought before the Hague ASAP.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry but your article is weak.



Yes it says that torture is illegal in the United States, the only problem is that torture is defined in both the UN Convention Against Torture and domestic statute 18 U.S.C. § 2340 both use the subjective qualifer of "severe" mental or physical pain, once again severe is a subjective term and thus the definition of torture is subjective and a subjective definition s completely useless, once again I consider rap music to cause me severe mental harm, but is it torture to force me to listen to rap music? I think not. Using the current definitions of torture anything including offering cake and ice cream to the prisoner could be considered torture, I mean they might be vegans and the use of milk and eggs in cake&icecream might cause them severe mental pain. Those poor poor animals forced into bondage, I'm getting weepy just thinking about it. ****ing Ben&Jerry's those torturing bastards, they need to be brought before the Hague ASAP.

The language was used to make more things illegal and not less. As noted, we have seen it as torture in the past. You and Bush and his people simply wanted to excuse breaking the law. read the entire article btw.
 
So if its good enough for terrorists, then its a standard the US should live by?

We prosecuted and hanged members of the Japanese and German armies for this as war crimes. So, you are saying, in your book that its ok to be hypocrites, war criminals and stand for nothing....

Unbelievable.

Sorry, my America stand is the home of the free and the BRAVE. We do not compromise what we are about. This is an act of cowardice.

That all said, it was nice of George to confess to be a war criminal.

What's unbelievable is the disinformation campaign I see before me.

The Japanese did not engage in the same type of waterboarding as we do, they forced people to drink water until their stomach descended and then beat and kicked the descended stomachs until they popped.
 
While i agree that the odds of getting good info form torture, low odds are better than no odds and if I feel that I have the person responsible for taking my son and I have no other options than torture is what I will do and I will happily take responsibility for my actions both legal and more importantly to me morally.

We received no actionable intelligence from this other than to link Iraq and Al Qaeda. We did, however, show the world that we are capable of stooping the standards of the least civilized countries of the world and showed our cowardice.
 
The language was used to make more things illegal and not less.

Providing cake&icecream to the prisoner can be considered torture under the current legislation.

As noted, we have seen it as torture in the past.

As noted I have repeatedly requested the case summary, the case name, or the name of the U.S. soldier from the Vietnam war who was successfully prosecuted for waterboarding. I have been requesting this since that article started circling its way around the net a couple of years ago and to this day not a single person has met the challenge and provided the information.

You and Bush and his people simply wanted to excuse breaking the law. read the entire article btw.

I read the ****ing article it does not in any way change the fact that the international and domestic definitions of torture are completely subjective.
 
Back
Top Bottom