"Enhanced Interrogation" (Waterboarding): Has it's use now been justified?

OutlawPete

Seems pretty clear now (what with the comments coming from Washington over the past few days) that 'Waterboarding' without question played a large part in the interrogation procedure that was used in locating the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvSpKYzgf60

Of course, most media outlets are falling over themselves trying to avoid this fact. To admit it would be to give the Bush administration credit after all and so not something NBC, CNN, SKY etc will want to do given an option, but the fact remains, suspects were waterboarded (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) and the information garnered though it led to information (one of Bin laden's courier's nicknames) and then phones were tapped and ultimately to Bin Laden being located and killed. So has that justifed the use of waterboarding as a form of interrogation?

AhSureTisGrand

So torture is justified as long as it works, is it?

A Dub in Glasgo

OutlawPete wrote: »

So has that justifed the use of waterboarding as a form of interrogation?

No, what is your view?

Saila

get your tomatoes, great snack while you sit down and watch the show

pragmatic1

Its torture. Torture doesnt work.

ejmaztec

Was it water-boarding or was it high voltage to the nuts?

Mrmoe

I would never rule out the total use of waterboarding but it's use should be strictly controlled and not necessarily used as a standard method of interrogation. Isn't one of the problems with this technique that the quality and veracity of the information gained will be called into question. If I didn't know something and I was being interrogated I would probably make something up just to get out of it. It should never be a standalone technique. I do think it is and was justified but only in special cases.

Saila

whats worse waterboarding or chinese water torture

Craebear

Nope.

AckwelFoley

Im deeply divided on this.

But No tends to be the final result each time i debate it with myself.

Dudess

A person would confess to anything under that monstrosity of a system, therefore it's not effective.

OutlawPete

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

No, what is your view?

Well, that's just it - I am not 100% convinced but if what seems to be the case here (that without it's use Bin laden would still be coducting his war against the west) then yes, I have to say I am more at ease with it's use than I was previously.

Abu Zubaydeh himself said that all al Qaeda members were trained to withstand torture up until they could take no more at which point it was permissiblefor them to speak.

It's all very well and good saying that waterboarding should not be used, but what if there was a bomb in London underground tonight, planted by a member of al Qaeda and it could be disarmed with a code. They caught the guy as he was leaving and had an hour for him to reveal it, would torture still be off the table on humanitarian grounds?

Of course that is most likely a situation that will never be faced but the scenario is posed as gets rid of most fence sitters on this issue, one way or the other. If you would approve of waterboarding in such an instance, then it's just a matter of scale with you and it's not an issue with waterboarding that you have. I would support waterboarding by the US, but only if the President himself approved it and it couldn't just be used by the military/CIA whenever they saw fit.

Micky Dolenz

War is a messy painful business. Torture does work, torture enough of the right people and you'll get your intel.

No

Once its certain the people are criminals/terrorists anything goes imo. Why should we care what people who engage in terrorists acts/planning are put through they deserve it especially if info gained can help prevent future attacks.

dave1982

No

Navy seals are water boarded themselves during their training

so if it's good enough for them....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWay0ARZNvA

Thoie

OutlawPete wrote: »

It's all very well and good saying that waterboarding should not be used, but what if there was a bomb in London underground tonight, planted by a member of al Qaeda and it could be disarmed with a code. They caught the guy as he was leaving and had an hour for him to reveal it, would torture still be off the table on humanitarian grounds?

In that situation I think the time could be better spent on evacuations and suspension of the transport system, as I wouldn't take the risk that he'd tell me the right code under torture, and using the wrong code could detonate the device early.

Expanding your scenario, what if they had caught 3 guys, only one of whom was the bomber, the other two were just commuters, and we don't know which is which? Do we torture all 3 of them "for the greater good"?

My name is URL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58

If you place people under enough stress/pain they'll tell you whatever you want to hear.. true or not. I don't see how it can be justified when so many legal loopholes need to be jumped through before they carry it out.

OutlawPete

Thoie wrote: »

In that situation I think the time could be better spent on evacuations and suspension of the transport system, as I wouldn't take the risk that he'd tell me the right code under torture, and using the wrong code could detonate the device early.

Well oviousily a police force is going to evacuate also and not just hope that the guy gives the code. I am presenting the question of wheter waterboarding should always be avoided, just based on humanitarian grounds, it's not about the London underground, that was just being used as an example.

Thoie wrote: »

IExpanding your scenario, what if they had caught 3 guys, only one of whom was the bomber, the other two were just commuters, and we don't know which is which? Do we torture all 3 of them "for the greater good"?

If we "KNOW" one of the three is a bomber and could reveal the location of a bomb and that could save thousands of lives, then yes - people will get over waterboarding, thousands of people are not going to come back to life.

My initial example was lazy, lets say that MI5 raid a flat in the UK tomorrow and there is a guy on his own and everything they find points to the fact that there are two suicide bombers on one train somewhere in the UK, but they have no idea which train it is. Would it be okay to use waterboarding here in an effort to get this third guy to talk, if all other means of interrogation fail?

InTheTrees

My name is URL wrote: »

If you place people under enough stress/pain they'll tell you whatever you want to hear.. true or not.

SO if it can work and you can get The Truth, then surely it must be justified.

Take the hypothetical situation of the password protected bomb on the school bus full of kids. DO you torture someone to save the lives of the kids?

We all know we'd torture in that situation dont we? I think thats the creepy part of the whole debate. The horrible realization that actually violence is a viable solution.

wandatowell

If its good enough for jack bauer............

dvpower

Even if waterboarding garnered good information in this case, it doesn't make it a good technique.

I wonder how many operations were launched possibly killing innocent people based on bad information obtained by waterboarding?

dvpower

wandatowell wrote: »

If its good enough for jack bauer............

Instead of waterboarding suspects, they should just hire Kiefer Sutherland to stand at the back of the room during interrogations. Mess with their minds.

Kevin Duffy

Besides the arguments against doing it to anyone, I can't see how its use so far can be justified given that it seems to be used on suspects. Not convicted people or people caught in the undeniable, inescapable commission of a crime, just suspects.

My name is URL

InTheTrees wrote: »

SO if it can work and you can get The Truth, then surely it must be justified.

Take the hypothetical situation of the password protected bomb on the school bus full of kids. DO you torture someone to save the lives of the kids?

We all know we'd torture in that situation dont we? I think thats the creepy part of the whole debate. The horrible realization that actually violence is a viable solution.

If you know who to torture then yeah, it's quite justified. Of course there are instances where it would be required.. such as in your scenario.

For fighting a fairly vague 'war on terror', where many of the suspects are innocent then torture probably isn't the best option. I'd imagine that being subjected to such actions would drive people to become enemies more than it would help to sort out the apparent problem.

Saila

dvpower wrote: »

Instead of waterboarding suspects, they should just hire Kiefer Sutherland to stand at the back of the room during interrogations. Mess with their minds.

yeah I hear 24 is big in afghanistan

enfant terrible

No

My name is URL wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58

If you place people under enough stress/pain they'll tell you whatever you want to hear.. true or not. I don't see how it can be justified when so many legal loopholes need to be jumped through before they carry it out.

That's not how it works.

Waterboarding and other techniques are used to gain corporation, only questions the interrogator knows are true are asked at this stage.

If the suspect's is cooperating fully the enhanced interrogation will stop and proceed back to a normal interrogation where the suspect will be questioned further.

It is a spirit breaking process.

Kevin Duffy

enfant terrible wrote: »

That's not how it works.

Waterboarding and other techniques are used to gain corporation, only questions the interrogator knows are true are asked at this stage.

If the suspect's is cooperating fully the enhanced interrogation will stop and proceed back to a normal interrogation where the suspect will be questioned further.

It is a spirit breaking process.

Oh, well that's ok then...

enfant terrible

No

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

Oh, well that's ok then...

Agreed

TheZohanS

Blast them with...water?

urbanachiever1

OutlawPete wrote: »

Seems pretty clear now (what with the comments coming from Washington over the past few days) that 'Waterboarding' without question played a large part in the interrogation procedure that was used in locating the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden:

And because it came from Washington you think there must be some truth to it??

What a load of nonsense.

sid waddell

Ask the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six whether torture works.

urbanachiever1

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

War is a messy painful business. Torture does work, torture enough of the right people and you'll get your intel.

"Torture does work,..." Says who?

"members of the George W. Bush administration made claims for the effectiveness of torture that have later been proven to be untrue. One such claim was that the water-boarding (simulated drowning) of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed produced vital information that allowed them to break up a plot to attack the Liberty Tower in Los Angeles in 2002. Slight problem - in 2002 Shaikh Mohammed was busy evading capture in Pakistan."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/nov/04/2

urbanachiever1

OutlawPete wrote: »

Abu Zubaydeh himself said that all al Qaeda members were trained to withstand torture up until they could take no more at which point it was permissiblefor them to speak.

This doesn't even make sense! Besides I spoke to ol' Abu and he said told me...

Son Of A Vidic

I have no problem with the use of enhanced interrogation techniques if used on the right people. So if the americans capture a confirmed Al-Qaeda operative, then I don't care what to do. If intel can save innocent lives then I'm all for it.

My name is URL

To the people who believe it's justifiable.. Do you also believe it's justifiable for it to be carried out extrajudicially and on people who may very well be innocent? Surely if it's as effective as you say it is then there's no need for it to be undertaken in a clandestine manner..

enfant terrible

No

My name is URL wrote: »

To the people who believe it's justifiable.. Do you also believe it's justifiable for it to be carried out extrajudicially and on people who may very well be innocent? Surely if it's as effective as you say it is then there's no need for it to be undertaken in a clandestine manner..

I believe its only been used on a handful of Al Qaeda leaders.

ilovelamp2000

The assumption is that the Americans are telling the truth.

Given how many times the details of the assassination went down (and the lead up to it), could you be certain the information did come from waterboarding ?

I can't believe it.

My name is URL

enfant terrible wrote: »

I believe its only been used on a handful of Al Qaeda leaders.

Well as long as you believe that then it will always be justified!

enfant terrible

No

My name is URL wrote: »

Well as long as you believe that then it will always be justified!

So if it was proved to be just the leaders of Al Queda you'd be ok with it?

urbanachiever1

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I have no problem with the use of enhanced interrogation techniques if used on the right people. So if the americans capture a confirmed Al-Qaeda operative, then I don't care what to do. If intel can save innocent lives then I'm all for it.

It's called torture. The "right people". I'm guessing you mean terrorists. Would you have been ok with the British army/RUC torturing catholics in the north? Would you be willing to accept their word that the suspect is a "confirmed IRA operative" therefore work away boys.

sid waddell

There are a lot of stupid people out there, as threads like this prove.

It shows you the power of the media that it is able to fool people into thinking that torture is acceptable.

enfant terrible

No

sid waddell wrote: »

There are a lot of stupid people out there, as threads like this prove.

It shows you the power of the media that it is able to fool people into thinking that torture is acceptable.

Stick to the darts Sid.

Logical Fallacy

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

War is a messy painful business. Torture does work, torture enough of the right people and you'll get your intel.

What about all the wrong people you torture along the way?

My name is URL

enfant terrible wrote: »

So if it was proved to be just the leaders of Al Queda you'd be ok with it?

Sure, if it can be proven that the person is indeed guilty then it's at least more justified than it is right now. If they are given a fair trial, and the need for extrajudicial prisons is taken away then I'd have little problem with it.

sid waddell

enfant terrible wrote: »

Stick to the darts Sid.

Great response.

enfant terrible

No

sid waddell wrote: »

Great response.

Cheers

Dwellingdweller

It works. If it didn't work it'd be an easy answer... but it does.

Dwellingdweller

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

What about all the wrong people you torture along the way?

I think the word you're lookin for is 'innocent'? not bein sarcastic. is there any evidence that they did torture any of the 'wrong people' along the way? Al-Qaeda aren't innocent of this **** either.

couldntthink

sid waddell wrote: »

There are a lot of stupid people out there, as threads like this prove.

It shows you the power of the media that it is able to fool people into thinking that torture is acceptable.

I totally agree.

Try and imagine a better of turning a group of people (in this case muslims) against you.

Imprisonment without any kind of judicial hearing, torture, various leaked videos such as abu ghrab, and occupation. What do you expect to happen when you carry on like this?

Did anyone learn from The Troubles.

Micky Dolenz

urbanachiever1 wrote: »

"Torture does work,..." Says who?

"members of the George W. Bush administration made claims for the effectiveness of torture that have later been proven to be untrue. One such claim was that the water-boarding (simulated drowning) of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed produced vital information that allowed them to break up a plot to attack the Liberty Tower in Los Angeles in 2002. Slight problem - in 2002 Shaikh Mohammed was busy evading capture in Pakistan."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/nov/04/2

Ok, lets say I have information, and am being questioned. I just sit there and say nothing, now add a bit of discomfort into the equation and my resolve will weaken. so Would torture work on me? damn right it would.

Would it work on you?

jive

It's extremely daft to think torture is OK. Just because you want information doesn't give you the right to torture someone regardless of the consequences of not getting the information. As far as I'm concerned, if you torture someone you are just as bad if not worse than they potentially are. I question the mentality of the people carrying it out as no good human being would be able to torture another, imo.

I would rather be blown up in superquinn tomorrow than have people tortured to potentially save me. You can't always be sure that person has the information you need or that they have the information at all - not that it even matters imo.