Czuch: You know your intel guys are taught to not give up info. Such training includes waterboarding simulation to make it so they don't give up info. That's how your guys who used it knew how to use it.

(V): So much can be dependent on little things, like whether somone is having a bad day or not. And us being humans.. can you predict accurately how someone will react?




Thats exactly why i dont trust mere mortals to make subjective choices in the micro management of my life.... I will stick with a good model, and update every so often, thank you

Czuch: No.. not trickle down... you put a price on the cost of one humans head, it then becomes a standard excuse.

... Now, read your history about tyrants and what they thought... a slippery slope that opens the path to the abyss.

.. And it's this kind of attitude that opens up the problem of moral high ground.

... you ain't got any.

Czuch: And you tell me that your model doesn't fit yet you use it.

It's the old teaspoon problem... what is it?

Intel need to certain that a captured suspect has important infos. If it comes to these waterboarded 'victims', what lead to this act? Wouldn't that show if pressure was justified? If it's true that the intel paperwork around Guantanamo is in complete disorder it influences my opinion in favor of these 'non status' people in there of course.

Did we all survive the finance crisis? Maybe today economics understand that people have nothing to do with the finance sector. Stop the stress, nothing happened. Nothing? Oh, some homeless more, some other messed up countries. Thank you!

(V): I dont need or want any moral high ground... you would be the one watching your family get slaughtered while chanting to yourself, "I am better than them" "I am better then them" "I am better than them"....

Case 1:
The police have caught a thief suspected of a string of robberies at convenience stores. Since he has refused to confess to his crimes during interrogation, the police decide to waterboard him to elicit a confession. He confesses to his crimes and goes to jail.

Case 2:
A suspected serial killer has refused to confess to his crimes during normal police interrogation. The police decide to use waterboarding to make the serial killer confess and disclose the location of dead victims that have not been found by the police. He confesses and is sentenced to death.

Case 3:
A child serial rapist has abducted a child. If the police do not find the child it could die. The police caught the suspect and decide to waterboard him. The suspect discloses the location of the child and is sent to jail.

Case 4:
A communist agitator has been organizing workers to join unions. He is also suspected of organizing demostrations against the government. The military capture this man and waterboard him to make him disclose the location of his associates. The man confesses and he and all his associates are sent to prison.

Case 5:
A man is supected of being a member of the communist party and organizing guerrilla operations against the government. He is captured and waterboarded to make him disclose the location of the guerrilla command and all of his revolutionary comrades. He confesses and is sent to prison. His comrades were never found.

Case 6:
An radical anarchist is suspected of carrying out bombings against banks. This has disrupted the businesses of banks and cost millions in property damage. He confesses to his crimes during waterboarding and is sent to prison.

Case 7:
A man is suspected of being a member of Al Qaida and of having information in a bombing that could leave hundreds of people dead. He is subjected to waterboarding, but refuses to confess claiming that he is innocent. During the course of investigation it is found that he is indeed innocent and he is set free.

I divided my cases as follows:

Case 1: a common criminal
Case 2: a dangerous criminal with no victims in imminent danger
Case 3: a dangerous criminal with a victim in imminent danger
Case 4: a political prisoner not implicated in acts of terrorism
Case 5: a political prisoner suspected of acts against the government
Case 6: a political prisoner commiting acts of terrorism
Case 7: a suspected terrorist who is later found innocent

So my questions are:

If waterboarding is not torture, why are the police and other law enforcement agencies not allowed to use it when interrogating prisoners (cases 1, 2 and 3)?

Why is waterboarding not used to put extremely dangerous criminals away (case 2)?

Is waterboarding acceptable to save a human life (see case 3)?

Is waterboarding acceptable for undesirable political views or political prisoners (case 4)?

Is waterboarding acceptable for any military action involving guerrilla warfare or insurgents (case 5)?

Are all forms of terrorism (including mere economic terrorism) a good reason to use waterboarding (case 6)?

What do we do is somebody is subjected to waterboarding and is later found innocent (case 7)?

I find that waterboarding is one of those areas that some people see as black and white, and other see as grey. I am curious to see some opinions.

Czuch: Well if your self justified, justify yourself. Others have been capable and have one won the fight without breaking the principles that they are fighting for.

So.. tell me. Why can't America?

You've signed all the conventions, taking part and pursued war criminals and tried them without all this 'torture' business, and then much bigger criminals then you have now for much of the same things that you now justify..

... So when did someone decide the American spirit has become so weak that it needs to behave as it once said was so wrong??

Übergeek 바둑이: Doing it causes suffering, suffering creates hate.

And hate creates pain. So how is it a cure is what I wonder!!

(V):
What I am trying to get to in my posts is that if we say that waterboarding is not torture, then it is an acceptable interrogation technique and should be used whenever the state decides it is suitable. I want to see those who defend or oppose waterboarding make some good arguments answering my questions. I see some of us claiming a high moral ground, but if waterboarding saves lives, then should it be acceptable? Those who support waterboarding have said that it is OK to go even further, but is there a limit? When does waterboarding (or other similar techniques) become or stop being acceptable?

And it appears that the CIA were no longer considered a trustworthy source of intelligence. A total lack of trust in intelligence!!

So.. that made those high up afraid.. they then used that fear to justify torture. And because a certain amount of programming involving "us and them" was inbred into the American political system it created an ability to say "them".

I thought we</i> were all classed as humans.

And it appears that the CIA were no longer considered a trustworthy source of intelligence. A total lack of trust in intelligence!!

So.. that made those high up afraid.. they then used that fear to justify torture. And because a certain amount of programming involving "us and them" was inbred into the American political system it created an ability to say "them".

I thought we were all classed as humans.

Übergeek 바둑이: I know. police are prosecuted for over using violence and prosecuted and sent to jail.

If a criminal hurts someone they are sent to jail. I've never heard of someone being above the law.. even God is bound (or so they say) by the laws of physical science as they are bound from the moment of creation when all that is was decided to be.

Now if God has to obey the laws, I can see no exception!!

(V): So when did someone decide the American spirit has become so weak that it needs to behave as it once said was so wrong??




911

(V): And hate creates pain.

Übergeek 바둑이: Waterboarding is not acceptable to get a confession, because people will confess to anything to avoid....

But getting intel is a different story, you cannot make up good intel just to avoid....

Übergeek 바둑이: If waterboarding fails it is likely that either nothing else would or the subject has no real information.

(V): Even God is bound (or so they say) by the laws of physical science as they are bound from the moment of creation when all that is was decided to be.


Models don't work Czuch...







Now you have me confused again, with your contradictions..... models dont work except God created a model at creation that bound?????

(V): no, you didn't answer the question posed. You ducked again. I already know the answer anyway. So it doesn't matter.

(V): Call it what you will, but the fact remains that none of it would be used at all, just the threat would be enough, all they have to do is cooperate, its their own fault, any technique gets used against them.

Unlike beheading Dan Pearl, which is done simply for the fun of it, our interrogations are for a purpose, and can be avoided with cooperation.

Übergeek 바둑이:

Case 1:
The police have caught a thief suspected of a string of
robberies at convenience stores. Since he has refused to confess to his
crimes during interrogation, the police decide to waterboard him to
elicit a confession. He confesses to his crimes and goes to jail.

Waterboarding should not be used to obtain confessions to a crime.  No lives are at stake here.

Case 2:
A
suspected serial killer has refused to confess to his crimes during
normal police interrogation. The police decide to use waterboarding to
make the serial killer confess and disclose the location of dead
victims that have not been found by the police. He confesses and is
sentenced to death.

Same as above

Case 3:
A child serial rapist has
abducted a child. If the police do not find the child it could die. The
police caught the suspect and decide to waterboard him. The suspect
discloses the location of the child and is sent to jail.

Yes, water board the pervert and then let the crowd beat the living crap out of him (after you accidently leave his cell door open).  Some jerk knows the whereabouts of my granddaughter I'm going to start taking off fingers. 

Case 4:
A
communist agitator has been organizing workers to join unions. He is
also suspected of organizing demostrations against the government. The
military capture this man and waterboard him to make him disclose the
location of his associates. The man confesses and he and all his
associates are sent to prison.

Same as number one.  No to waterboarding.

Case 5:
A man is supected of
being a member of the communist party and organizing guerrilla
operations against the government. He is captured and waterboarded to
make him disclose the location of the guerrilla command and all of his
revolutionary comrades. He confesses and is sent to prison. His
comrades were never found.

It depends on whether or not there is an immediate dangers to innocent people.  If you join a guerrilla organization intent on harming the US, and you get caught, don't expect tea and crumpets. 

Case 6:
An radical anarchist is
suspected of carrying out bombings against banks. This has disrupted
the businesses of banks and cost millions in property damage. He
confesses to his crimes during waterboarding and is sent to prison.

No.  Same as case 1

Case 7:
A
man is suspected of being a member of Al Qaida and of having
information in a bombing that could leave hundreds of people dead. He
is subjected to waterboarding, but refuses to confess claiming that he
is innocent. During the course of investigation it is found that he is
indeed innocent and he is set free.

Yes to water boarding.  It's not like they just would randomly pull some guy out of a crowd.  There was good reason to suspect him.  You can't know he's innocent until after a full investigation.   But when lives are at stake, you do what you have to do.  Waterboarding is simply unpleasant.  For some, a trip to the dentist is worse.

I divided my cases as follows:

Case 1: a common criminal
Case 2: a dangerous criminal with no victims in imminent danger
Case 3: a dangerous criminal with a victim in imminent danger
Case 4: a political prisoner not implicated in acts of terrorism
Case 5: a political prisoner suspected of acts against the government
Case 6: a political prisoner commiting acts of terrorism
Case 7: a suspected terrorist who is later found innocent

So my questions are:

If
waterboarding is not torture, why are the police and other law
enforcement agencies not allowed to use it when interrogating prisoners
(cases 1, 2 and 3)?

Because one of the arguments for water boarding is that it is to be used only as a last resort and only when there is good reason to believe that lives are at stake.  I have no sympathy for people who want to kills us.  A bank robber, once caught, poses no more threat.

Why is waterboarding not used to put extremely dangerous criminals away (case 2)?

See the previous answer.

Is waterboarding acceptable to save a human life (see case 3)?

Of course it is.  So is removing some dudes fingers.   Maybe a few other parts too. 

Is waterboarding acceptable for undesirable political views or political prisoners (case 4)?

No

Is waterboarding acceptable for any military action involving guerrilla warfare or insurgents (case 5)?

If lives are at stake -- yes

Are all forms of terrorism (including mere economic terrorism) a good reason to use waterboarding (case 6)?

If lives are at stake, yes. 

What do we do is somebody is subjected to waterboarding and is later found innocent (case 7)?

Buy him ice cream.  Let's face it, they don't pull nuns out of the convent and water board them.  If you join a terrorists organization, and then are suspected of doing something that jeopardizes the lives of others, don't complain when given a bath upside down.  Here's a concept:  get a good job, don't join a terrorist group bent on hurting others. 

I
find that waterboarding is one of those areas that some people see as
black and white, and other see as grey. I am curious to see some
opinions.

Czuch:  Exactly.  I want the military to have all the tools they need to keep me safe.  But if Obama keeps it up, we'll have to Mirandize the enemy on the battle field. 

Here's me:  "You have the right to remain silent.  You have the right to an attorney.  If you cannot afford on, one will be appointed to you.  Please remember that anything you say can be used against you in a court of law.  Do you understand these rights as I've explained them?  Oh and one more thing:  Would you like fries with that?"

Artful Dodger:

> Because one of the arguments for water boarding is that it is to be used
> only as a last resort and only when there is good reason to believe that
> lives are at stake. I have no sympathy for people who want to kills us.

In other words, information obtained under duress is acceptable in order to save human life. It might be inadmissible in court, but it is acceptable because human life has been saved. The right to life of the victims takes precedence over the human rights of the prisoner. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply. Waterboard first, ask questions later, because human lives are at stake.

Then, waterboarding has failed and the suspect is still refusing to give us information. It is time for the hot irons and psychotropic drug injections. Since the "method of last resort" failed, should we find another "last resort" after that?

I find the argument that waterboarding is rather benign as somewhat shallow. Who decides what harmful means? A doctor working for the Pentagon tells us that waterboarding is no more harmful than falling in the deep end of the swimming pool and wading to the edge of the pool. Another psychiatrist comes out and tells us that the spychological damage could leave a person scarred for life. Should we wait 50 years and then ask victims how they feel?

On the other hand, the military has sent a clear message to other people around the world. If the military can use dubious interrogation tactics, so can everyone else. Somewhere in the world somebody will be waterboarded and when somebody asks why a government will manufacture evidence and say the person was guilty. We will have to live with that as an acceptable risk.

Terrorist around the world will say "Look at what the American military did. They torture people." Then waterboarding will become a symbol under which terrorists will justify their actions, just as Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay are used in terrorist propaganda.

Übergeek 바둑이: But they(we) all do anyways, we humans hide behind self righteous stuff as though we're so civilized. We(the good guys,, the side God is on) never will stoop to bad behavior) and the terrorists say the same thing also but the ugly truth is everyone does what ever it takes to win, and always has.. ever study chimpanzee tribe behavior? humans are just a higher form

Übergeek 바둑이:   water boarding has worked every time.   It's not nuns that are captured on the battle field.  It's enemy combatants.  And in all the thousands that have been captured, only three have been water boarded.  And in those cases,  information that was vital to the safety of others was obtained. 

We can create any scenario we want to discredit water boarding.  But the reality is this:  it hasn't been used since 2003 and when used, it was used only on those well-known for their terrorists activities.   In all seriousness, I don't want water boarding to be used as a routine tactic against the enemy.  But I don't want it completely removed from the tool box either.

Notice that beheadings is not being discussed amongst the terrorists with some on one side saying it's a useful tool and others saying it's too cruel.  No, they video tape it and post it on the web. 

I also wouldn't want law enforcement to use this technique without serious parameters.  There are too many loose cannons out there.  But if I had a guy in my custody and I knew that he had info on where one of my grand kids were, the police better hurry.   I may go to jail for it, but I won't stand by and do nothing.   What if I'm wrong about this guy?   I don't act recklessly.   But I will err on the side of my family's welfare.  Every time.

Czuch: So Czuch... you've just blown the reasons you say America started the Iraq war on. Moral high ground.

So we can now say that you finally admit it was an illegal war.

ok????

Artful Dodger: Nope.. I answered. And so did Czuch.. and if you agree with Czuch that you needed no moral ground to start using waterboarding, etc then you've dumped your morality full stop.

You cannot have it both ways... only tyrants try that and they fail..

Artful Dodger: Only three people.. have you definite proof of that? And what of the other illegal methods of gaining info, which the USA gov and judicial say are illegal to use on their people??

Czuch: So, we can say the same of USA people that get killed or tortured?

slippery slope.....

GTCharlie: And human bEiNgS have developed the ability to choose and not be bound by animal fear and flight.. Not to act like animals trapped in a corner lashing out.

(V):  nope and nope and nope.   And I won't waste any more time with you on it. 

Torture is a crime in the US, no matter where it happens. In January, Chucky Taylor, the son on Charles Taylor, was sentenced in Florida to 97 years prison for torture in Liberia. If it comes to US-torturer, US states secrets have priority, the law didn't count much under Obama so far, these trials could be a treat to the national security, so Obama. To me this means the same as if he would say that if we uncover these problems, people will stop trusting the US-government.

gogul:  When people speak about actions that qualify as torture, I need to know what specific actions you are talking about because torture to some is listening to loud music over and over.  My neighbors do that and it's lawful here up to 10pm.  So if you speak of torture, you gotta be specific.

Artful Dodger: The US entertains black holes round the globe, strange flights carry people who disapear in there. Then there are estimations of maybe 100 people died in interrogations in Irak and Afghanistan. To be specific, wouldn't that be the job o a trial?

Artful Dodger: A fair trial.

gogul:  I know nothing of such black holes or people dying while being interrogated.  Some evidence please. 

Madrid and New York, that are the events where islamic terror seemed involved. A decade of terror in the western world spots on Madrid and New York. Are all these national security laws since really justified? The answer is a no.

Artful Dodger: Do you use the word evidence as in 'clue'? I don't have 'prove' but overwhelming indices *edit: I got the evidence*

Wikipedia: black site

gogul:
overwhelming indices would be a place to start.  But it must be backed with some facts etc in order to be accepted.  

Artful Dodger: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/may/31/local/me-rendition31


Obama doesn't want this trial, for the reason it could treat the national security.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4611518.stm

This is in german unfortunately, march '09 http://www.dickmarty.ch/Docs/2009326_berlino_cia_bundestag_20min_090326.pdf

The govts of this world will face their stupidity believe me, they'll have to clean the kitchen und the dust under the carpet a day. As Sarcozy said: too much dust under the carpet means problem in the future.

gogul:  I'd heard about this but to be honest I'm not fully caught up on the ins and outs.  That the ACLU is behind the suit troubles me.  They sue anyone - even the boy scouts.  But I'll look into it and decide.

One thing off the top of my head:  If the US had detained nuns or a couple of pre-school teachers, well then that is something.  But I'm less sympathetic when it comes to terrorists. 

gogul:  Ok, now that I've finished that first article I can say that if true, it needs to be exposed because that goes too far.  I'd like to know the truth but I doubt we'll ever know.   There's always another side.  One thing that strikes me is that for a secretive operation there certainly are a great deal of known facts.  That's very odd for something that is supposed to be top secret.   

Just an aside but I'll bet if given the choice, those dudes would have preferred water boarding. 

Which is why one must hold every story of theirs to a powerful microscope. 

http://harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004326