In answer to the title...

Is water boarding torture? Does it matter?

In order to abide by the constitution (if we hold the truths as self evident that holds for even our enemies).

IS IT CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT.

Aye...

Would fit that discription.

and therefore forbidden by the constitiution.

It matters to me, is why I asked the question. I wanted to know how people felt about this. More on a personal, human level than as a legal matter.

I'm not surprised so many are ok with this...it's disturbing though.

I think that is not only wrong, it is pure evil.

No kind of torture is acceptable for any reason at any time.

Once you succumb to that kind of fear and you use your fear to torture suspects and deprive them of their rights, then you have gone over to the dark side.

Fear has won. Terrorism wins.

And if you are a Christian, shame on you, Satan has your soul.

Don't torture people.

Don't hit your children.

What is wrong with you people?

I may not know everything, but I know what is right and what is wrong in my book.

Don't torture.
Don't hit children.
Don't kill people.
Don't rape.
Don't rape children.

I don't know what is so difficult about that.

Geeeze.

Jeannie

what has christianity to do with war and discipline?

seems you took a wrong turn there somewhere!

For myself at least, it's not so much a question of "Is it torture" but more of "Do I even care if it's torture?" If you are a government officer leading an interrogation, and terrorist is before you that likely has key information on an attack, what are you to do when all the cookie cutter approved interrogation techniques don't work? Offer candy upon a silver platter? Usually I'm not a very big supporter of the "Ends justify the means" mantra, but consider a situation like this one.

You're interrogating a captured terrorist. You know that his group plans to plant several bombs in the greater New York city area. You don't know the location of the bombs. You don't know the names of the others planning the attack. You have three days until the planned attack unfolds. Said attack could potentially kill hundreds of people. The man your interrogating is a Muslim extremist, and will not give up any information lightly because he believes he is God's own instrument to carry out his will. What do you do? Do you brush aside the option of waterboarding based on some flimsy moral absolute you're standing upon? Which guilt would you rather live with for the rest of your life? Waterboarding someone? Or potentially letting innocent citizens lose their life? War is messy, and in it we don't always have the option of choosing between the absolute right thing to do, and the absolute wrong thing to do. It can become a game of picking your poison, so to speak.

I often find people that are so adamant about making waterboarding illegal on the basis that it's such a grave human rights violation somewhat naive. It's also a little out of step to label those that advocate waterboarding as "just as bad as the terrorists." Really? Please. Setting up a false scale or moral equivalency like that really helps nothing. Waterboarding, as immoral as you may believe it to be, doesn't hold a candle to blowing up buildings, using human shields, and all those other things terrorists like to do for fun nowadays.

But in summary, if I had to torture someone to extract sensitive information that could save the lives of many innocent people, I would. Would I feel good about it? No. Would I lose sleep over it? Probably. What I definitley couldn't cope with though, is knowing that innocent people died because of my inaction.

This whole question is really very similar to a question I've heard before. That being, "If a nazi comes to your door asking whether or not you are hiding Jews, what do you do?" Lying is wrong, isn't it? Isn't lying always wrong? What could possibly justify lying? I bet 90% of the people saying how evil waterboarding is, would have lied through their teeth to protect Jews in the 1940's. So, do you tell the truth and have a bunch of innocent people slaughtered, gassed to death, incinerated?

Working from immovable moral absolutes is extremely dangerous.

The interesting thing about Waterboarding is that although it inflicts
intense emotional and irrational fear it actually does no lasting
physical harm and might not even cause much lasting emotional harm
as opposed to other well know forms of torture such as having bones
broken or long term solitary confinement.

I think Waterboarding clearly meets the dictionary definition of
torture in that it certainly does inflict an intense emotional fear of
dying even if it isn't rational.

The question is: "Does the harm to the individual outweigh the societal
benefit to conducting the investigation in the case of a terrorist
leader?"

Many would say that the end doesn't justify the means.

Others would say that temporary emotional distress on the part of
the terrorist leader is less important that stopping a train bombing
or airline hijacking.

But there are no simple answers here.

It is wrong. I have no doubt about that.

Torture is simply not an option. If someone (unknown) manages to blow up innocent people, that "guilt" is theirs, not mine.

Once you sanction torture (and assassination) as a government policy that practice will eventually lead to being used on innocent civilians.

You, as an individual, always have the option to follow your own moral code. As an individual, you are responsible for your actions, not the actions of anyone else.

If the world is evil then it is evil. But when you allow that evil and that fear to consume you and cause you to lose your humanity and your compassion and your common decency and respect for others and their lives, and sink to their level then you are defeated.

I would never support a policy of waterboarding using the excuse that it 'might' save lives. I know that torture happens. It is unethical and against my own personal moral fiber.

I am not the least be "naive." I know what is going on in this world.

No, lying is not always wrong. Where did you get that idea?

Is that what you like to talk about? I bet you are real fun to be around.

Alright, fair enough. I can safely assume that if you lived in the 1940's, you would have told the truth to an inquiring nazi officer. Lying is wrong. You told the truth after all. You can't let anything compromise your good, honest character. If they want to gas up some Jews, it's on their head, right? You just wash your hands of it? Is that it, then?

Guilt also is distributed to the people that have power to stop something. If you see a bully picking on someone in school, and you have the power to stop him (Let's say your twice his size and you have a blackbelt) then you're equally responsible for that particular victims suffering. While you may not believe that a particular persons inaction is reason enough to hold them morally accountable, U.S. law happens to disagree. It's the entire reason why we have negligence charges in this country and elsewhere.

As far as the notion of torture being used eventually on civillians, that's a slippery slope argument. Unless you can prove with evidence that your particular assumption is true, it doesn't really carry any weight. You know all those Evangelical Republican politicians that argue if gay marriage is legalized, that polygamy and beastiality will be legalized too? It's kind of like that. If you're going to argue that A does indeed lead to B, you have to show it. Not assume it.

If it is against your own moral fiber, then that is perfectly fine. Don't torture anyone, or needless to say, don't become a high ranking CIA operative stationed in Guantanomo. It's one thing to have your own moral code, it's another thing to assert it as an asbolute moral truth and demand that your respective government conform to it.


"No, lying is not always wrong. Where did you get that idea? "

It's the same principle. Why is torture always wrong, and lying not always wrong? Both things are considered by and large, bad deeds. You don't do them. It's a no no. You make an exception it seems for one, but not the other? Why is that?

Because if you lie to safe a life that is simply the right and moral thing to do, especially if you believe or know that telling the truth would result in harm coming to a person.

I'm really surprised you can't figure that out.

It's about respect for life and humanity. Its about compassion for your fellow human being. It's NOT about some rules, regulations, or even laws.

Its about doing the right thing.

I am responsible only for my own actions and my own moral fiber. I would never become a high or even low ranking CIA operative. I consider them to be as bad as Hitler's secret service and Mossad assassins.

As a citizen, I also have the right and the obligation to "assert" my moral truth on my respective government who is SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE. Whether they do or not, I have little control over.

For one, yes, they have tortured innocents who where merely suspects. They don't even bother to apologize.

Secondly, that they actually have the power to do so without over site should be great cause for alarm.

Unlimited power always leads to abuse of power.

"Because if you lie to safe a life that is simply the right and moral thing to do, especially if you believe or know that telling the truth would result in harm coming to a person."

Right. So, you're making an exception. You are saying that lying, something generally accepted to be wrong, is not wrong, and okay if it's done to save someone. This is called justification. It's clear that you believe wrong things can be justified. Yet torture, another "wrong thing" cannot be justified, even IF it saves the lives of innocent people? That's a complete incongruity in your moral code that you haven't explained.

"I'm really surprised you can't figure that out."

Do I sense slight condescension? Anyways,you haven't really explained. You just stated that lying is okay if done to save another. You didn't explain how lying to save someone makes lying not wrong anymore. Does a right justify a wrong? You're saying it does.

"It's about respect for life and humanity. Its about compassion for your fellow human being. It's NOT about some rules, regulations, or even laws.

Its about doing the right thing."

Yes, that's what this entire debate is about. I don't really know what you're trying to take a stab at here...


"For one, yes, they have tortured innocents who where merely suspects. They don't even bother to apologize.

Secondly, that they actually have the power to do so without over site should be great cause for alarm.

Unlimited power always leads to abuse of power."

Like..who? And when I ask who, I ask for people that have been waterboarded and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that were innocent. Exonerated. Can you show me a case where this has happened?

"I am responsible only for my own actions and my own moral fiber. I would never become a high or even low ranking CIA operative. I consider them to be as bad as Hitler's secret service and Mossad assassins."

Just because you're responsible for your own moral fiber, doesn't necessarily mean that frees you of any obligation to others. You are telling me that if you say, refused to waterboard someone, and this refusal lead to the eventual deaths of innocent people, then oh well? They died, not my fualt? Shrug it off, go eat dinner peacefully the next day? When you see someone bullied, do you tell yourself "I'm responsible for my own moral fiber" and walk on by? If everyone told themselves they were responsible for their own moral fiber as an excuse not to intervene on the behalves of other people, the world would be a much darker place than it already is.

Well and truly deserved.

Tells it as it is with clarity.

Holy Poop!!!!!!!!!!

No kidding. I suppose this is what happens when you're bored at 4:15 AM, go and argue about waterboarding on an internet dating site.

I should get a hobby. Like making arts and crafts with popscicle sticks, or chain smoking.