Waterboarding as a form of interrogation, yay or nay?

[Orgasmo]

Grab me any innocent guy on the street and waterboard him for 2 minutes. He'll confess to starting the Great Chicago Fire and assassinating Abraham Lincoln. You will only get what you want to hear.

 

[gespenst]

Yay. And more.

 

[GSP_37]

There are uncivilized nutjobs who wish to do you harm. You don't want the gov't to use all it's tools to stop them?

 

[aitkenmike]

I think this is where not only US but entire world have gone soft on terrorism.

Lots of countries around the world says they have 'zero tolerance policy for terrorism' and yet call this form of interrogation as cruel and inhumane.

Wait a minute...

When you see people having their throats cut, burned alive, decapitated and so on, are you able to just walk past that like it was nothing?


World needs to get a grip on terrorism, not slapping a wrist.

Do you support the waterboarding of captured US soldiers? For me, that has to be the standard if you want to be the moral force in the world. What level of interrogation could you support being used on your own soldiers. That is the standard which you should treat captured enemies.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Do you support the waterboarding of captured US soldiers? For me, that has to be the standard if you want to be the moral force in the world. What level of interrogation could you support being used on your own soldiers. That is the standard which you should treat captured enemies.

That's pretty silly logic right there.
If you treated your enemies the way you futilely wish they'd treat you, you'd give them shiny new gear and a whole fleet of cars.

Oh, wait...

 

[Panmisiek]

Da Fuq is wrong with you pussies?

Obvious YAY

It's not like they're loosing any body parts.

When they go into the interrogation room, they come out with exactly the same amount of limbs.

A bit of fucked up mental state but otherwise...healthy like a glove.

 

[AndrewSUFC]

Our countries were waterboarding people for years. We were 'tough' on terrorism. Terrorism increased during this period. It achieved nothing, basically.

Leaders need to worry less about being/looking 'soft' or 'tough' and try being effective instead. But banging on about how tough you are going to be sounds good to a certain audience, so that's what we get. 'Tough on crime', 'tough on terrorism' etc.

 

[irish_thug]

Yay!

I'm pro-waterboarding for parking violations.

 

[Squarechoke]

That's a nay on torture.

Nay, I don't believe in torture. I believe it is demonic. I do believe in the death penalty for terrorists.

I have to give it to you that I think you're at least the most consistent Christian here.

 

[nac386]

 

[Calley]

if it wasnt it wouldnt be used

 

[chiefwiggum]

I don't think we should take anything off the table

 

[StevenCrowder]

I was waterboarded repeatedly. It sucks. Unlike Hitchens and Mancow who changed their opinion once they realized it was "really really bad", my view remains unchanged. It is really really bad. And completely safe. I support it.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I was waterboarded repeatedly. It sucks. Unlike Hitchens and Mancow who changed their opinion once they realized it was "really really bad", my view remains unchanged. It is really really bad. And completely safe. I support it.

They stopped when you wanted them to though, how would you feel if they did this to you for hours a day for months on end and didn't care if you said stop? 23 seconds is pretty bad ass though, I heard KSM lasted for 2 minutes.

 

[Gandhi]

1. Watch Christopher Hitchens and Mancow getting waterboarded and see their reactions. Both of whom were pro-war, and hear them talk about it afterward.
2. What if you get the wrong person?
3. The enemy doing something doesn't mean it's okay for us to do, if it was, then there would be no reason to call them "the enemy."
4. With a bit of knowledge of human psychology, you can actually get captives to talk, with accurate information, using much easier methods. Including sugar-free cookies.

5. Does it even work / will you get false info just as often
6. Are you recruiting for the enemy

 

[Gandhi]

I know. How about the current question?

That's a better question. Like you know with almost certainly that the guy has a kid locked up somewhere or he knows where the armed atomic weapon is.

That seems a lot like the exception that should not make the rule. We are trying to turn reality into an episode of 24 and go all jack bauer here. Given that jack can cross LA in traffic, interrogate a terrorist with electric wires, and defuse a bomb faster than I can put up my computer and do a google search, I am thinking 24 is not a good guide book for reality.

I do appreciate the moral hypothetical though.

 

[sub_thug]

According to CIA Deputy Director Jose Rodriguez, only 3 people were ever waterboarded. The people who were waterboarded were all top-tier personalities, meaning that they were senior members of terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda (Source: Spymasters: CIA in the Crosshairs).

There are some questions that need to be answered: If and when another major terrorist attack (9/11-type attack) occurs on American soil, will we have wanted every avenue utilized to ensure that the event was prevented? What will our outlook be then? The second question, assuming that you want to see enhanced interrogation implemented for the sake of conversation, is who you want to see do it? The CIA are not jailers, and they sure as hell won't be volunteering to put their nuts on the chopping block if someone asks them to use enhanced interrogation. There are plenty of executive agencies that won't torture because we know the political fallout if we do, and none of us trust elected officials to have our backs if we comply with a directive to do it. So who is going to do it? It won't be the CIA, the military, or anyone else with some common sense.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

According to CIA Deputy Director Jose Rodriguez, only 3 people were ever waterboarded. The people who were waterboarded were all top-tier personalities, meaning that they were senior members of terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda (Source: Spymasters: CIA in the Crosshairs).

There are some questions that need to be answered: If and when another major terrorist attack (9/11-type attack) occurs on American soil, will we have wanted every avenue utilized to ensure that the event was prevented? What will our outlook be then? The second question, assuming that you want to see enhanced interrogation implemented for the sake of conversation, is who you want to see do it? The CIA are not jailers, and they sure as hell won't be volunteering to put their nuts on the chopping block if someone asks them to use enhanced interrogation. There are plenty of executive agencies that won't torture because we know the political fallout if we do, and none of us trust elected officials to have our backs if we comply with a directive to do it. So who is going to do it? It won't be the CIA, the military, or anyone else with some common sense.

1) Every avenue utilized? I'm assuming you're referring to removing inalienable human rights from people we suspect. As a policy no, human rights must exist because even the worst of the worst cannot match the pervasive malevolence of a depraved government or a tyrannical majority.

2) NA

 

[sub_thug]

1) Every avenue utilized? I'm assuming you're referring to removing inalienable human rights from people we suspect. As a policy no, human rights must exist because even the worst of the worst cannot match the pervasive malevolence of a depraved government or a tyrannical majority.

2) NA

The question roughly translates to: After losing 5,000 Americans in an attack against our country, would you be upset if you didn't do everything possible (waterboarding, sleep deprivation, exposure to uncomfortable temperatures, and the other methods utilized in the CIA "torture report") to gather the intelligence required to prevent an attack?

 

[EGarrett]

I was waterboarded repeatedly. It sucks. Unlike Hitchens and Mancow who changed their opinion once they realized it was "really really bad", my view remains unchanged. It is really really bad. And completely safe. I support it.

No. Among other things, Mancow and Hitchens had their head restrained. Crowder is moving his head out of the way of the water.