While I am personally against "real" torture that permanently disfigures and maims someone (as were our Founding Fathers), waterboarding is only psychological and not physical. If the muslim terrorists were running the show at Guantanamo, does anyone here actually believe that they would play as nice as us and not physically torture American soldiers?! Let's get real here, folks! Waterboarding is not physical torture! And I care less about trying to protect the poor psyche of these hard-core terrorist monsters!
Waterboarding is not torture, now slowly skinning a person and not using any pain killers, that is, or slowly roasting their feet over on open flame. That is torture, listeing to Scumbama, Pelosi, Reid or other communist trash, that is torture.
No it is not. Infact if the measures that we use to extract information are outlawed, our troops will only have 3 options. Just as the French Foreign Legion does kill them take no prisoners.
Try to be their friends and bribe them to talk. HAHAHAHAHAHA
Pat them on the back and send them on their way. UH NO.
Well? My son has been to Iraq 2 times, and other places can't mention. Husband and Brother have both served Brother is still in 20+ years. MPI +special forces. Husband Disabled Vet. 18 years service before being sent home. If any thing were to have placed them in danger, and extracting information could have been done by waterboarding, or other means then so be it.
No, waterboarding is absolutely NOT torture. It's not much worse than typical fraternity hazing, and it is certainly less threatening than many "coming of age" ceremonies around the world. In my humble opinion, anyone who considers waterboarding to be torture is either willfully ignorant of what constitutes real torture or has a hidden agenda to make America as vulnerable as possible to hostile entities around the world. Since it is the current administration who claims to hold these views, either explanation is chilling.
Can you imagine the laughter in the rest of the world? When other countries are known for their work camps, their canings, their practices of starving inmates and exposing them to extreme heat and cold, their use of cattle prods, their nasty little contrivances of car batteries and electrodes hooked up to human genitals, their firing squads, their rapes and mutilations, and their televised beheadings ---- all of which constitute true torture -- and they hear the idiots in our government whining that pouring water on the heads of terrorist murderers UNDER CONTROLLED, MEDICALLY SUPERVISED CONDITIONS, is a form of TORTURE? Who are these people? How did they get elected? Perhaps we should compile a video that compares known torture and interrogation techniques -- start with the worst, and and end up at sleep deprivation or waterboarding. No rational person could possibly view them all and classify them at the same level. Here is the result of our administration's dangerous foolishness: No one who is captured in the future will have any incentive to tell the truth. They will have nothing to fear. They can remain smugly silent, secure in the knowledge that our military will not be permitted to aggressively force them to spill their murderous secrets, and they will be secure in the knowledge that any plots they have set into motion will not be discovered. One wonders if that is the hidden agenda -- the reason that our military's hands are being tied . . . .
So now, instead of fearing the consequences of their actions, any terrorist who is captured can look forward to regular meals, a soft bed, air conditioning in summer, heat in winter, exercise, access to books and the Internet, free lawyers, free dental and medical care, and conditions in general that are 150% better than citizens of their own country and much better than the living conditions of many of our own citizens. They had things pretty cushy at Guantanamo, and now it will be even better. They will have no incentive to work with us, and every incentive to continue working against us, while once again we taxpayers pay the bill. Does this make anyone else as angry as it makes me?
Our brave troops have routinely put themselves into additional danger in order to take prisoners rather than kill the terrorists (and "enemy combatants") outright. The purpose of taking them prisoner has been to extract information in order to save innocent lives. If our troops and interrogators are only permitted to ask these reprehensible individuals "pretty please" for information, they are unlikely to receive any useful information. If they cannot obtain useful information, no logical reason exists that justifies expending any resources on them beyond the ordnance required to eliminate them as a threat. Does anyone see a flaw in my logic?
No I wouldnt care if it was in case anyone missed it we put up with repeated attacs for many years before we started waterboarding folks. Sawing off heads and limbs as has been done to our citizens is however
No it is not torture but rather controlled discomfort/mind-games with a medical Doctor in attendance!
I'm sure our enemies and many around the World,are finding just what a weak liberal society we are now labeling water boarding as torture.
Not at all, contrary to how our wonderfully compassionate president may feel. Hey Obama, if you are so compassionate, then explain why you allowed Kathleen Sebelius ( an abortion proponent ) to be appointed the new director of Health and Human Services. You know...The lady who took campaign donations from George Tiller the Baby Killer, the guy who performs late-term abortions as late as one week prior to due date.
Yeah right Obama. Ban waterboarding because you say it is isn't ethical, then allow people like that in positions of power who will be making decisions relative to the health of Americans. Whose side are you on anyway, Obama?
In the language of lawyers, there should be a "rebuttable presumption" but not a "conclusive presumption" against waterboarding. In other words, we should say that harsh treatment of detainees is bad, should not be engaged in, etc., EXCEPT . . . Except if the circumstances warrant it, in which case we should willingly but reluctantly take on the moral burden that inhere in such practices, in order to get the result that the circumstances compel us to seek.
In other words, there should be a standing prima facie case against torture or rough treatment of any kind. But unlike Obama, I feel, sadly, there are times when the presumption is overcome and we should take upon ourselves the moral burden of possible guilt and extract the information from the detainee.
There should be an absolute prohibition against torture or any harsh treatment for "fun" or "sport" or any "ultra vires" activity by any of the captors. Harsh treatment should be administered for the limited purpose of saving the lives of the innocent under circumstances where other methods are not available. I think there is a serious moral question here, but unlike Obama I would not allow innocent people to die so I could maintain my posture as a sanctimonious ass and moral poseur.
By the way, I think our fighting men and women are generally very professional and I am not worried about them being eager to torture. Nevertheless, we need rules and proper training, and anything we do should be by the book. But "the book" should allow for preventing another 911 in L.A. by waterboarding, if that's how it has to be done.
Did Obama really say he would have allowed a terrorist attack on the west coast because he would have shrunk from waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Muhammad? It sounded like it to me. And if so, we don't need to "wave the bloody shirt" in demagogic fashion to show to a candid world what an ass the guy is on this question.