UN Official Wants to Prosecute Bush, Rumsfeld for Torture

[shel90]

I find it amazing that there's so much hand-wringing over the waterboarding of three terrorists to extract information. It might make me feel morally superior to oppose waterboarding no matter what, but that's easy to do when I don't have to pay the price for a wrong decision. I have to ask myself what I would do if some psycho kidnapped my wife and put her in a situation where she was going to die if I didn't get verifiable information out of him. If I'm being honest with myself, then I have to say I would waterboard him. If some human rights group wanted to protest my decision, I'd give them the middle finger. So if I'm willing to waterboard to get information to save one life, who am I to tell the CIA never to waterboard even if thousands of lives are at stake?

I don't think we should waterboard people out of revenge or desire for punishment. We should only do it when we know someone has valuable, verifiable information and we've exhausted all other avenues.

At first, I thought waterboarding was using as a means of revenge or punishment or just for fun but if they did it to extract information to save lots of innocent lives then I am glad it was done.

 

[Banjo]

At first, I thought waterboarding was using as a means of revenge or punishment or just for fun but if they did it to extract information to save lots of innocent lives then I am glad it was done.

However, the psychological damages from waterboarding is often life-lasting and difficult to live with. Suppose the person didn't have the information and was really innocent to start with? That's where the gray area is.

It's in mankind's nature to be barbaric whether people want to admit it or not.

The US government does not negotiate with terrorists. Even if it means sacrificing 500,000 Americans. That's a moral principle to live by.

 

[Jiro]

However, the psychological damages from waterboarding is often life-lasting and difficult to live with. Suppose the person didn't have the information and was really innocent to start with? That's where the gray area is.

It's in mankind's nature to be barbaric whether people want to admit it or not.

The US government does not negotiate with terrorists. Even if it means sacrificing 500,000 Americans. That's a moral principle to live by.

you speak of cold hard truth that nobody wants to say. that statement is what USA government is trying to instill - "don't fuck with us" in hope of deterring future attacks.

 

[darkdog]

However, the psychological damages from waterboarding is often life-lasting and difficult to live with. Suppose the person didn't have the information and was really innocent to start with? That's where the gray area is.

For me, it comes down to trade-offs. The long-term psychological damage of one terrorist is a small price to pay if it saves hundreds or thousands of lives. I'm also fine with having a chain of command to review information to minimize the possibility of waterboarding the wrong guy. However, the fact that we've only waterboarded three people (all high-value targets) indicates that we're not taking it lightly.

It's in mankind's nature to be barbaric whether people want to admit it or not.

Very true. Some people just won't respond to playing nicey-nice. The evil nature of some people can be difficult for good people to understand.

The US government does not negotiate with terrorists. Even if it means sacrificing 500,000 Americans. That's a moral principle to live by.

Again, this comes down to trade-offs. If we know for sure there are 500,000 American lives at stake, then we have to weigh that against the cost of (1) giving the terrorists whatever it is they want and (2) showing terrorists that we will cave in to their demands if they put us in a precarious enough situation. If they just want a few terrorists released, it probably isn't worth letting half a million people die over that. On the other hand, if we have the option of waterboarding the terrorists and getting out of the precarious situation altogether, that would probably be the best trade-off.

 

[Banjo]

Again, this comes down to trade-offs. If we know for sure there are 500,000 American lives at stake, then we have to weigh that against the cost of (1) giving the terrorists whatever it is they want and (2) showing terrorists that we will cave in to their demands if they put us in a precarious enough situation. If they just want a few terrorists released, it probably isn't worth letting half a million people die over that. On the other hand, if we have the option of waterboarding the terrorists and getting out of the precarious situation altogether, that would probably be the best trade-off.

If you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to ask for a glass of milk. Terrorists shouldn't be negotiated, no matter what the trade off may be. The problem is, if you cave in to their demands, they are more than likely to not honour the agreement. Once you give them what they want, they may end up carrying out the threat anyway despite the demands being met.

There's rarely a trade off when it comes to negotiating with the terrorists.

 

[Steel X]

I knew it! I fucking knew it!

Bush has GOT to go to hell, seriously.

 

[Steel X]

Yes, it's not just Bush but Cheney as well. I feel sick with pain to learn that he defended waterboarding to the meida few days before 20th January that Guantanamo should stay open, waterboarding OK. Cheney admitted that he authorized torture against Guantanamo Detainees.

What a horrible...

No wonder they made our country look so bad already. :roll: They should go back to dumbfuck mountain where they came from.

 

[Steel X]

george w. bush doesn't seem to mind losing over 4,000 soldiers in iraq, so why should we be surprised that he doesn't consider waterboarding as torture?

Yeah he doesnt seem to care about anyone but himself and his power of doing things his way.

...freaking asshole.

 

[Beowulf]

Did you know that our own SEAL and Special Forces members are waterboarded as part of their training? It's not pleasant, for sure, but it's not torture.

:roll:

 

[Hear Again]

Yeah he doesnt seem to care about anyone but himself and his power of doing things his way.

...freaking asshole.

you can say that again.

 

[Reba]

george w. bush doesn't seem to mind losing over 4,000 soldiers in iraq, so why should we be surprised that he doesn't consider waterboarding as torture?

You don't know that he "doesn't seem to mind losing" the soldiers. Would you say the same thing about FDR, Lincoln, Washington, Wilson, Truman, Eisenhower, or any other Commander-in-Chief who has troops die on his watch?

 

[Byrdie714]

If you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to ask for a glass of milk. Terrorists shouldn't be negotiated, no matter what the trade off may be. The problem is, if you cave in to their demands, they are more than likely to not honour the agreement. Once you give them what they want, they may end up carrying out the threat anyway despite the demands being met.

There's rarely a trade off when it comes to negotiating with the terrorists.

Not necessairly.....

The British had their own terrorist group for years and had a hard time dealing with them. Eventually they got to talking and came up with a Peace agreement.

It was the IRA and Northern Ireland.

 

[Reba]

Yeah he doesnt seem to care about anyone but himself and his power of doing things his way....

Just because he didn't do things the way you want doesn't mean he doesn't care about other people.

 

[shel90]

I understand that sometimes war is necessary to protect this country but torturing prisoners...I agree if they are terrorists and we want to get info from them but Banjo brought up a good point..what if they were innocent? I thought it was illegal to torture prisoners here in America so why is the law being broken over there?

 

[Jiro]

Not necessairly.....

The British had their own terrorist group for years and had a hard time dealing with them. Eventually they got to talking and came up with a Peace agreement.

It was the IRA and Northern Ireland.

difference is... IRA as terrorist group has a nation of their own - Northern Ireland... which is just like Israel-Palestine. But American's terrorists don't. We're pretty much cherry-picking them on several countries.

 

[Jiro]

I understand that sometimes war is necessary to protect this country but torturing prisoners...I agree if they are terrorists and we want to get info from them but Banjo brought up a good point..what if they were innocent? I thought it was illegal to torture prisoners here in America so why is the law being broken over there?

that's why they were confined at Gitmo Camp until their identities and roles can be established. They are immediately released if found innocent/harmless. If their roles have been linked to terrorism, then that's when they get interrogated.

 

[shel90]

that's why they were confined at Gitmo Camp until their identities and roles can be established.

So was the waterboarding technique used on them before their identities and roles were established? If this torture had been done on innocent people, that is not gonna help with the peacekeeping process...

 

[Jiro]

So was the waterboarding technique used on them before their identities and roles were established? If this torture had been done on innocent people, that is not gonna help with the peacekeeping process...

I don't know because I wasn't there.

 

[Byrdie714]

difference is... IRA as terrorist group has a nation of their own - Northern Ireland... which is just like Israel-Palestine. But American's terrorists don't. We're pretty much cherry-picking them on several countries.

Actually the IRA wanted reunification with the Republic of Ireland whereas the Loyalists to the crown wanted to keep Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom........

 

[darkdog]

If you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to ask for a glass of milk. Terrorists shouldn't be negotiated, no matter what the trade off may be. The problem is, if you cave in to their demands, they are more than likely to not honour the agreement. Once you give them what they want, they may end up carrying out the threat anyway despite the demands being met.

There's rarely a trade off when it comes to negotiating with the terrorists.

In general, I agree with you. Rewarding bad behavior only brings more of it. But when it comes to extreme cases like where a significant percent of the population's lives are at stake, then I have to reconsider since the costs of those lives may exceed the costs of rewarding of bad behavior. That is assuming we know they're not bluffing, there is no other way to save those people's lives, and we know for sure they will call off their plan. Still, it must also be weighed against what they want. If they only want a few prisoners released, that's one thing. If they want to take over and impose Taliban-like rule on the whole country, then no, it's not worth it.