CIA waterbording-good or bad

Herr Politik · #1 (**permalink**) 03-08-2008, 04:27 PM

American president Bush recently vetoed a bill that would stop the CIA from using waterbording and other techneiques outside of the US. President Bush says that it is these techneques that have prevented past attacks. I belive that the CIA should not break any human rights or perminatly injure a suspect, but I suppose it should use harsher techneques in emergency life or death situations for the US agents. What do you think

hidden · #2 (**permalink**) 03-08-2008, 04:30 PM

I think water boarding should be allowed. It does not permanetly harm anymore and does not subject them to any extreme pain. It puts them in extreme discomfort but that is it.

Also I do not care if we are water boarding people who have no problem cutting off our heads and broadcasting it on television. Plus I do not get the big deal with water boarding. Everybody acts like we do it all the time but it has not been used in years.

Herr Politik · #3 (**permalink**) 03-08-2008, 04:34 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/....ap/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/...ref=newssearch

BillyBob · #4 (**permalink**) 03-08-2008, 04:52 PM

Good.......

constitution101 · #5 (**permalink**) 03-09-2008, 11:22 AM

Waterboarding is good when necessary, but shouldn't be overused.

BillyBob · #6 (**permalink**) 03-09-2008, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by constitution101

Waterboarding is good when necessary, but shouldn't be overused.

It hasn't been used by the US in years...last I heard.

constitution101 · #7 (**permalink**) 03-12-2008, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyBob

It hasn't been used by the US in years...last I heard.

By the US or the CIA?

BillyBob · #8 (**permalink**) 03-12-2008, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by constitution101

By the US or the CIA?

I don't remember if that distinction was made when I heard that info on the news.

fifthofnovember · #9 (**permalink**) 04-16-2008, 05:20 PM

To anyone who thinks the CIA should be allowed to torture (including waterboarding), I have two words :OPERATION PAPERCLIP. If you think that a secretive organization stacked with Nazis from it's conception having license to torture people is unconcerning, I have two more words: FAMILY JEWELS. The CIA have proven themselves unworthy of the trust the President says we should give them (even if you think torture is OK "sometimes").

Makedde · #10 (**permalink**) 04-16-2008, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hidden

I think water boarding should be allowed. It does not permanetly harm anymore and does not subject them to any extreme pain. It puts them in extreme discomfort but that is it.

This is from Wikipedia, because it's so far the most detail description of waterboarding I could find:

Dating back to the Spanish Inquisition, the technique has been favored because, unlike most other torture techniques, it produces no marks on the body. Information retrieved from the waterboarding may not be reliable because a person under such duress may admit to anything, as harsh interrogation techniques lead to false confessions. "The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," says John Sifton of Human Rights Watch. It is "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough," said former CIA officer Bob Baer.

So waterboarding gives the person the thought that they are indeed drowning.

As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia (rapid heart beat) and gasping for breath. There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water.

So, as well the physical and psychological effects, this could actually kill.

Now, I am not relying on Wikipedia as a 100% accurate source, but it seems plausible that waterboarding could cause permanent damage.

I don't believe in torture of any kind, because I feel it lowers us, makes us no better than the terrorists themselves.
And we cannot forget the possiblility, no matter how small, that we could be torturing an innocent person.

Also, how can we be sure that a 'confession' from a terror suspect is the truth? And if the suspect you have in custody is innocent, what information could he possibly give you, even if he may be subjected to waterboarding? People will say anything to make the pain stop, so if indeed someone is innocent, and they tell you what you want to hear, and confess to terror activities just to make the pain end, what happens then? How does a person then prove their innocence despite admitting guilt? What happens when the false information given by an innocent terror suspect is discovered? What happens to the suspect?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A good gig, if you can get it	ArmedBlog	Political Blogs	0	02-19-2008 11:20 PM
This is a good one....	DuH2	Current Events	7	02-26-2007 04:14 PM
Am I good, or what?	raytri	Current Events	10	01-20-2006 03:49 PM
MAYBE HE IS REALLY REALLY A GOOD GUY!	MUNKO-1970	Political Opinions & Beliefs	16	08-12-2004 06:19 AM