Ron Paul and Water Boarding

[rothnic]

I was watching The O'Reily Factor tonight (find it's a good way to learn your enemies arguments so you can defend against them) and he made the point that if your child's life was at stake, would you use water boarding.

The funny thing was when the democrat respondee started talking, he said lets not use these hypothetical situations. I personally believe it is torture by the many accounts on the issue from people who have experienced it. Many saying the key words here.... When they started the water boarding they were instantly ready to say anything necessary for it to stop. The quality of the information gathered is questionable, and I think we are tired of questionable info as it is with the Bush admin.

[Brutus]

If I waterboard someone I am liable for the damages caused to someone.

When the government does it nobody is liable in any meaningful way.

[SeanEdwards]

When they started the water boarding they were instantly ready to say anything necessary for it to stop. The quality of the information gathered is questionable, and I think we are tired of questionable info as it is with the Bush admin.

I don't think this is a convincing argument against waterboarding, or any kind of torture for that matter. This whole notion that information gained through torture is not accurate, is frankly silly and irrelevant.

If torture had no value to interrogators, in terms of extracting information from people being interrogated, then torture would not ever be used. There would be no pressure to resort to such techniques, if they were consistently ineffective.

The true objection to torture should arise from the moral stain associated with the act of torturing someone. It should not be an objection to the technique on the basis of it being ineffective. Trying to claim that torture never produces useful information is a kind of moral cowardice. A person who truly objects to the use of torture should be able to confidently state that they would reject torture, EVEN IF the information gained through torture is useful and saves lives.

This presents a problem of course for people who claim to reject all these "enhanced interrogation techniques". It's a no-brainer to reject these techniques when you rely on the crutch that they don't produce useful information. It's a lot harder to reject them, because of their immoral nature, if they actually produce information that saves lives.

I think it's also important to place torture in context with all the violent crap nation states do. Our society seems to viscerally reject the notion of waterboarding a terrorism suspect, but does not reject to the same degree the concept of dropping 2000 pound bombs in heavily populated areas, where even if unintended, we can be sure that some innocents will be blown to bits. I think our societal morals on this matter are a bit illogical, personally.

This reminds me of that comment by Stalin that "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic". People become overwrought at the thought of an individual suffering from being tortured, but when death and dismemberment is abstracted over a faceless group, we don't seem to mind so much.

[rothnic]

I don't think this is a convincing argument against waterboarding, or any kind of torture for that matter. This whole notion that information gained through torture is not accurate, is frankly silly and irrelevant.

If torture had no value to interrogators, in terms of extracting information from people being interrogated, then torture would not ever be used. There would be no pressure to resort to such techniques, if they were consistently ineffective.

The true objection to torture should arise from the moral stain associated with the act of torturing someone. It should not be an objection to the technique on the basis of it being ineffective. Trying to claim that torture never produces useful information is a kind of moral cowardice. A person who truly objects to the use of torture should be able to confidently state that would reject torture, EVEN IF the information gained through torture is useful and saves lives.

This presents a problem of course for people who claim to reject all these "enhanced interrogation techniques". It's a no-brainer to reject these techniques when you rely on the crutch that they don't produce useful information. It's a lot harder to reject them, because of their immoral nature, if they actually produce information that saves lives.

I think it's also important to place torture in context with all the violent crap nation states do. Our society seems to viscerally reject the notion of waterboarding a terrorism suspect, but does not reject to the same degree the concept of dropping 2000 pound bombs in heavily populated areas, where even if unintended, we can be sure that some innocents will be blown to bits. I think our societal morals on this matter are a bit illogical, personally.

This reminds me of that comment by Stalin that "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic". People become overwrought at the thought of an individual suffering from being tortured, but when death and dismemberment is abstracted over a faceless group, we don't seem to mind so much.

Ok, maybe not a convincing argument for you, but it is an important argument for a lot of people. Of course the first argument is the morality of the technique, which has been deemed immoral by many countries. But I think that is was is innately true about torture, torture being a harsh form of getting info from someone, is that if it is too harsh then the method is not reliable.

And, I didn't need someone to come tell me I'm some sort of coward, which I still don't understand your problem anyways. I was just pointing out how it's funny how O'Reily uses hypothetical situations all the time to defend something, but won't let someone else.

[1000-points-of-fright]

My question has always been "what is torture?" Causing any pain or discomfort? Must there be some kind of physical damage? What about mental torture? Humiliation? Are we allowed to annoy or tease someone until they give in? Apparently, all we're allowed to do is ask nicely. We can't make fun of their religion anymore cuz that's disrespectful and offensive.

The fear of drowning and not being able to breathe is the tortuous part of waterboarding. If you knew there was no chance of drowning would it be torture?

What about this? It causes intense pain, but causes no physical damage. If the prisoner knows that no matter how much it hurts there is no damage is it torture?

[user]

Tasering is torture.

[ChickenHawk]

I think torture should be illegal and no part of government policy. If a government agent was sure that torture would produce info that would save lives I'm sure they would be willing to break the law to make it happen.

[partypooper]

i was actually wondering whether dr paul is against torture. did he say he was against it?

there are basically three arguments against torture

1) it is ineffective - i don't know if this is true, i doubt that it is true in all cases
2) it is immoral (i will revisit this)
3) it is against geneva convention

i think that dr paul might be advocating 2) but would that follow in all circumstances? i actually disagree with the notion that torture is always immoral - it depends, really, on who is being tortured in what circumstances. 3) should be a very weak argument for dr paul because it is an international law or something. so i think dr paul might actually not be against torture (i don't know, don't feel like searching right now).

[MicroBalrog]

M
The fear of drowning and not being able to breathe is the tortuous part of waterboarding. If you knew there was no chance of drowning would it be torture?

Yes.

When your brain is deprived of oxygen, it releases a variety of chemicals that cause the fear emotion, even if you consciously know you are going to survive.

[1000-points-of-fright]

oK, so if causing fear, emotional distress, humiliation, non-physically damaging pain, discomfort, mild annoyance and offense are considered torture.... I guess the real question is what interrogation techniques beyond polite questioning are NOT torture?

[user]

i was actually wondering whether dr paul is against torture. did he say he was against it?

there are basically three arguments against torture

1) it is ineffective - i don't know if this is true, i doubt that it is true in all cases
2) it is immoral (i will revisit this)
3) it is against geneva convention

i think that dr paul might be advocating 2) but would that follow in all circumstances? i actually disagree with the notion that torture is always immoral - it depends, really, on who is being tortured in what circumstances. 3) should be a very weak argument for dr paul because it is an international law or something. so i think dr paul might actually not be against torture (i don't know, don't feel like searching right now).

RP is absolutely against torture. You should've been able to guess that by now.

[Brutus]

How about this -- the government can torture anyone it wants so long as the person who requests it and the judge who approves it have to go through exactly the same experience for twice as long if they are wrong.

With anything less as safeguards I'd be mighty worried about how careful they'd be in application.

[Brutus]

The legal presumption of innocence has consequence. Otherwise you can haul anyone in for questioning, beat the crap out of them, then release them with no charges filed -- it was just "dynamic questioning".

We have that now -- the police can accuse your property of a drug crime, take it and you have no recourse. They can destroy your rented apartment looking for suspected drugs then walk away and you have are on the hook for $$$ in repair work to get the place back to like you rented it.

I'm not in a real hurry to expand the number of powers the government has over us little people.

[Cinaed]

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

torture
• noun 1 the infliction of severe pain as a punishment or a forcible means of persuasion.

The Constitution exists for the people of the United States, but its ideals exclude no one, even our enemies.

[partypooper]

RP is absolutely against torture. You should've been able to guess that by now.

based on which of the 3 arguments? illegal, immoral (in all circumstances) or ineffective? do you have a link?

[Brutus]

I'm not a "bleeding heart". I think that once tactics become acceptable the boundaries for them tend to migrate and it is really hard to stop them.

[user]

based on which of the 3 arguments? illegal, immoral (in all circumstances) or ineffective? do you have a link?

All three

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst061404.htm

[Brutus]

When George Bush is waterboarded to make amends for anyone wrongly waterboarded I'll consider that maybe they are being sufficiently careful about who is getting the special treatment.

[jmdrake]

I was watching The O'Reily Factor tonight (find it's a good way to learn your enemies arguments so you can defend against them) and he made the point that if your child's life was at stake, would you use water boarding.

The funny thing was when the democrat respondee started talking, he said lets not use these hypothetical situations. I personally believe it is torture by the many accounts on the issue from people who have experienced it. Many saying the key words here.... When they started the water boarding they were instantly ready to say anything necessary for it to stop. The quality of the information gathered is questionable, and I think we are tired of questionable info as it is with the Bush admin.

This is a cheap emotional heart string argument. Let's look at it another way. Former justice department lawyer John Yoo has argued on multiple occasions that Bush had the right to crush the testicles of a child of a terrorism suspect if it was necessary for the so called "war on terrorism"! I've had neocon scum try to tell me that "Oh you would agree to that if your child's life was at stake". Well I can honestly and emphatically no! Not in MY name! And this is NOT hypothetical! General Taguba's report of the Abu Grahib debacle included information about a female detainee being raped as well as reports of male detainees being sodomized with broom sticks. Also there is evidence uncovered by investigative reporter Seymour Hersch of child rape being caught on tape at Abu Ghraib.

I would not be able to sleep at night if I felt that some innocent person was being tortured supposedly to "save" my child. And I don't want to hear the crap about "but say if we have guilty terrorists?" The army has admitted that 70 to 90 percent of the prisoners held at Abu Ghraib were either innocent or picked up for minor offenses. We held people as young as 11!

George W. Bush claims to be a Christian. A key Christian tenet is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I wouldn't want anyone torturing my child for something I had allegedly done. Nor would I want my child tortured for something he had allegedly done. We already have enough of a track record to know that this government has tortured innocent people in the "war on terror". So forget all of the "hypothetical" situations. The truth is more important.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Ragnar]

This whole notion that information gained through torture is not accurate, is frankly silly and irrelevant.

I have to disagree with you there. I've read books written by interrogators and they've said that information gathered under true torture is extremely unreliable. People subjected to true torture snap and cease to be rational. They just mentally check out under the stress.

I admit that I was surprised to learn this, so I respectfully suggest that you read up on it yourself. One such book is The Interrogators: Inside the Secret War Against al Qaeda.

Whether or not I would personally torture an individual to save my children, for example, is a different question (I probably would -- eventually). But the central question is HOW to get RELIABLE information. If I were to jump immediately to torture and therefore maximize the chance of getting unreliable information to help me save my children, how would that be acting in their best interest?

[DanConway]

This reminds me of that comment by Stalin that "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic". People become overwrought at the thought of an individual suffering from being tortured, but when death and dismemberment is abstracted over a faceless group, we don't seem to mind so much.

I like to say something similar, with Stalin, among others, in mind.

"Kill one person, you're a murderer; kill ten people, you're a monster; kill a million people, you're a great leader."

[Tom228]

Yes, Stalin was not a very nice man.

Ron Paul did say once that we should lead by example. Do we really want to be known as the country that tortures people. There is no need to begin an American Inquisition.

[user]

This is a cheap emotional heart string argument. Let's look at it another way. Former justice department lawyer John Yoo has argued on multiple occasions that Bush had the right to crush the testicles of a child of a terrorism suspect if it was necessary for the so called "war on terrorism"! I've had neocon scum try to tell me that "Oh you would agree to that if your child's life was at stake". Well I can honestly and emphatically no! Not in MY name! And this is NOT hypothetical! General Taguba's report of the Abu Grahib debacle included information about a female detainee being raped as well as reports of male detainees being sodomized with broom sticks. Also there is evidence uncovered by investigative reporter Seymour Hersch of child rape being caught on tape at Abu Ghraib.

I would not be able to sleep at night if I felt that some innocent person was being tortured supposedly to "save" my child. And I don't want to hear the crap about "but say if we have guilty terrorists?" The army has admitted that 70 to 90 percent of the prisoners held at Abu Ghraib were either innocent or picked up for minor offenses. We held people as young as 11!

George W. Bush claims to be a Christian. A key Christian tenet is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I wouldn't want anyone torturing my child for something I had allegedly done. Nor would I want my child tortured for something he had allegedly done. We already have enough of a track record to know that this government has tortured innocent people in the "war on terror". So forget all of the "hypothetical" situations. The truth is more important.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Thanks for the information. It's disgusting that these things have been done.

[Corydoras]

It is vastly imprudent to make behave as if torture were legitimate, and thus to make it seem legitimate for an enemy force to do to our own people, civilians and military alike.

[bbartlog]

Any legalization of torture would be an abomination. Paul recognizes this and is adamantly opposed to torture.
As for the 'ticking bomb / save your kids' scenario, we already have legal safety valves for bizarre situations that may arise. If you tortured someone in a such a case, you could attempt a necessity defense, or else plead for a commutation or pardon, if charges were brought against you. Not that I am saying you would be justified, but I will admit that the case for not doing so (as an individual) is dependent on philosophical assumptions, whereas the case against legalizing torture is much plainer.
In any case, as things stand now, the Bill of Rights' injunction against cruel and unusual punishment makes things quite unambiguous.

[ErikBlack]

Any interrogation technique, no matter how non-violent, is an invasion of privacy and an intrusion on personal liberty. Most police interrogation techniques are deceitful, manipulative, threatening, abusive and amount to a form of fraud. Suspects are routinely threatened and lied to in order to extract information, a confession or an agreement to act as a witness against another suspect. Given the presumption of innocence until proven guilty no person should be subjected to this. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution protects our right against self incrimination. This Amendment was written specifically to address the issues of torture and forced confession, which was commonly used in the 16th and 17th centuries. No person should be misled, coerced, threatened, abused, manipulated or tortured for any reason under any circumstance, including for the purpose of extracting valuable information. If there is not enough evidence to convict a suspect without his cooperation then there is no case for holding him in the first place and he should be set free.

[xao]

I saw this on the show. It looked like torture to me. Even the guy admitted that it was like feeling you're going to drowned.

Not cool. Maybe O'reilly should be a guinea pig and ask to do the test with them next time? See if he likes it.