digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Waterboarding = Drowning = Torture = Illegal = Immoral

7gen.com — There's a lot of pussyfooting around this issue... is waterboarding torture or is it not. To be effective, waterboarding is real drowning that simulates death. The firing of Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin was due to his memo which superseded Gonzales's memo condoning torture.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • LoneRanger85, on 11/13/2007, -106/+31Baloney. Terrorists who have been waterboarded lasted an average of 14 seconds. You can't drown in 14 seconds. Furthermore, the CIA has waterboarded only THREE -- count 'em -- THREE people! One of them was Khalid Sheik Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Only a liberal could have sympathy for a vicious butcher like that -- while condoning the abortion of 1.5 million babies a year. You people are twisted. You don't know right from wrong. You are sociopaths.
    • postingbh, on 11/14/2007, -10/+64Way to bring a completely unrelated and irrelevant topic like abortion into the discussion in a piss-poor attempt to label people as "liberal." Get over yourself.
      • dukeeeey, on 11/13/2007, -10/+32sounds like he has been programmed by fox news
        • evo8ftw, on 11/13/2007, -18/+4Sounds like you've been programed by the liberal hate mongering drive by.
          • sunkist22, on 11/13/2007, -1/+1only people brainwashed by fox will use "liberal hate mongering", the rest of us normals dont
      • mlostracco, on 11/13/2007, -3/+9Like forcing someone to actually inhale water and then draining it so they don't die (only to do it again) isn't torture. Please.
    • ironhide, on 11/13/2007, -18/+29Don't you have a clinic to bomb?
    • ihaveworms, on 11/13/2007, -42/+10It is a shame they are digging you down. Why don't we just send all these liberals over to Iraq to settle these issues of a nice cup of tea.
      • Smiths, on 11/13/2007, -5/+17So you've been to Iraq? Where about? Is that where you got your worms? Too many questions?
        • Raptor007, on 11/13/2007, -0/+4@cmarthaller: What does bombing another country do for mine?
      • marmanukem, on 11/13/2007, -6/+11Seriously if you have never been to Iraq, shut your damn cake hole.
      • ncc74656m, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1Yellow-cake hole?
    • Authustian, on 11/13/2007, -0/+9I was going to try responding with witty derision, but after reading your comment a few more times, I think my words may have been lost on you. But here's something: Think for yourself. Question authority. To think for yourself, you must question authority. If you refuse to question what you are told, then you are mindless and should go back to watching TV, the talking heads have some more opinions for you to emulate.
      • robisfunky, on 11/13/2007, -3/+4 You seem to be implying (like Diggers LOVE to do), that if someone does not agree with your line of thinking, they are not thinking for themselves. You want them to 'think for themselves' and agree with you. Classic Digg.
        • Authustian, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2It's not the disagreement with my way of thinking, it's the lack of any thinking on their own part that I disagree with. For example, as this thread has expanded you can see people readily able to point out the numbers of people who have been water boarded.

          My original derision was something like: And who told you that? Fox news, or your dad? How can we know how many were water boarded? Even if it happened only once, that's too much. Torture is effective at getting people to talk, however the same can not be said for truthful.

          I don't care if anyone agrees with me or not, I would just rather see people making informed statements instead of letting the dribble of their washed brains escape unchallenged.
    • Rahodeb, on 11/13/2007, -2/+8The act of being drowned is torturous, no doubt. You're being denied oxygen to the brain and it causes severe discomfort. Being electrocuted, if stopped at the right time, isn't fatal, but is considered torture. What is ironic is that if we used a taser on an enemy detainee, it would be torture, but when we do it to our citizens, it called policing.

      Whether we should condemn waterboarding or not, I'm actually on the fence about this. It's the whole, if you could save thousands of lives, while inflicting this treatment to a known murderer thug. We're talking about the lives of our soldiers and citizens. Soldiers with families, people who are non-combatants. In a way, I think we are all so insulated and removed from the atrocities that it's easy to call this barbaric, however we don't seem to mind killing the same enemies by the hundreds when we find them.
      • joemommasfat, on 11/13/2007, -2/+5electrocution is, by definition, always lethal
      • Suzilla, on 11/13/2007, -1/+3@Rahodeb
        Re: "known murderer thug"
        Known, eh? What court was he tried in? There was no trial, no examination of evidence. We were simply told, by an administration that is prone to lying, that this or that person is guilty.

        Is that what your America stands for? Innocent until proven guilty UNLESS the folks who happen to be in charge declare otherwise?

        Remember: the same standard of proof they used for KSM can just as easily be applied to anyone else, including YOU. All it takes is for the president to declare you an unlawful enemy combatant, and you're as good as dead. The standard by which you accept KSM's guilt is the same standard by which YOU will be allowed to challenge your own denunciation as an enemy combatant. That is, nothing more than the word of whoever happens to control the Oval Office.

        That is why the rule of LAW is distinct from (and far preferrable to) the rule of MEN.
      • iamorlando, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1You are senseless. The US is the agressor, not the other way around. When you say you kill the enemy by the hundreds, well those "terrorists" are just people like you except their lives have been turned upside down by the US and they are know fighting in and for their own land. The "enemy" you refer to is a passive people who you forced into a corner untill he turned on you. When you say people that call waterboarding barbaric have know idea what they are saying because of the atrocities comited, keep in mind you are speaking of the atrocities the US has given way to. when people like you support torture for reasons of national security, they are only perpetuating their fear and intolerance, and this is the real enemy, it is what really makes the world less safe.

        Also, you can support torture now but eventually history will prove you to be a real *****
      • Wootery, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1"What is ironic is that if we used a taser on an enemy detainee, it would be torture, but when we do it to our citizens, it called policing."
        That's not really fair. Beating can be torture, but is sometimes appropriate in policing.
    • KibibyteBrain, on 11/13/2007, -0/+14Logical Fallacy alert! Ones position on abortion cannot impact their argument on water-boarding. Also, there could be and are people against both. And, the scale of an action does not impact its ethics or legality. Killing one person,no matter how much you rightfully hate them, is still just as illegal as anyone else.
      Also, I can respect breaking the law for mission critical exceptions. In fact, this is the actual reason that the pardon exists! People seem to forget that...
    • ncc74656m, on 11/14/2007, -3/+11So perhaps we should've thrown Germans into the gas chambers, too, eh? Because they did it?

      Think your simple-minded arguments through first.
      • Rahodeb, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3We may not have gassed them, but we did shoot them by the hundreds of thousands. Dead is dead.
        • JAVandiver, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3And firebombed non-military locations to break the will of the German population, eg. Dresden. War is hell, there is nothing moral about. The only ethics involved is preserving the lives of your people and ending the conflict as soon as posible.
    • Bleue, on 11/13/2007, -0/+11So torture is okay as long as it's not too many people, and or we think they did some very bad things? Who's the sociopath now?

      And not for nothing but babies are never aborted, fetuses are. The point of argument, among those familiar with the issue, is how big the difference between a fetus and a baby is and does a fetus have right. But no one on any end of the spectrum who has any sort of brain would ever content that a fetus and a baby are one and the same.
      • nrobert2, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1I'm sorry, but I can't help but ask you: a fetus is what, exactly? A stage of human development, perhaps? As is a baby. As compared to a child, an adolescent, an adult, and an elderly person. Each stage has unique features... but is nevertheless human. A baby and a fetus are one and the same in the way that matters most: they are human beings, and all human beings have a right to life, until and unless they have proven, by their actions, that they do not. (And that is by law - I personally do not condone the death penalty.)
    • dschrute, on 11/13/2007, -5/+2Lone Ranger + Brain = Idiot
    • OYAHHH, on 11/13/2007, -9/+3Totally agree.

      BTW, seven of these liberal boneheads took on my contention yesterday that they wouldn't have an answer on how to get needed information out of a terrorist. Six of them merely called me names etc. Ha! Guess they will try that technique when the terrorists come knocking at their door.

      At least one of the seven had the nerve to present reasonable alternatives to "waterboarding" And, while I don't necessarily agree that her/his explanation of alternate techniques is all-inclusive, I do respect him/her for presenting it.

      The other six are so weak it's beyond comprehension.
      • jaxcs, on 11/13/2007, -1/+2My guess is that you're getting your play book from 24 and Sleeper Cell.
    • noisician, on 11/13/2007, -1/+5Wow, great arguments:
      - well, it's not torture because we only do it for a short amount of time (never mind that this is because the torture is so awful nobody can take any longer)
      - well, it's not torture because we've only done it to a small number of people (so far) (that you know about)

      proponents can't seem to decide whether their argument should be:
      - no, the "treatments" we condone are not torture, or...
      - yes, it's torture but it is a necessary evil
    • iamorlando, on 11/13/2007, -5/+4The fact that 17 people dugg your comment (I use a greasemonkey script) is disturbing. It just shows the violent and nationalistic sentiment in the USA. I don't think it is that much different right now than in Nazi Germany right before they started sending jews to deathcamps.
      How would you feel, LoneRanger and those who dugg you, if you found out your country was running secret prison / torture camps for muslims? Oh ***** scratch that, that already happened, and you still feel like it should be stepped up.
    • LeRenard, on 11/13/2007, -1/+2At the end of the day, I like knowing that *he's* the butcher, and I'm not.
    • jaxcs, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2I guess if you water board someone for 14 seconds, it's ok. 15 seconds would have been wrong but 14 - well all is good. The US is, I suppose, also adopting a quota systems - 3 tortures a year is fine.
    • empraptor, on 11/13/2007, -2/+2I don't condone abortion. If it were my own child or child of someone I know, I'd want the mother to keep the child save for extenuating circumstances. But what I am against is the government stepping in and prohibiting a medical procedure which will in turn spawn a black market and make the operation more dangerous. Take a look at international statistics on abortion and you will find that regions in which abortion is illegal don't have significantly less abortion but do have higher death rate associated with the procedure..

      I believe this is the majority sentiment in the pro-choice movement - we don't want the government criminalizing abortion. Let the doctor, patient, and significant others decide. We don't go around telling the pregnant women that they should get an abortion.

      On the other hand, evidence points to torture being an ineffective form of interrogation. On top of that US is breaking the Geneva Convention every time we torture. How are we going to prosecute those who torture our soldiers without this biting us in the ass later?

      I see the difference this way. You support a kind of government that violates human rights and dictates personal/health choices. I don't.
      • nrobert2, on 11/13/2007, -0/+0Sorry... abortion is not a "medical procedure." It's killing a human being. There is merit in asking how you can be sympathetic to a person who has committed heinous acts, yet dismiss an unborn child as a "medical procedure." And if the purpose of our government is not, at least in part, to protect innocent human life, then what is it??
    • Groovemaster, on 11/13/2007, -1/+4"Khalid Sheik Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks."

      ROFL. Thanks for the big laugh!
    • barnett03, on 11/13/2007, -1/+2Where did you get that information?
    • Klepto21, on 11/13/2007, -1/+1"Two seconds is too long" Don't you remember those commercials about drowning?
    • mikesbaker, on 11/13/2007, -2/+3never ending stories on digg about water boarding is torture / water boarding is the new tasing
      • JAVandiver, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2Atricles About Waterboarding = Torture = STFU Stupid Neo-Hippies = FAIL!
    • kermit4karate, on 11/13/2007, -2/+1I'm not really as bothered by your comment on torture as I am by your jab about abortion. The abortion of one's fetus -- not a baby -- has been determined, after much legal consideration mind you, to be LEGAL in our country. The law views it as a matter of personal choice, meaning that others (ala terrorists) are not aborting YOUR fetus. They are making the decision to abort their OWN fetus.

      I'm sick of hypocritical people bitching about what other people do with their own fetuses. If you want your high-road argument on abortion to hold water, you'd better have a bunch of adopted children waiting for you at home, buddy.
  • zappa717, on 11/13/2007, -4/+10and you quote the media oh so well!
    • LeeSoong, on 11/13/2007, -3/+10Middle East = Wealth = Profit = Steal it = Happy Neocons.

      Iran is next.
  • LoneRanger85, on 11/13/2007, -52/+12I WORK in the media. Been a journalist for 34 years. Difference is, I'm honest. And I see the news before it has been pasteurized for liberal consumption.
    • dagnabbit, on 11/13/2007, -3/+16The 'reply' button isn't so scary after all. You should try using it, if you can figure it out.
      • crackedlogic, on 11/13/2007, -1/+12hey, he's WORKed in the media for 34 years...he's a pro.
    • crackedlogic, on 11/13/2007, -2/+22whats your reporting name? What media company do you work for?
      I ask so I can find out which prestigious news source you work for, and then avoid it.
    • ScottoGato, on 11/13/2007, -1/+6You have the freedom of the press, use it. If you think you have to conform your journalistic responsibilities to some other agenda, then don't do it, and get the ***** out. Sounds to me that you're willing to change your opinions to those who pays the bills. Welcome MSM.
    • dschrute, on 11/13/2007, -3/+3I thought the Media had a liberal bias?Are you the liberal media? Must work at Fox.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 11/13/2007, -1/+3Ah yes, I can tell that you are media pro from your use of the term "liberal".
    • jaxcs, on 11/12/2007, -0/+0And this proves what exactly? What kind of journalist are you? If you are going to use your background to prove somethihng, might as well go all in.
    • ConAmoreEFuoco, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1Hal Turner?! Is that you?!
    • vatosplace, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1Being a janitor at a local newspaper does not qualify and 'Media Experience'... Just FYI...
  • dkern, on 11/14/2007, -39/+7Dugg down for vile and incomprehensible stupidity.
  • nightwing2000, on 11/14/2007, -6/+52This is the whole point of (alleged) protections like the US constitution... So you can torture if the guy is a "vicious killer". Why not if you think he might kill? What if he's commiting armed robbery and might kill? What if your definition of "kill" includes abortion? (a legitimate debate, still ongoing in the minds of the the anti-'s) Why stop there? What if he imports tons of drugs into the country, potentially killing hundreds? What if it's only a few pounds? What if he leaks state secrets to journalists, potentially putting the lives of many at risk? What if the leak comes from the VP's office....?

    Either the law applies to everyone, or the chief executive, and then his minions, can make exceptions as he feels and the law has NO meaning. Where, who, and how the law applies to can only be decided by an open court in full public glare after long debate and deliberation - or else there might as well be no laws.

    Keep in mind that the people claiming they were following the laws of the land (or "only following orders") were being prosecuted for crimes from 1940-45 right up until 2000 (Think John Demenjiuk and mistaken identity); Salvador Allende was being arrested a few years ago in Britain for crimes against Spanish citizens in Chile in the mid-70's, and only got off by faking demetia.

    Anyone participating in torture actvity on behalf of the US government should think very carefully before travelling abroad for the rest of their life.
    • firejack007, on 11/12/2007, -13/+1All the things you listed are punishments. Waterboarding is done for information and not punishment. It works. Or would you rather have some people blown up?
      • kufu91, on 11/13/2007, -1/+7it doesn't work. torture doesn't work. if you think you are drowning you will say what ever you think will save your life, truth or not. can't you get that through your thick head?
        • rsims17, on 11/13/2007, -6/+2http://thecontaminated.com/the-most-painfull-tortu ...
          Those are torture devices.
          That being said, your statement that waterboarding doesn't work, that you will say whatever will save you is not entirely correct. Now let’s step into the world of logic and reasoning, try not to hurt yourself. Let’s say you give up your cell to a government agency after they waterboard you, you tell them where they are staying and what they are planning. The government would then go to the location find the people you told them about and arrest them. They would seize everything there and spend a lot of man hours to figure out exactly what they planned and how. That is assuming waterboarding worked that time, what if you just said whatever they wanted to get the interrogation to stop. Well the government would go to said location and find nothing... that about it. In that instance it works, and nicely at that.
          Now if the interrogation was used to get a confession to a crime, then you would be right and would have a good point. The problem is interrogation is used to acquire information to stop a crime, or attack... not a confession.
      • Bluejaye, on 11/12/2007, -2/+3If those are my only two options (which they are not, but because you believe they are I'll play along), I'd rather people blow up.
        • rsims17, on 11/13/2007, -2/+3True they are not your only options... but you sir may have severe psychiatric problems.
      • pintomp3, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1waterboarding someone for information is like raping someone for sex. you only think you got what you wanted.
    • Bleue, on 11/12/2007, -0/+11It's called the slippery slope for a reason. There are times not too long ago where torture was considered an absolute wrong. That if we ever stooped to torture they had won, that the fact that they torture and we don't if what separated them from us, whosoever the them happened to be at the time. It had been happening in private for some time, never with official support. Now it has official and even limited public support.

      Playing the tape through to the end, I'm not liking at all where this is headed.
      • RabidAngel, on 11/12/2007, -1/+7Agreed. The foresight here is critical, and too few people seem to really have it, or even care about having it.
      • justenough, on 11/12/2007, -1/+4Well said. If we continue on this path, we will become what we claim to loathe. We have got to convey to Congress that the sanctioning of torture is unacceptable. One approach is notacent.com, that lets people know that you will not contribute to anyone who supports torture.
      • rsims17, on 11/12/2007, -1/+1RabidAngel, please take a step off of your high and mighty position for the benefit of us common folk that lack the high level of foresight you obviously possess.

        I'm sorry but your logic is inherently flawed, the same train of thought was used in McCarthyism (the so called slippery slope). The idea that one thing now will lead to another later and then something else after that, and so on. It is one of the common mistakes in Argumentative theory. Simply because waterboarding has been used does not mean we will tumble down this slippery slope.
    • ponyfreak, on 11/12/2007, -0/+4Pinochet was the Chilean dictator who was arrested a few years back. He overthrew the govt of Salvador Allende.
    • Suzilla, on 11/12/2007, -0/+0Ponyfreak beat me to it.
  • killakan, on 11/14/2007, -34/+12When one drowns, one dies. Poster is an idiot.

    If one does not die, one does not drown. That is referred to as a "near drowning".
    • DreKor, on 11/14/2007, -3/+35False. If one has drowned, one has died. If one is drowning, one is dying. Should the drowning go on long enough, one will die and, thus, will have drowned. However, if the drowning is stopped and one does not die, then one was drowning but is no longer.

      Arguing semantics over torture is a special kind of evil.
  • reversekilled, on 11/14/2007, -20/+11These sorts of techniques are already being used on US citizens who have not yet had the benefit of a trial. Unfortunately, we can't stop it, but we can at least keep it illegal so that the perpetrators can be punished after the fact.
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/14/2007, -5/+5sources please. wikipedia says it's only been used 3 times in Iraq.
    • blackhawk919, on 11/12/2007, -4/+5Can we have that list of US citizens that have been and/or are being water boarded?
    • kaeryn, on 11/12/2007, -3/+2Oh well since you posted it it MUST be true. A*****E
    • LeRenard, on 11/12/2007, -1/+0Making unsubstantiated claims, that it's being done to citizens, only weakens the arguments against it by painting opponents as uniformed, or people who don't respect the evidence (none of which shows that it has been used on US citizens). The reproach of the act can stand on it's own without embellishment.
      • Suzilla, on 11/12/2007, -1/+0Because it's being done in secret, we can never know. THAT is the problem.
    • floorman56, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2Can you name 1 U.S. citizen that this has been used on? (Besides the ones that had it done to them as part of there training)
      If you can't ... Your just lying
  • mydigga, on 11/14/2007, -14/+8Waterboarding = Drowning = Torture = Illegal = Immoral
    Now, just tweak each of the definitions of these words to comply with the Constitution! Welcome to the US, bitches!
    • aphexcoil, on 11/13/2007, -5/+7Actually, in logic theory the statement "Waterboarding = Drowning = Torture = Illegal = Immoral" is not true. Waterboarding is a SUBSET of drowning which is a SUBSET of torture. Also, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is immoral (i.e. is Jaywalking immoral?). Also, just because something is immoral doesn't mean it is illegal (cheating on your girlfriend).

      I'm not defending the practice but let's not paint pictures with wide brushes.
      • jwietelmann, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1I don't know why you're getting buried. I guess these folks skipped logic class.
      • TheHydrogens, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2I don't know if I'm the only one, but I just understood the title to mean something more along the lines of
        Waterboarding = Drowning
        Waterboarding = Torture
        Waterboarding = Illegal
        Waterboarding = Immoral

        It makes a lot more sense like that I think... who knows if that is what the actual submitter thought
  • OffPiste, on 11/14/2007, -32/+11If it saves American lives then I don't care if they roast them alive.
    • timberfish, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3I think the problem might be that the people you refer to as "liberals" care about human beings and we don't look at people not born on a certain piece of land as a soul-less evil creature that can be tortured and killed in favor of an "American" as if one human is worth so much less than another. Is it not possible to have some interest in saving any innocent life "and" be a patriot at the same time? I don't think it furthers American values to torture and kill potentially innocent people to further our way of life when it was never in jeopardy to begin with.

      Why do some people so blindly see us as the good guy and everyone else as bad as if we're in a remake of Spiderman. Watch some actual footage of WWII and you'll see questionable morality on both sides of the line. Many incidents of our men lining up the captrued, unarmed enemy who we're supposed to be better than and then killing them firing squad style. But of course, they're the bad guy so it's okay. Meanwhile their people say the same thing and do the same. But you can't accept that both methods are equally as wrong, you must believe that we have righteousness on our side and therefore can do whatever it takes to beat evil. This blind ignorance lets you live your life without guilt, but you suport the very behavior you claim to detest and there in lies the problem.
    • Suzilla, on 11/13/2007, -1/+0It suddenly occurs to me that the name-callers and neo-con wannabes must sense, deep down, that the law will indeed no longer protect them, innocence notwithstanding. Their only "safety" lies in aligning themselves as completely and mindlessly as possible with those who wield power. This goes a long way in explaining the otherwise irrational behavior and hate-speech of folk like Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, Caputo, Beck, and their ilk.
  • reikiman, on 11/13/2007, -11/+19"If one does not die, one does not drown"... Um, often people do die completely under waterboarding. So.... I think that those on the "it's not drowning" tack are being pedantic because this technique really pushes to the edge of death.

    The most alarming thing I found researching this story is the connection between Daniel Levin and the 2002 memo from Gonzales' Justice Department which gave cover for the illegal torture techniques our military is using.

    Daniel Levin's memo refused to continue to give that cover, and he got canned for standing up for the truth.

    The issue here is not a partisan republicin/democratic/conservative/liberal fight. The issue is about honesty, integrity, standing for truth, justice, morality, and the rule of law. The current U.S. Administration has been flouting all those things, and they must be held accountable.
    • floatingpoints, on 11/13/2007, -1/+3So much misinformation going around...

      No, you don't die. It *simulates* drowning. It doesn't actually drown you.

      If someone dies, then you're doing it wrong.

      It ***** you up and IS torture, yes, but don't go around assuming things that aren't true ;)
      • Bajeda, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1Simulating 'death' is a better way of putting it.
    • floorman56, on 11/13/2007, -1/+2Um, often people do die completely under waterboarding

      There name?
      • plaunie, on 11/13/2007, -1/+2well - we don't/won't know THEIR names because everyone that the government has in these foreign detention camps is an unperson...
  • hermslice, on 11/13/2007, -21/+8I'm going to play devils advocate for a second....
    so there is a nuclear bomb that is going to go off...or(some airplanes are going to fly into buildings and kill nearly 3000 Americans)
    do you sit there and quietly ask him where the bomb is? or do you beat him until he tells you?
    i see where torture should be used, but i totally understand that its not a good thing.
    nightwing does bring up a good point at what point is it excessive and who is there to keep an eye out to keep that from happening.
    more questions i can't answer but just something to think about.

    People should not be afraid of their Government, Government should be afraid of its People.
    • nblsavage, on 11/13/2007, -4/+19That is a red herring. Life is not an episode of "24" and the scenario you are talking about has not happened and is not likely to happen.
      • rsims17, on 11/12/2007, -4/+1It is a red herring argument, and life is not an episode of 24. That being said, your an idiot. Information acquired from interrogation has stopped potential attacks in numerous countries. Not as dramatic and last minute as an hour with CTU but the information gained is no less valuable. Oh and your argument is also a red herring or an irrelevant conclusion. You state that life is not "24" and then conclude that the scenario above is false.
    • DreKor, on 11/13/2007, -2/+15Given your ridiculous scenario, most people probably wouldn't "sit there and quietly ask him" anything. You're right, they would probably try to beat it out of him. And, thankfully, that would be illegal. What happens when the guy doesn't answer? What happens when he lies to you to make the pain stop? What happens when you spend the last few minutes before the attack chasing red herrings? What happens when he can't tell you because he doesn't know? The answer is, you go to trial for violating international, and hopefully federal, law.
      • CourtesyFlush, on 11/13/2007, -12/+2So.....planes flying into building is a 'ridiculous scenario."

        Perhaps you should stop equating things you don't like to discuss to crap you watch on the tellyvision, sonny.

        It really is ridiculous.

        As is redefining interrogation as torture in order to whine about a technique you've never experienced, nor anyone you know experienced in order to vilify political rivals.

        Thank gawd there are real men in this world who aren't afraid of getting their hands dirty to protect you whiny women.
        • nblsavage, on 11/12/2007, -0/+7As postingbh commented below-"the gov't knew about people wanting to fly planes into buildings months before 9/11 and despite reaching the highest levels of the gov't, the info still didn't prevent anything."
          And people who torture captives are not real men...I'd argue that they aren't human at all.
        • CourtesyFlush, on 11/12/2007, -8/+2And you conveniently ignored the point with wild conjecture.

          Planes flying into buildings with a death toll in the thousands is not ridiculous scenario regardless of what you think about interrogation or those who perform it.

          Now digg this down as if it disproves my statement.
          • kufu91, on 11/12/2007, -0/+4it is an irrelevant scenario as we had the baseline intelligence to deal with the attack and were stopped by inaction by our leaders, not ineffective interrogation techniques.
          • postingbh, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2CourtesyFlush, you conveniently ignore that the scenario implied much more than just planes flying into buildings. That alone would obviously be reasonable given history.

            The ridiculous part is imagining that you have a suspect in the interrogation room that knows the missing information which could prevent an imminent and catastrophic attack, saving thousands of lives. Further, hermslice gives you two ridiculously simplistic options: "quietly ask him" or "beat him until he tells you."

            You're looking at a tiny portion of the scenario, saying it's realistic and then trying to condemn people who say the scenario at large is ridiculous.
      • JimSwarthow, on 11/12/2007, -3/+1you keep telling everyone else that their scenarios are ridiculous/far-fetched/not-gonna-happen/etc.. what if you're wrong? (and x,xxx number of people die) - who says your moral code is better and/or correct rather than mine or his or hers or theirs or whoever's? you wanna play moral-police? answer that question then.
        • DreKor, on 11/12/2007, -1/+2Moral relativity is a sad byproduct of a society that tells everyone that their opinion is right. I'm here telling you that using torture is wrong. If you think using torture is alright, regardless of your caveats, you are wrong.
          • JimSwarthow, on 11/12/2007, -1/+1kudos to your distaste of the "situational/relative moralistic" nonsense so popular today. I was just trying to flip the tables on some who always spout that nonsense but in selected cases like this change their tune when it suits them and their agenda. - but lemme tell you what I see is really wrong here, painting ourselves into a corner and limiting our options if/when said doomsday scenario presents itself. I hear ya in regards to torture being a despicable business and I agree, but we gotta be realistic and face the facts that we just may be dealing w/ despicable people wanting to do despicable things. sacrificing x-number of humans because it was written somewhere in some Federal Courthouse that we're not allowed to do this or that that may just save x-number of lives is completely unacceptable to me.


    • postingbh, on 11/12/2007, -0/+10The first problem lies in using these largely improbable hypotheticals as the basis for justifying more widespread, routine torture. The follow-up is actually validating that information is true and that it gets into the hands of the right people. Remember, the gov't knew about people wanting to fly planes into buildings months before 9/11 and despite reaching the highest levels of the gov't, the info still didn't prevent anything.

      But I personally don't think people are outraged by the actual procedure of waterboarding being used by the gov't against known terrorists. Rather, I think people are frustrated with the ridiculousness of not classifying waterboarding as torture. If the gov't said, "Waterboarding is classified as torture, but we use it on a very limited basis by highly trained agents following strict protocols," there wouldn't be much to argue about. Sure, some people would be upset. But it wouldn't have made Mukasey look like an idiot.

      But the gov't is locked into the phrase, "We do not torture." So instead of just classifying waterboarding as torture and moving on, the gov't has to stand by the that phrase even if it means that simulated drownings do not count.
    • greyrat, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2No you torture him so he can send you on a few wild goose chases. After all, what are you going to do after he's duped you into sending your valuable assets to all the wrong places and "The Ticking Time Bomb" goes off successfully? Are going to keep torturing him for the heck of it? Like any other immoral regime?
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 11/12/2007, -0/+4Do you sacrifice your own morals and principles at every conveince or do you hold yourself to your own standards?

      There is a certain idea of the citizen supposed working for the good of the nation that has been lost. Now people think that the poor people whose best shot is the military are the only ones that should be in harms way at any cost.

      There's always going to be a risk of nukes and bombs. It is impossible to remove the threat. So sacrificing anything valuable in the vain effort to prevent these events completely, is ridiculous. The far easier approach is to make everyone like you, and then nobody will want to hurt you.
      • JimSwarthow, on 11/12/2007, -2/+1"Do you sacrifice your own morals and principles at every conveince.."

        first off, those are your morals not mine or anyone else's. who are you to tell me what's moral and what's not? (just askin') - and who said anything about convenience and/or ramping this up to be included in more or all interrogation? it's been used 3 friggin' times fer f'sck. what's w/ all the hyperbole?
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1"first off, those are your morals not mine or anyone else's."
          Ok so torturing people, and being a "Good Cristian" go hand in hand?

          "who are you to tell me what's moral and what's not? (just askin')"
          Logic dictates that treating someone inhumanely is probably a bad thing to do. How about taking a life to save millions, 2 lives, 3 , 4? Etc.

          "and who said anything about convenience and/or ramping this up to be included in more or all interrogation?"
          George Bush reffers to this as "Enhanced Interrogation" in order to avoid calling it torture. Just like "Attack of Opportunity" was used by Conda Leeza Rice to avoid saying "Assasination", and "Disenfranchised Voters" was used to avoid saying "Defrauded Florida Voters". Convenience is exactly what the parent was taling about. Dropping rights and freedoms of people to pursue state intrests. In this case the intrest is security. The EXACT same way Hitler turned a democratic Germany into Nazi Germany. It's the method of overthrowing a democracy.

          "it's been used 3 friggin' times fer f'sck. what's w/ all the hyperbole?"
          No Hyperbole. Sorry If I made you think there was one. There isn't.
    • JimSwarthow, on 11/12/2007, -5/+1I love how at least 5 people have dugg you down yet none have the fortitude to respond to you and point out what they have a problem w/ in your very valid hypothetical scenario/question - what a bunch of wussies
      • nblsavage, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3I'm guessing you either can't read or have problems with math. I see no less than 5 responses, not including yours, which is the least substantive of the bunch.
    • timberfish, on 11/12/2007, -0/+4No, in that case I let myself act as God for a moment. I look into the future and become 100% certain about the outcome of not torturing this individual. Then I put aside everyone in my life has taught me about right and wrong and I justify putting him through so much physical agony that he'll say anything to escape it. At that point he tells me what I need and I flip off my God switch and go on to be the man I always wanted to be. I go on to be the man who destroyed another to protect my way of life. Of course in doing so I also accepted that I'd never be able to go back to the man I used to be. But that's okay, cause as God I don't have to apologize to anyone.

      Then I remember that this was all conjecture because life is never that black and white. Unless you watch too much TV and think the bad guys wear black and the good guys have capes and people often try to oversimply life and death and I throw up a little in my mouth.
    • 10lbhammer, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2and some responded at least 40 minutes before you. I suggest you refresh your page before responding next time, might save you some embarrassment...
  • tucsonsun13, on 11/13/2007, -5/+33GITMO CAT IZ TAKIN DUNK BATH.
  • slashbot, on 11/13/2007, -29/+12Waterboarding = drowning??

    Buried as submitter obviously has no clue what waterboarding is. You cannot drown in 14 seconds.
    • DreKor, on 11/12/2007, -3/+9Sure you can. You only drown because you can't get air into your lungs because they're full of water. You can aspirate plenty of water in 14 seconds.
      • blackhawk919, on 11/12/2007, -11/+3Except the little fact that no one is filling anyone's lungs with water.
        • MarkOfTheDead, on 11/12/2007, -2/+2I don't think you understand what waterboarding is and how the human body _by reflex_ will gasp for air and as a result of suction water is drawn into the lungs.
          • blackhawk919, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2Or possibly you don't understand how water boarding is performed with a wet rag on a person strapped to a board.
      • CourtesyFlush, on 11/12/2007, -9/+4The expert speaks again.

        Stop acting as if your uneducated opinions count as fact.
    • DisposableRob, on 11/12/2007, -2/+6Is this "can't drown in 14 seconds" bit the new talking point this week?

      I can put someone on the rack for for 14 seconds without them dying either.
    • objectcode, on 11/12/2007, -6/+2because drowning does start to happen until after the person is dead
      • DreKor, on 11/12/2007, -1/+1Doubtful. Very few things start after a person is dead, except decomposition and rigormortis.
    • dschrute, on 11/12/2007, -1/+3I bet I could drown you in 14 seconds.
  • capiCrimm, on 11/13/2007, -2/+14The problem is water boarding sounds like something you might do on vacation. We should just call it simulated drowning if you want to get the point across.
    • MrESaulved, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2It is not simulated drowning. It is actual drowning. It is a simulated execution. Call it what is *really* is.
  • drizzlelicious, on 11/13/2007, -4/+12Correction: Waterboarding = Drowning = Torture = Immoral = Illegal
    • gnick, on 11/13/2007, -8/+3No.
      Drowning != Waterboarding = Torture = Immoral != Illegal
    • opiniastrous, on 11/13/2007, -1/+4So glad someone else picked that up. I was going to say the same thing, but I figured I better check through the comments first.
    • HorseDick, on 11/13/2007, -1/+3drizzlelicious, can you explain the difference between "illegal = immoral" and "immoral = illegal" ?

      anyways...i didnt realize marijuana was immoral, or jaywalking, etc...
      • gnick, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1Thanks. I was wondering how reversing an '=' somehow corrected things. All that I can assume is that he was trying to emulate all of the other posts that pointed out that morality and legality are not synonyms and that he was unfamiliar with the commutative property.

        But (at the risk of repeating a buried post) I apparently failed in a bid to point out that:
        * Waterboarding and drowning are different
        * Waterboarding is torture and torture is immoral
        and
        * Morality, although typically related, is certainly not synonymous with legality
      • opiniastrous, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3Ah. Reversing an equality sign wouldn't actually change anything. Good point. I think what the submitter was trying to establish though, was a connection between waterboarding and immorality. He moved through some equivalents (Drowning = Torture...) but then became slightly sidetracked (in a logical sense - language is a difficult beast to control) and made the = sign mean 'which is also/which happens to be/which leads to' so that it would fit a linear progression from waterboarding to immorality. That's how I interpreted it anyway.

        I guess Drizzle did too, because he obviously thought the same thing that I did - just because something is illegal does not lead (logically) to immorality. As you obviously realised, some things can be moral and be illegal, or vice versa. However, torture is immoral, and ideally, something that is immoral should be illegal (as law is meant to be a physical representation of moral principles). Hence, it would make more sense to flip 'illegal' and 'immoral'
  • zomgwaffles, on 11/14/2007, -1/+37Legality has nothing to do with morals
    • drizzlelicious, on 11/13/2007, -8/+8Legality should be founded on morality.
      • rupprupp29, on 11/13/2007, -4/+5Key word: "should"
        Sad but true
      • BobSconce, on 11/13/2007, -2/+5And often is. But, illegal != immoral. There's nothing immoral about the British driving on the left side of the road or the Americans on the right. But, the law in each country has to choose one. I'd also not want to live in Iran where "immoral" acts are increasingly being made illegal.

      • cybermort, on 11/13/2007, -0/+11Legality should be founded on human rights, justice and equality. Morals change with times, religion and individuals.
        • drizzlelicious, on 11/13/2007, -3/+2Human rights, justice and equality are all examples of morality.
      • CourtesyFlush, on 11/13/2007, -2/+7"Legality should be founded on morality."

        WHOSE morality?

        Whiny leftists or rabid fundies?

        I don't like either choice, quite frankly.
    • specialk9991, on 11/12/2007, -1/+1bingo
    • ReligionOfPeace, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3The problem here is that you use a capital M when you say morality. You probably also use a capital T when you say truth.

      You have a couple of options here. First, buy a Koran, learn Arabic and start praying your arse off. Second, decide that to have a fair playing field, you must use the same rules as your opponent and play the game the same way.

      Accept that as long as there is a military action in progress, that each side is going to work towards their own best advantage. For the US and their allies, that means obtaining information by any means. So tough titty for anyone who might have some usefulness in that regard. For the uniformed military and Iraqi police, well, there's nothing wrong with IEDs directed to military targets.

      Bombing markets is not permissible. Nor is bomb mosques because of some stupid sectarian difference. That is patently stupid and disgusting.

      Given a choice between the implemented interrogation of some fundie fighter, or having some other fundie piece of filth bomb a market or school, I'd choose to torture the ***** out the fundie fighter every time.

      Of course, if you'd rather not prevent a car bomb from mixing up body parts for a gaggle of shoppers on market day, well, it's your conscience and your problem to sleep with.
  • leftykiller, on 11/14/2007, -28/+9Stupid leftists. Figures it's all about evil America to them instead of Islamic fanatics who are openly sawing heads off.
    • bowens44, on 11/12/2007, -2/+7Wow. What a stupid comment.
    • robberry, on 11/12/2007, -0/+8leftykiller, nobody is saying that it's okay to go around sawing people's heads off. (Although I have no doubt that if Bush started sawing the heads off prisoners, you'd be the first in line to defend it.) Sawing somebody's head off is clearly evil, but that doesn't prove that waterboarding isn't evil. Just because you can name something more evil than waterboarding doesn't mean that waterboarding is okay. You wouldn't excuse a serial rapist who said, "Sure, I raped those bitches, but at least I'm not a child molestor!" How is your argument any different?
  • Rolex24, on 11/14/2007, -20/+3You can't simulate death. You either die or you don't.
    • CourtesyFlush, on 11/13/2007, -8/+2Common sense has no place here.

      Any comments that are contrary to this whiny ***** will be censored from view.
    • Yond, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2And so people do in fact die from waterboarding torture
  • davids1, on 11/14/2007, -9/+4Waterboarding or http://youtube.com/watch?v=SB9K0cI8kp8
    Tough choice.
  • uttles, on 11/14/2007, -27/+6Waterboarding is not torture. It's simply a psychological trick that should be used often to save lives from these insane throatcutters.
    • bowens44, on 11/12/2007, -1/+5mmm...no, it's torture. It's illegal and it's immoral.
    • robberry, on 11/12/2007, -0/+6What basis do you have for claiming that waterboarding is "simply a psychological trick" and not torture? And what basis do you have for claming that waterboarding will actually save lives? Do you have any actual arguments for these points of view, or do you believe them without knowing why?
    • mik0r, on 11/12/2007, -0/+5Why don't you go sign up for a turn, and then come back and see if you can make the same claim.
  • imightbewrong, on 11/14/2007, -19/+7Everyone needs to calm down about the waterboarding. Its only been done 3 times !!! (The victims were fine) and hasn't been done by the US since 2003
    Source:ABC
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclus ...
    • kaeryn, on 11/12/2007, -1/+6Another idiot heard from. ABC is no more reliable than FOX seeing how they often broadcast fantasies and call them TRUTH.
      You are as most republicans TOTALLY VOID OF MORALS. How about we do it to you and then see how much you like it?
      Sorry I forgot you're just another ***** COWARD like BUSH AND CHENEY.
    • Yond, on 11/12/2007, -1/+2The problem is first of all, ABC is not a reliable source of news.
      Although this issue talks about waterboarding, lets be realistic. The things that went on in Abu Grab are much worse than waterboarding. Imagine as a father being forced to rape your own son just because you look a certain way. On top of all that, your innocent.

      Also this administration would NEVER let the real truth about what and how much they do around the world because that information is classified except for occasional leaks. What really goes on is far worse and numerous than this and ABC or anyone won't know about it unless someone leaks it.
    • bowens44, on 11/12/2007, -1/+3Really? Says who? Do you really believe that anything that we are told by this administration is true? Do you think that they're going to tell us the extent of what they have done?
      You sound terribly naive, are you very young?.
    • timberfish, on 11/12/2007, -1/+2Everyone needs to calm down about these school shootings. We've only had about 5 in the last 50 years.
    • floorman56, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2How dare you bring facts to Digg!!!
  • shykofsky, on 11/14/2007, -6/+19It feels really sad that we as human beings even consider this something to debate about. Clearly interrogating someone while they are bound and suffocated is evil and wrong. It is a sickness and a numbing of people that even allows us to 'discuss this in a civilized forum' such as Digg comments. The stopping of crimes against each other as humans can never progress by perpetuating further crimes. Whether this technique fits the precise description or torture is ludicrous. Clearly it causes immense suffering and we know that making someone suffer for their wrongs does not move us towards peace in any way whatsoever.
    • p0s3r, on 11/12/2007, -12/+2We should all gather around, go to the mountains of Pakistan and sing Kumbaya. If we show Al Qaeda an outpouring of our love and not bombs, they will return in kind!
      Likewise, when an illegal immigrant kills our children by drunk driving, he should hug him, tell him we love him and then give him his keys back. That way he knows people love him, even if he comes here illegally, drinks and drives, and runs over 4 year olds.
      • TheHydrogens, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3Wow. Just wow.... nowhere in your comment did you display anything that could be mistaken for a rational thought process. You sound like a wannabe conservative talk radio host with your complete change of subject and ridiculous hyperbole.
      • meechwings, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2*whew*
        I'm so glad I read your comment, I was beginning to suffer from withdrawal from not being able to watch Fox News here!
    • uttles, on 11/12/2007, -9/+3So let me get this straight: we're fighting against an enemy that is so hell bent on preventing a free society in Iraq that they are strapping bombs on 4 year olds and sending them into playgrounds full of Iraqi children, and in our efforts we are holding a wet rag over their faces to try to get them to cough up some intel so we can prevent more innocent lives being lost, but somehow we're the evil ones against peace?

      Man, liberalism really is a mental disorder.
      • Bluejaye, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3"and in our efforts we are holding a wet rag over their faces to try to get them to cough up some intel"

        Do you really believe that that is what waterboarding is, or are you really that ignorant on this matter?
      • StarlessKnight, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1A mental disorder. Unlike the person advocating we escalate this war by matching our enemy turn for turn, that's just plain sane, right? They use kids, that's pretty messed up; so we use waterboarding, which is also messed up, but on a different level. Well, at least we aren't using kids, right? Glad we're able to, at least, say we haven't stooped *that* far.
        • p0s3r, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1You equate 20 seconds of a wet head to sending 12 year olds strapped with bombs to blow up in civilian shopping malls? He's right, it is a mental disorder. The worse thing that could happen at a waterboarding session is the poor terrorist catches a cold.
    • RabidAngel, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2Very well said.
  • toddwdraper, on 11/14/2007, -5/+23I have a proposition for anyone trying to claim waterboarding is not torture. Volunteer to have it administered to yourself.
    • uttles, on 11/12/2007, -2/+7Funny you should say that as in fact, waterboarding is something our elite troops go through, as well as our interrogators.
      • roystgnr, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2As a matter of fact, one of them had this to say about it recently:

        http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/10/31/200 ...

        Of course, even the waterboarding that Nance agrees is torture wasn't quite the real deal when he underwent and administrated it. Although I'm sure they try their best to prepare those troops for the worst that an evil totalitarian enemy might have to offer, there's got to be a big psychological difference between being waterboarded by someone whom you know won't let you die and being waterboarded by someone whom you know thinks you deserve to die.
      • Outdoor83, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1source?
    • CourtesyFlush, on 11/13/2007, -8/+4And toddy clearly demonstrates with his inane proposition the ignorance this entire thread is based upon.

      Stupidity for the win!
    • mstoneburner, on 11/13/2007, -2/+3What about if you do consider it torture, and just don't give a ***** if it's used to make a few Mohammedan murderbombers squeal?
      • DreKor, on 11/13/2007, -2/+2Mostly it means you're a sick *****, but that's just a personal opinion.
      • StarlessKnight, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2Would you like a paper shredder to go with that Constitution, or a zippo lighter?
        • OffPiste, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1Since when are we water-boarding American citizens? Last I checked the Constitution only guarantees rights to American citizens.
      • Outdoor83, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2Oh, this one is easy.

        I consider you a Mohammedan Murderbomber. Who cares why: maybe you support racism and that makes you guilty by association. Or you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or you took out a $2000 money order to pay your rent when you ran short of checks and obviously only terrorists do that. I will now waterboard you until you sing.

        Still don't see a problem with this? Maybe I should hook electrodes up to your nads because you're not telling me what I want to hear.
  • woxidu, on 11/13/2007, -2/+8Not sure that Illegal = Immoral
    That's a tenuous implication for sure, but the rest of it seems to hold together...
  • bschmalz81401, on 11/13/2007, -6/+4Works so well though. And drowning = death and since dead people don't tell you what you want to know I don't think it would go that far.
    • robberry, on 11/12/2007, -1/+2Um, drowning does not equal death. If it did, "Princess Diana died from drowning" would be a true statement. Drowning is a specific process that *can* lead to death, but only if it isn't stopped in time. The death is not the drowning, it's simply the result of a drowning that wasn't stopped in time.

      As for waterboarding, this is also drowning. Most victims of waterboarding survive because the torturers stop the process in time, but there are a few who have actually died from waterboarding. Indeed, these deaths give the lie to the whole "waterboarding isn't *real* drowning" cliche, because if it isn't real drowning, what did the victim die from?
    • objectcode, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1how do you save someone that is drowning if it they are dead
    • datdamonfoo, on 11/12/2007, -1/+0No. Drowning is death. Near drowning is almost dying.
      • robberry, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1If you were a lifeguard working at the beach, and you heard somebody shout, "Somebody help that boy, he's drowning!", would you dive in to save him, or would you shout back, "It's too late, drowning is death"?
    • iamsamed, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1"Works so well though. "
      How do you know? I hear in the media that the CIA got confessions because of the torture, but were the confessions accurate?
      If I were being tortured, I would confess to anything that the torturers wanted to hear. If they were demanding that I tell them where's Osama Bin Laden, I would pull something out of my ass.
      Even though I was born in 1973, I would confess to the murder of JFK, MLK, Lincoln, and anybody else I could think of.
      Yes, I am suspicious of any information that the torturers have gotten from their methods.
  • wolfie8914, on 11/13/2007, -1/+7If illegal equals immoral, then smoking some ganja is immoral = wrong.
  • tyywebb, on 11/13/2007, -11/+1Oh my god I think we get the ***** point.
  • enivid, on 11/12/2007, -2/+7Title = syntax error.
  • Jamieee, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2Mirror?
  • floatingpoints, on 11/14/2007, -11/+7"To be effective, waterboarding is real drowning that simulates death."

    Um, what?

    Waterboarding is a method that simulates DROWNING, not death.

    It's not a real drowning. It's torture, yes, but you don't actually drown.
  • hakz, on 11/12/2007, -2/+2site is down, digg effect or conspiracy?
  • blakeage, on 11/13/2007, -4/+1Dugg for use of the word "pussyfooting"
  • justenough, on 11/13/2007, -3/+10The issue is more than waterboarding, it is the sanctioned use of torture by the United States government, which goes against our most basic principles as a nation. Benjamin Franklin had it right: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." This is an issue that should transcend party/ideological lines. And if we keep contributing to politicians who will not step up to stop the use of torture by our government, we are all to blame.
    • LeRenard, on 11/13/2007, -1/+0That quote has lost its power, not because it is a bad quote, but from overuse.
  • tlenker, on 11/13/2007, -15/+5= many lives saved by being used.
    • nblsavage, on 11/12/2007, -2/+5*****
    • bowens44, on 11/12/2007, -2/+8Care to provide evidence to support this assertion? Even if it were true (it isn't), the ends do not justify the means.
    • mik0r, on 11/12/2007, -2/+5Correction: = potential to avert loss of life. But lets not forget that there are any number of unknown factors that could have the same effect at stopping any given event (plane carrying the potential "terrorists" crashes, someone spots them in process of setting up the act, etc etc etc).

      It's not a question of information gathered, it's a question of: do we really want to be /that/ country.. You know, the kind we collectively as a nation hated during the Cold War era?
    • iamsamed, on 11/12/2007, -0/+0Let's say you're right.
      Torture makes the US no better than the thugs and dictators that we supposedly are fighting against.
      Torture makes us a fraud.
  • frostbyt, on 11/13/2007, -5/+3This is wrong. Having almost drown myself. This is not cool. I feel panic just reading this.
    • objectcode, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1but you really weren't drowning because you are still alive, according to some digg users
      • frostbyt, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1It was drowning the old fashion way. In a body of water.
    • AlmostClever, on 11/12/2007, -0/+0Did you waterboard yourself?
      • frostbyt, on 11/13/2007, -0/+16 feet of water when I was 8 years old.
  • CourtesyFlush, on 11/12/2007, -12/+5And the leftest morality soapbox comes out yet again.

    "It's not preaching when WE do it!"

    Save the sermon for the street corner. Your personal morals are of zero interest to me.
    • nblsavage, on 11/12/2007, -0/+5Likewise I'm sure.
      • CourtesyFlush, on 11/13/2007, -1/+1I'm not preaching them on the intarwebs, Einstein.

        If you have to guess, do us all a big favor and just shut the ***** up. Thanks.
        • nblsavage, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2I love you too sunshine.
        • CourtesyFlush, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1Well, at least you stopped guessing about morales in favor of trolling.

          Par for the course in a thread like this one.
  • QuickeningYak, on 11/13/2007, -1/+11More accurately:

    Waterboarding ⊊ Drowning
    Drowning ∆ Torture ≠ ∅
    Torture ⊊ Illegal
    Illegal ∆ Immoral ≠ ∅
    • drizzlelicious, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2I ♊ you
    • cbartlett, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2I don't know what that means but it has pretty pictures. Dugg.
  • andrewacomb, on 11/12/2007, -3/+1http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrewacomb/154805469 ...
  • captaindigger, on 11/13/2007, -5/+6Waterboarding doesn't equal drowning. When you drowned your dead! Yes it's torture. Yes it's disgusting. But Waterboarding != Dead.
  • Pointman323, on 11/13/2007, -1/+9illegal != immoral
    • robisfunky, on 11/12/2007, -4/+1 And you get Dugg UP for comments like that? Only on Digg...
    • clubby, on 11/13/2007, -0/+4Digg is not the only place on earth where people acknowledge that immorality and illegality are not synonymous.
  • Exhibitionist, on 11/13/2007, -1/+12You lost me at Illegal = Immoral.
  • rony2211, on 11/13/2007, -12/+4they can cut off our heads but we cant give them a drink of water ya got to love the tree huggin nation we have become
    • robberry, on 11/13/2007, -2/+8Your argument is disingenuous. (It's also ungrammatical and poorly punctuated, but that's beside the point.) Nobody is saying that it's okay for them to cut people's heads off. But waterboarding is far more vicious and cruel than your little "give them a drink of water" jab would suggest. It is a devastating torture technique, and it is a war crime. If you want to defend torture and war crimes, fine, but why not grow some balls and state this up front?
      • OYAHHH, on 11/12/2007, -0/+0Here is the alternative:

        http://www.aliennationreport.com/pg5.html

        Watch it and then tell me you can still have the stomach for not doing what you can to stop innocent lives from being shed.
        • robberry, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1I've already seen it. Like all moral people and Bush supporters, I find it horrifying-- so much so, in fact, that I want to make sure that Americans never become so morally depraved that they would stoop to such atrocities. Allowing torture is the first step on the road to such depravity, and allowing waterboarding is the *last* step on the road to allowing torture. If we don't stop the torture here and now, it won't be long before America is making and broadcasting videos like that one. Tell me, will you still be praising the administration when that happens, or do you actually have a moral basement somewhere, below which you will not sink?
    • objectcode, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3guess you can say the same about strapping a bomb to your chest if you see it that way
  • TitanX13, on 11/13/2007, -8/+3i have had more torture in my old high school history class. i say let send in mrs. jones dun dun dun
  • dschrute, on 11/13/2007, -6/+12wow, the righties are out in full force today. "if it saves lives Blah, blah, blah.....". Shut the ***** up. Using those tactics makes us no better than the people that we are being "protected" from. Grow up.
    • TrancePhreak, on 11/13/2007, -5/+1The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.
    • OYAHHH, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1Here is the alternative:

      http://www.aliennationreport.com/pg5.html

      Watch it and then tell me you can still have the stomach for not doing what you can to stop innocent lives from being shed.
    • floorman56, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2So you would feel this way standing by the grave of someone you love?
      Or would you just say "Damm Bush...He didn't connect the dots again"
  • cub404n, on 11/12/2007, -10/+1i think that water boarding is completely legal if administered correctly (the "victim" doesn't die or suffer brain damage due to the lack of oxygen or whatnot)

    i believe that the morally and socially wrong tactics of water boarding do work. and why are people complaining if we are getting what we want/need out of it. clearly terrorists or whomever are being subdued to this know of the unworldly pain that will be given to them; and in turn might think twice about committing they're crimes, or just think of more crafty ways to commit them so the wont get caught :
    • digudown, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1I guess problem is we get what we want and not what is true. Someone under the pain of torture is likely to say whatever the interrogator wants to hear.
      • cub404n, on 11/12/2007, -1/+0true, i didn't think of it like that yet. so i'm speachless on that matter 4 now
    • DreKor, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1Sounds like we should start doing this to kids in kindergarten. That should stop them from breaking any rules in the future. Imagine, a crime free society. That'd be great.
      • cub404n, on 11/12/2007, -0/+0that would leave an impression 4 sure. ... dont do that, Remember that one time in kindergarten.....
    • Outdoor83, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1whoops, bury me
  • jbmercha, on 11/13/2007, -4/+6The only interrogation technique that is not torture is saying please. If it wasn't torture it wouldn't work.
    • pentalive, on 11/12/2007, -0/+0Bring out.....THE COMFY CHAIR (oh noes Not the COMFY CHAIR!!!)
    • iLEZ, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2So diplomacy never works?
  • digudown, on 11/13/2007, -2/+3should the title not use '==' instead of '=' .. I guess I am reading too much of C style code :(
  • Gigas21, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4since when does illegal = immoral???
    • jaide, on 11/12/2007, -0/+0Illegal = immoral since the time that the action you are performing became illegal. From that moment, you were disobeying the laws of your country in order to perform that action.

      Breaking the law is, of its own accord immoral. We would have a lot less problem in this country if people would treat the law with the due respect it has earned. If you have parts of it with which you disagree, by all means, feel free to work toward getting those parts changed, but it would be immoral / unethical to break then while they are still illegal.
      Rationalizing that something isn't immoral just because you want to do it does not change the reality. If the law isn't used to define what is ethical and what isn't, what would you consider to be the difinitive reference for moral / immoral or ethical /unethical? If you use some weak excuse for an argument like "our conscience", then there are very, VERY few crimes that have ever been commited that weren't "Ethical" to someone.
      • HighWastesDrftr, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1It's immoral to play a poker game with your friends if you use real money? It's immoral to build a fence around your house if it violates the zoning laws? It's immoral to smoke in a restaurant even if the owner, every employee, and every customer consents? It was immoral to drink alcohol during prohibition? It's immoral to speak freely when what you want say is banned?
    • jaide, on 11/12/2007, -0/+0Illegal = immoral since the time that the action you are performing became illegal. From that moment, you were disobeying the laws of your country in order to perform that action.

      Breaking the law is, of its own accord immoral. We would have a lot less problem in this country if people would treat the law with the due respect it has earned. If you have parts of it with which you disagree, by all means, feel free to work toward getting those parts changed, but it would be immoral / unethical to break then while they are still illegal.
      Rationalizing that something isn't immoral just because you want to do it does not change the reality. If the law isn't used to define what is ethical and what isn't, what would you consider to be the difinitive reference for moral / immoral or ethical /unethical? If you use some weak excuse for an argument like "our conscience", then there are very, VERY few crimes that have ever been commited that weren't "Ethical" to someone.
    • iLEZ, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2More like Waterboarding = Drowning = Torture = Inhumane
      • jaide, on 11/12/2007, -0/+0Now THAT, my friend, would be hard for any sensible person to disagree with! Dugg!
      • sasshole, on 11/13/2007, -0/+0your whole sad statement falls apart when someone points out that in terms of inhumanity:

        beheading > waterboarding
  • rficwizard, on 11/13/2007, -1/+19It's silly to argue that waterboarding is not torture. The intent is to make the victim extremely uncomfortable so that they will do whatever it is that the captor wishes them to do. That is torture. How is this not obvious?

    The argument that "these are bad people, so it is OK" ignores two important characteristics of the American idea:
    1) People should be considered innocent until proven guilty, and
    2) Cruel and unusual punishments should not be used.

    So until the captives are found guilty, they should be considered innocent. After they are found guilty, they should still be protected from torture.

    It sickens me that there is actually a debate about this in America. It's strange that those who most wish to appear to be American patriots so little understand what America is about.
    • jaide, on 11/13/2007, -1/+0I don't condone waterboarding or any other action that is commonly accepted as "torture" as a valid method of obtaining information, but the description upon which you based your argument is somewhat lacking. Based on the description you gave: "The intent is to make the victim extremely uncomfortable so that they will do whatever it is that the captor wishes them to do" then punishing a child by taking away a favorite toy, the threat that you might end up in prison, or firing an employee for stealing from the company are all forms of torture.
      If you're going to attempt to base a logical argument on a statement you've made, please give more thought to the statement. Otherwise, while your argument may be completely valid, it will lose weight simply because the logic is flawed.
      I am aware that I will be blasted by the Digg community as a whole, but that's primarily because it has been my observation that the Digg community isn't interested in right or wrong, truth or lies, good or evil, it's interested in what's "cool" (in each person's opinion" and what's going to be popular with the REST of the Digg community.

      Note: I have seen a few, notable exceptions to the above statement.
      • rficwizard, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1I understand your argument. Since you brought up some examples, let's examine them.

        1) Punishing a child by taking away its toy. This is intended to make the child uncomfortable. Punishments that are intended to make the child extremely uncomfortable would be torture. Punishments that make the child mildly uncomfortable are just punishments.

        2) Firing an employee for stealing. An employee does not have his/her rights violated by no longer being employed. There is no force, and no threat of force. Therefore, it is not torture. An employee can, in fact, be let go for no reason whatsoever.

        I agree that my implied definition of torture has shortcomings, based on your examples. How is this: torture is any act which uses force, or the threat of force, with the direct intent to cause extreme discomfort.

        Wow, it is nice to have to think about a response. Thanks for that.
        • jaide, on 11/12/2007, -0/+0It's nice to have to think about a response?
          You just brought a (completely sincere) smile to my face!
          That was NOT the reaction I expected!
          (An
          d I'm much happier with your new definition!).

          Jai
  • RabidAngel, on 11/13/2007, -1/+9Ah, America... where we are such "leaders" of the world that all we can do is revert to the same tactics that the "bad guys" use, like children in a schoolyard.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.