News Conservative talk show host waterboarded

[BoomBoom]

Probably, but that wouldn't be a reason not to try in order to save your own countrymen.

Jack Bauer would be so proud...

 

[mheslep]

The Iranians have caught a US citizen who is presumed to be a special forces member. The Iranians know that he was on a some mission to sabotage their nuclear program. The Iranians want to track down his Iranian contacts.

Source?

 

[Count Iblis]

Source?

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102010"

Hence, there are an infinite number of $\O$-regions with identical histories up to the present, but which need not be identical in the future. Moreover, all histories which are not forbidden by conservation laws will occur in a finite fraction of all $\O$-regions. The ensemble of $\O$-regions is reminiscent of the ensemble of universes in the many-world picture of quantum mechanics. An important difference, however, is that other $\O$-regions are unquestionably real.

So, as this doesn not violate any conservation laws, we can be sure that there exists a world on which you, me, Bush and Cheney live in which everything happened in exactly the same way as here, until the year 2006 when in that other world a US agent was caught in Iran trying to sabotage their civilian nuclear energy program.

 

[LowlyPion]

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102010"

In our world, right now though, in more practical terms, wouldn't that more appropriately be considered "hypothetical" possibility?

 

[drankin]

Jack Bauer would be so proud...

Huh Huh...

 

[mheslep]

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102010"

I missed you were posting a hypothetical.

 

[brainy kevin]

Food for thought:

During the revolutionary war, the British tortured Americans, but when we captured a group of British soldiers George Washington refused to let them be tortured, saying
"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country."

The reason was that torture by the British was turning Americans completely against them, and after the war, a British general cited it as a main reason why they lost the war.

The US captured Al-Qaeda's banker and tortured him for about half a year, and got exactly nowhere. They even threatened to torture his daughter, and he still refused to talk. Meanwhile, an group in Iraq used "conventional" tactics, no torture whatsoever, and with the information they gained, they captured Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq. To quote Matthew Alexander, one of the main people involved in capturing him,

"Torture has probably killed more Americans than 9/11." He also went on to point out most terrorists fight because they are outraged about what they hear happens at Guantanimo. Furthermore, he pointed out that even when there is a "ticking bomb" situation, the FBI still uses conventional interrogation tactics in the US.

(This is my point, not something he says.) Finally, if torture is such a great way to get information, why only use it on terrorists? Why not just anyone suspected of a crime?

 

[LowlyPion]

Meanwhile, an group in Iraq used "conventional" tactics, no torture whatsoever, and with the information they gained, they captured Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

The point is blurred a bit since capturing him involved dropping a guided 500 pounder on the house he was in. So yes we captured his body. And a half dozen others including women and children. But as the CIA would think of it, he was neutralized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi#Zarqawi.27s_death

 

[mheslep]

...They even threatened to torture his daughter, and he still refused to talk. ...

Source?

 

[brainy kevin]

Source?

How to break a terrorist, a book by the above mentioned person who interrogated the people that led to the capture (of the body) of the head of Al-Qaeda

 

[Al68]

By analogy, certain forms of crime are OK for citizens. Are they still upstanding citizens if they merely shoplift?

Sure, if you believe it's OK to steal if they need it and the people stolen from can afford it. They might even rationalize it by claiming that taking from someone who "can easily afford it" to help someone who "needs it" isn't "really" stealing.

On the other hand, can you say a person isn't "upstanding" just because they choose to emulate what their favorite political party boasts of doing?

 

[DaveC426913]

Sure, if you believe it's OK to steal if they need it and the people stolen from can afford it. They might even rationalize it by claiming that taking from someone who "can easily afford it" to help someone who "needs it" isn't "really" stealing.

Really??

 

[Moridin]

All forms of stealing is a simultaneous affirmation and rejection of property rights. Denying the property rights of the rich is still, surprisingly, a denial of property rights.

 

[Al68]

Sure, if you believe it's OK to steal if they need it and the people stolen from can afford it. They might even rationalize it by claiming that taking from someone who "can easily afford it" to help someone who "needs it" isn't "really" stealing.

Really??

Really. And if a large group of people do this long enough, they might even develop a moral code that actually glorifies such theft.

 

[wittgenstein]

"You are also assuming that torture works, when we know it usually doesn't. You are more likely to get false information that will only delay your cause."
Ivan Seeking
I agree and we are on the same side of this issue. However, you are missing the point. Cheney etc are not stupid.They knew that torture gives false information and that is exactly what they wanted, a ( manufactured) connection between Saddam and 911.

 

[DaveC426913]

Really. And if a large group of people do this long enough, they might even develop a moral code that actually glorifies such theft.

No. I mean do you really believe this? You believe that believe it's OK to steal if they need it and the people stolen from can afford it?

 

[BobG]

Here's a question that might be tough to consider in the context of this discussion: why is it acceptable to torture our own soldiers as part of their training?

Virtually every POW will eventually break under torture. He'll confess to committing war crimes, denounce the US, and, most importantly, sell out his fellow POWs - anything to make the torture stop. The torture, especially something like waterboarding that doesn't cause permanent physical damage, will pass. The psychological trauma of selling out everything important to him, even the only friends left in his world, will be pretty tough to recover from unless he knows going in that he's not committing some unspeakably despicable act by breaking under torture.

By analogy, a bank robber might consider himself as committing a lesser crime than a serial murderer. But I would treat them both as the criminals they are.

Whether or not our methods are not as bad as someone elses, unacceptable is unacceptable. And we don't redefine what is acceptable based on what the bad guys do.

Breaking the speed limit and rolling stops through stop signs are even lesser crimes than theft. Weighing the 'evilness' of illegal acts is perfectly valid, but should be done on their own merits, not on what the bad guys do. Waterboarding is torture, but it's not as severe a form of torture as some other methods.

"You are also assuming that torture works, when we know it usually doesn't. You are more likely to get false information that will only delay your cause."
Ivan Seeking
I agree and we are on the same side of this issue. However, you are missing the point. Cheney etc are not stupid.They knew that torture gives false information and that is exactly what they wanted, a ( manufactured) connection between Saddam and 911.

I would have to wonder why the preferred method of interrogation was one that yields false confessions to the point of selling out one's comrades. Engaging in any kind of torture is an insult to the military because of the televised confessions of US pilots in the first Iraq war, confessions by members of the USS Pueblo, USS Mayaguez, captured US military in Viet Nam. Engaging in torture legitimizes those confessions and suggests that it only took enhanced interrogation methods to bring out the truth from our own military members.

Torture is as degrading to our own people as it is to the people we're torturing.

 

[mheslep]

Here's a question that might be tough to consider in the context of this discussion: why is it acceptable to torture our own soldiers as part of their training?

Virtually every POW will eventually break under torture. He'll confess to committing war crimes, denounce the US, and, most importantly, sell out his fellow POWs - anything to make the torture stop. The torture, especially something like waterboarding that doesn't cause permanent physical damage, will pass. The psychological trauma of selling out everything important to him, even the only friends left in his world, will be pretty tough to recover from unless he knows going in that he's not committing some unspeakably despicable act by breaking under torture.

Yes we we can speculate why it is advantageous to do this. Russ's question was why is it acceptable? There are no doubt many other things that could be done to soldiers that might give them a narrow advantage (drugs, brainwashing) if ethics are not a consideration. And many critics of water boarding argue that the psychological effects do not pass ( I don't know)

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes we we can speculate why it is advantageous to do this. Russ's question was why is it acceptable? There are no doubt many other things that could be done to soldiers that might give them a narrow advantage (drugs, brainwashing) if ethics are not a consideration. And many critics of water boarding argue that the psychological effects do not pass ( I don't know)

Am I missing something? They are volunteers.

 

[wbrad320]

If waterboarding is torture then why has the U.S waterboarded thousands of our own soldiers? And why have we never heard as much outcry for them, but the media explodes over the waterboarding of only 3 terrorists who were thought to hold valuable information concerning American lives?

 

[drankin]

If waterboarding is torture then why has the U.S waterboarded thousands of our own soldiers? And why have we never heard as much outcry for them, but the media explodes over the waterboarding of only 3 terrorists who were thought to hold valuable information concerning American lives?

It's part of their training. We also send them into a bunker and gas them so they know what that's like. I haven't been thru the military but many of my friends have. I heard the stories of what it's like to go through that bunker. Pretty gross with all the vomiting and mucous. Maybe we should put POWs thru boot camp!

 

[wbrad320]

What the U.S doesn't do is slowly cut their fingers off one by one and then sow em back on and say, " now you'll be prepared for if this really does happen to you"-(that would be torture). The U.S trains our millitary to a certain point, but doesn't cross that line. Anyone who has a problem with the 3 terrorists being waterboarded should through their own logic should have a problem with the thousands of U.S soldiers that have been waterboarded.

 

[BobG]

Yes we we can speculate why it is advantageous to do this. Russ's question was why is it acceptable? There are no doubt many other things that could be done to soldiers that might give them a narrow advantage (drugs, brainwashing) if ethics are not a consideration. And many critics of water boarding argue that the psychological effects do not pass ( I don't know)

Sex is acceptable. Rape is not. The physical affects of both will pass quickly. The psychological affects of rape would usually last a lot longer the psychological affects of sex.

In a defused environment where everyone knows everything is simulated - i.e. a person is finding out how much he can endure before he sells his soul vs having the feeling selling his soul will actually affect his comrades - the psychological effects wouldn't be quite as debilitating. I'm not sure what you mean by drugs/brainwashing giving them a narrow advantage, since the only thing being eliminated here is the degradation of being forced to sell out your country/friends. In other words, in a training environment, it's a pretend rape.

 

[DaveC426913]

What the U.S doesn't do is slowly cut their fingers off one by one and then sow em back on and say, " now you'll be prepared for if this really does happen to you"-(that would be torture).

This is a silly argument for obvious reasons.

 

[wittgenstein]

"I would have to wonder why the preferred method of interrogation was one that yields false confessions to the point of selling out one's comrades."
Bob G
I am confused by your response to my post. Perhaps my post was unclear. I meant to say that Cheney etc wanted their victims to lie under torture. They wanted them to lie and say that Saddam and 911 were connected so that the Bush administration's actions would seem justified to the american public. The torture was not because they wanted to make us safer. It was to cover up their true motives for going to war.

 

[BobG]

"I would have to wonder why the preferred method of interrogation was one that yields false confessions to the point of selling out one's comrades."
Bob G
I am confused by your response to my post. Perhaps my post was unclear. I meant to say that Cheney etc wanted their victims to lie under torture. They wanted them to lie and say that Saddam and 911 were connected so that the Bush administration's actions would seem justified to the american public. The torture was not because they wanted to make us safer. It was to cover up their true motives for going to war.

I agree. At a minimum, it was ineffective. At worst, it was propagating a lie.

Regardless of which it was, selling it as an effective interrogation tool was an insult to the military in general and an insult specifically to anyone who's been a POW.

 

[wbrad320]

Tell me the obvious reasons why my point about how if the U.S waterboards thousands of our millitary soldiers its not called torture until it is used on only 3 terrorists. And calling it silly won't satisfy me for an answer.

 

[DaveC426913]

Tell me the obvious reasons why my point about how if the U.S waterboards thousands of our millitary soldiers its not called torture until it is used on only 3 terrorists.

Because the soldiers are volunteers in the procedure and the terrorists are not. This seems too obvious to need stating.

And calling it silly won't satisfy me for an answer.

It was not meant as an ad hominem. I was calling it silly because of the way you phrased it sarcastically.

I don't object in principle. I'd started to write a response but, because your post was using a form of reverse psychology "let's do this, they'll like it" my answer was too involved in unwinding the knots you'd tied. I deleted my answer.

What I should have said instead of "silly" is "Can you rephrase it as a straightforward response so I can refute it straighforward?"

 

[mheslep]

Am I missing something? They are volunteers.

Well every US soldier, sailor, marine and airman volunteers to be in the armed forces. Sometimes they even volunteer to go on suicide missions. The fact that they volunteered does not automatically grant that what they have been asked to do by the leadership is ethically acceptable, though we hope that it is.

 

[seycyrus]

And you would call this bad faith? This is what a discussion is.

The bad faith lies in the fact that you are not consistent in your application of the proof you require.

I think the problem is that you assume that there is a large body of common knowledge that we* all agree on without discussing.

Right. The fact that terrorists do, in fact, employ torture, needed to be verified. Ridiculous. I expect to see a similar call for *proof* on every statement that others make in every thread you participate in.

I proved that terrorist torture in numerous videos. You responded in a dismissive manner to the early ones, but ignored the later. Silence.

Tell me. How has your world view changed since you learned that terrorists torture people?

I'm not completely dismissing your argument, I'm just not granting everything you claim.

You're applying a double standard.

Frankly, I don't know. That is a hypothetical. The only purpose I can see for following this line of reasoining is as a straw man.

First of all, the questions I raised are based on situations discussed in the recent torture memos. Secondly, you want to have a discussion on torture *without* resorting to hypotheticals? Riiight. Explain to me how that discussion would go...

Sorry, but I think you just want to ask questions without having to answer any.

Yes, I have. Yes, I do define waterboarding as torture.

In a discussion about whether Wbing is torture, you offer as proof an argument that starts out with the premise defined as such? Sorry, that won't fly.

You are demonstrating a scale within crime; there is no scale for legal versus illegal. They're both crimes; they both get prosecuted.

You have demonstrated why your analogy is not applcable. Both behaviors were defined as crimes from the get-go.

I do think the discussion has digressed enough that I'm not even sure what the original point was.

That is what happens when arguements are not made AND accepted in good faith due to favoritism applied to a favored side of the argument.

 

[seycyrus]

Because the soldiers are volunteers in the procedure and the terrorists are not. This seems too obvious to need stating.

Obvious? The exact OPPOSITE is obvious, in fact. You cannot define torture by whether or not the prisoner/detainee/person volunteers for it!

That would open the door wide open for virtually ANYTHING to be defined as torture.

 

[DaveC426913]

The bad faith lies in the fact that you are not consistent in your application of the proof you require.

An odd definition of bad faith. I can see you calling me on that, sure, but I think you were overeacting as a defensive measure.

Right. The fact that terrorists do, in fact, employ torture, needed to be verified. Ridiculous. I expect to see a similar call for *proof* on every statement that others make in every thread you participate in.

Get over yourself.

I proved that terrorist torture in numerous videos. You responded in a dismissive manner to the early ones, but ignored the later. Silence.

I didn't dismiss them, I merely pointed out that it wasn't as as strong as it appeared from the list you provided.

Tell me. How has your world view changed since you learned that terrorists torture people?

Asking for clarification of what your opponent is referring to, the frequency and type, is not tantamount to thinking it doesn't happen. We have to be on the same page.


Asking for clarification, and refusing granting points of argument simply because the opponent pretends something is ridiculous is what discussions are all about.

Yes I'm being critical. You are demanding close scrutiny every time you act like it is ridiculous to question anything you claim.

Perhaps if you didn't resort to bombastic behaviour so much, you wouldn't feel your arguments are getting overly criticized. Bomabastic behavoir - resorting to emotion - is definitely arguing in bad faith.

You may not agree with or like what I'm saying but I am remaining as rational and level-headed as possible.

 

[DaveC426913]

Obvious? The exact OPPOSITE is obvious, in fact. You cannot define torture by whether or not the prisoner/detainee/person volunteers for it!

That would open the door wide open for virtually ANYTHING to be defined as torture.

Good point.

So we're back to defining torture.

 

[seycyrus]

An odd definition of bad faith. I can see you calling me on that, sure, but I think you were overeacting as a defensive measure.

What exactly is your defintion of arguing in good faith?

I define it as understanding the "gist" of your opponents argument even if they were to make a typo or an unintended omission. Something along those lines. If the gist is not understood, questions are raised for clarification but raising objections simply because your opponent is arguing the opposing point, is arguing in bad faith.

Get over yourself.

You first!

I didn't dismiss them, I merely pointed out that it wasn't as as strong as it appeared from the list you provided.

As mentioned, the "list" was carried over from a "list" generated in a discussion with another poster, BY another poster. the list was never offered as a "Comprehensive and all-encompassing list of torture methods in the 20th and 21st century."

Asking for clarification of what your opponent is referring to, the frequency and type, is not tantamount to thinking it doesn't happen. We have to be on the same page.

The claim was made that terrorists do not torture. You did not question this claim. Rather you chose to scrutinize the arguments I used to counter this claim (and others), in this thread. You made dismissive comments about my early links, but chose to remain silent regarding the latter ones.

Yes I'm being critical. You are demanding close scrutiny every time you act like it is ridiculous to question anything you claim.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, it is the employment of an obvious double standard, that is ridiculous.

[Perhaps if you didn't resort to bombastic behaviour so much, you wouldn't feel your arguments are getting overly criticized. Bomabastic behavoir - resorting to emotion - is definitely arguing in bad faith.

I'm going to accept your argument in good faith, and not question your usage of the word bombastic", after all I understand the point you are trying to make. However, I refuse your claim that my use of sarcasm detracts from the nobility of my method of argument.

You may not agree with or like what I'm saying but I am remaining as rational and level-headed as possible.

Have I commented on your level of rationale, or your level-headedness? Or is this merely a thinly veiled "gotcha"?

The fact that you have the gall to imply that I am anything beside level-headed and rationale is demonstrative of the fact that you are the one who does not like your arguments questioned even if the interrogation is but one iota of that you subject onto others.

 

[seycyrus]

Good point.

So we're back to defining torture.

Perhaps you would care to demonstrate how we can continue this discussion without resorting to hypotheticals?

 

[BobG]

Good point.

So we're back to defining torture.

Good point.

Is being forced to watch someone else receive pain torture?

For instance, is it torture to force a father to watch his kids be raped via a TV signal? (The TV signal being necessary since you could fake the physical abuse to the kids and never inflict any physical pain on anyone. For that matter, wouldn't it be possible to actually rape the kids without leaving any permanent physical damage?)

How about drilling a hole in someone's tooth, as long as you filled it back in after the interrogation was done? Thousands of people, even everyday civilians, voluntarily submit to that procedure (although most would prefer novocaine first).

I don't think you can rely solely on the physical consequences of the action when defining torture. I think you have to consider the psychological affects, as well.

Tell me the obvious reasons why my point about how if the U.S waterboards thousands of our millitary soldiers its not called torture until it is used on only 3 terrorists. And calling it silly won't satisfy me for an answer.

Because your argument relies solely on the physical part of torture.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Obvious? The exact OPPOSITE is obvious, in fact. You cannot define torture by whether or not the prisoner/detainee/person volunteers for it!

That would open the door wide open for virtually ANYTHING to be defined as torture.

The point is not with regard to defining torture. Go ahead and call it torture. Legally if the person freely and voluntarily submits to such treatment it can not be defined as a crime unless legislation is passed which defines any torture under any circumstance as a crime. Outside of killing someone there is little that the law defines as illegal when a person volunteers to undergo it. Conversely most anything done to a person against their will is defined as illegal.

I don't see the problem and agree with Dave that the difference is rather obvious.

 

[wittgenstein]

The reasons why a volunteer undergoing waterboarding is different than a forced waterboarding.
1. The volunteer can ( and knows that he can) at any moment say stop and it will stop.
2. The volunteer knows that the person doing the waterboarding is on his side. He trusts him.
Ask yourself," would you prefer to be waterboarded by your mother or Bin Laden? Or do you still claim that there is no difference?

 

[Proton Soup]

hmm, this is all a bit crazy. what some call torture, others might call a romantic evening. or music. etc.

 

[mheslep]

The reasons why a volunteer undergoing waterboarding is different than a forced waterboarding.
1. The volunteer can ( and knows that he can) at any moment say stop and it will stop.

I don't believe that is true for US SERE training. It is closely supervised by professionals, but I seriously doubt it ends on the first whim of the individual, as that would defeat the purpose of the exercise.

2. The volunteer knows that the person doing the waterboarding is on his side. He trusts him.

The question posed up thread first by Russ and https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2228882&postcount=168", is not whether there is any difference, but whether or not it is acceptable to water board some US military personnel as part of their training.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't believe that is true for US SERE training. It is closely supervised by professionals, but I seriously doubt it ends on the first whim of the individual, as that would defeat the purpose of the exercise.

Yes, technically all participants are allowed to "tap out" though depending on the circumstances of the excersize they may be removed from the respective program for having done so. Whether or not this constitutes a decision made under duress is debatable and whether or not such policies are always and strictly adhered to in practice are irrelevant to the legality or ethical acceptability of such practices.

The question posed up thread first by Russ and https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2228882&postcount=168", is not whether there is any difference, but whether or not it is acceptable to water board some US military personnel as part of their training.

If a person agrees to such treatment and is given the full ability to suspend such treatment if they feel it necessary without any undue pressure to undergo it then it is absolutely legal and, in my opinion, acceptable. Question of what constitutes 'undue pressure' is wholely aside and irrelavent to official policy.

 

[wittgenstein]

"I proved that terrorist torture in numerous videos."
seycyrus
Unrelated to the current debate. Or are you saying that when your enemy uses evil behavior then you are allowed to be evil. So during World War 2 the USA should have been allowed to turn the population of entire countrys into slave labor because the Nazi's did?

 

[drankin]

We may be missing the forest for the trees here. Waterboarding is torture. But very low on the scale of tortures. It is more psychological than physical in the sense that there is no permanent physical damage. This is important to note. Whether you get good info or bad info depends on the person being tortured. You may have a subject that requires waterboarding in order to divulge information. You CAN get quality intel from it. And if the cicumstances are such that human lives can be saved by this intel, then it is warranted, IMO. I am more concerned about preserving innocent life than preserving a known terrorists ability to sleep soundly at night.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

We may be missing the forest for the trees here. Waterboarding is torture. But very low on the scale of tortures. It is more psychological than physical in the sense that there is no permanent physical damage. This is important to note. Whether you get good info or bad info depends on the person being tortured. You may have a subject that requires waterboarding in order to divulge information. You CAN get quality intel from it. And if the cicumstances are such that human lives can be saved by this intel, then it is warranted, IMO. I am more concerned about preserving innocent life than preserving a known terrorists ability to sleep soundly at night.

How about preserving the ability of an interrogator to sleep soundly at night? Or the American people? It is not only those who are tortured that are subject to negative effects of the practice. If expert commentators on the subject are correct torture is a goldmine as a recruiting tool for terrorist organizations so are we really able to sleep better knowing that people are being tortured on behalf of our supposed safety?

And if we are unlikely to attract flies with honey I think we are less likely to attract them with a flyswatter.

 

[kyleb]

Whether you get good info or bad info depends on the person being tortured. You may have a subject that requires waterboarding in order to divulge information. You CAN get quality intel from it.

Are you speaking from experience here? If so, please elaborate. Or otherwise, how have you come to these conclusions?

 

[drankin]

How about preserving the ability of an interrogator to sleep soundly at night? Or the American people? It is not only those who are tortured that are subject to negative effects of the practice. If expert commentators on the subject are correct torture is a goldmine as a recruiting tool for terrorist organizations so are we really able to sleep better knowing that people are being tortured on behalf of our supposed safety?

And if we are unlikely to attract flies with honey I think we are less likely to attract them with a flyswatter.

Under certain dire circumstances it is warranted (talking non-lethal, non-maiming, practices). I am not condoning routine torture of anyone, anytime. If the circumstances are as such that we need the intel ASAP to prevent an attack and we have a "terrorist" in custody that we know has the information, should we hold off, let an impending attack(s) be carried out, because we don't want them to use how we prevented the attack as a recruiting tool?

BTW, the recruiting tool argument is not very convincing. If anything, it is a deterrent. We show the enemy at what lengths we will go to save lifes.

 

[drankin]

Are you speaking from experience here? If so, please elaborate. Or otherwise, how have you come to these conclusions?

Actually, yes, I am speaking from experience. I led a shady life during my youth. I was able to get reliable information from others by subjecting them to severe discomfort and indimidation. Not proud of it, but IT WORKED.

 

[wittgenstein]

"hmm, this is all a bit crazy. what some call torture, others might call a romantic evening. or music. etc."
Proton Soup
I'm confused by your response. Are you saying
1. If your mother was forced to waterboard you she would purposely inflict the same amount of pain as Bin Laden would?
OR
2. If your mother waterboarded you, you would consider it a romantic evening?

 

[Proton Soup]

"hmm, this is all a bit crazy. what some call torture, others might call a romantic evening. or music. etc."
Proton Soup
I'm confused by your response. Are you saying
1. If your mother was forced to waterboard you she would purposely inflict the same amount of pain as Bin Laden would?
OR
2. If your mother waterboarded you, you would consider it a romantic evening?

no

 

[kyleb]

Actually, yes, I am speaking from experience. I led a shady life during my youth. I was able to get reliable information from others by subjecting them to severe discomfort and indimidation. Not proud of it, but IT WORKED.

How can you be sure torture was required for retrieving information in those instances rather than just for indulging a sadistic desire?