Iraq vet waterboards daughter

[BobG]

Authorities Say the 4-Year-Old Was Punished Because She Wouldn't Say Her ABCs

After years of avoiding the term "torture" when referring to waterboarding, news organizations have finally found a situation where they can openly link the two.

(As sick as it may be, Tabor felt the tactic worked. " 'She said her letters after that,' Tabor told the cops, admitting that he had grown frustrated with the girl after practicing the letters for 'approximately three hours.' ")

Also notable is the reaction of right wing bloggers. Tabor, the father, didn't do it right. Instead of strapping the girl to a board, covering her face with a rag, and pouring water over it, he just manually held her down in the water until it was at the eyeline and occasionally dunked her. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/features/view/feature/Right-Argues-Semantics-of-Waterboarding-724

In other words, what Tabor was doing to his daughter was torture, but it wasn't waterboarding. And waterboarding isn't torture, so you can't compare Tabor's actions to the actions taken at Gitmo.

I think that's a silly distinction. What we're really doing is defining an action by who it's done to. Do it to a child, it's torture. Do it to an enemy detainee, it's enhanced interrogation. That's a scary way to distinguish between the two.

 

[russ_watters]

Regardless of whether you define either action as torture, you must recognize that the rules of treatment of children and adults ARE different.

 

[mgb_phys]

Well at least he did prove she wasn't a witch

 

He gave her a swirly?

 

[lisab]

He gave her a swirly?

The girl spoke to a Yelm officer, and he observed that she “had severe bruising on her entire back,” along with scratch marks and bruising on her neck, throat, chin, arms, legs and buttocks.

She “was asked how she got the bruises and she replied ‘Daddy did it.’”

http://www.thenewstribune.com/partners/theolympian/story/1054799.html" [Broken]

 

[vertices]

Regardless of whether you define either action as torture, you must recognize that the rules of treatment of children and adults ARE different.

Torture is ALWAYS wrong. There is no grey area. There is no grounds for relativism.

Adults, children - no human being should be ever tortured.

 

[russ_watters]

You didn't read what I wrote...

 

[arildno]

Torture is ALWAYS wrong.

Nope.

There is no grey area.

Sure it is.

There is no grounds for relativism.

Quite so.

Adults, children - no human being should be ever tortured.

Why?

 

[vertices]

russ: well you're basically saying it is worse to do [depraved thing X] to child than to an adult. If something is by definition inhuman, it should never be meted out on anyone. So it's meaningless to draw a distinction in the way you did.

arildno: If you support tyrannical forms of goverment, sure.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

The guy is a sick SOB that should be out in jail for life. Abusing a young child (his own daughter no less!) over such a petty issue is cruel and reprehensible.

That being said, I see no reason to try and draw parallels between what this sicko did, and what is or isn't happening elsewhere in the world. Everyone can agree what he did to his daughter is undoubtedly wrong.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Torture is ALWAYS wrong. There is no grey area. There is no grounds for relativism.

Your moral beliefs are not given constants. Morality is by nature a personal belief system and not necessarily held true by all people.

Adults, children - no human being should be ever tortured.

Only a sith deals in absolutes Defining what is or isn't torture is a HUGE gray area to start with!

 

[arildno]

arildno: If you support tyrannical forms of goverment, sure.

Well, if you in your definition of torture includes that it is immoral and illegal, your absolute statements are trivially true.

But then, you must say, for example, that Roman law was just and fair, because the aim of Roman law was, explicitly, to render justice and give everyone their rightful due..


Once you get out of infantile circular definitions of torture, we'll be happy to debate with you.

 

[humanino]

Waterboarding is torture, no doubt.

There is nothing stupid in torturing a child to have them obey to authority. It's immoral, cruel... whatever you want, and I strongly disagree with it, but at least it's not stupid, because it works. They do not need to understand authority yet, only yield to it. They will rebel against authority at teenage years anyway, whether authority was justified or not.

In addition to being stupid, immoral, cruel... it is stupid to torture people to have them tell the truth.

 

[MotoH]

Never lay your hands on a child or a woman. Sick SOB.

Waterboarding = torture.. . hahahahah.

Waterboarding is to good for the "people" at Gitmo. The more s*** we do to terrorists the better.

Mullah Baradar was under interrogation by the Pakistanis because there are no rules against torture there. The CIA was hands off and got the information it needed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Waterboarding = torture.. . hahahahah.

On what do you base your opinion. It is simulated drowning that can easily result in real drowning. Even people trained to endure torture can only endure waterboarding for a few seconds. How can that not be torture by definition?

Waterboarding is to good for the "people" at Gitmo. The more s*** we do to terrorists the better.

I thought you were a Christian. Anyway, even if one accepts that we should torture terrorists, the people at Gitmo have never been tried in court. What if they are innocent? What then does this make us? Does this make us the good guys?

Mullah Baradar was under interrogation by the Pakistanis because there are no rules against torture there. The CIA was hands off and got the information it needed.

So your position is that the end justifies the means. Interesting. You don't see any problems with that philosophy?

 

[MotoH]

On what do you base your opinion. It is simulated drowning that can easily result in real drowning. Even people trained to endure torture can only endure waterboarding for a few seconds. How can that not be torture by definition?

14 seconds or so actually:tongue2: I suppose it can be torture. But it gets information quick and efficiently, and when time is of the essence.

I thought you were a Christian. Anyway, even if one accepts that we should torture terrorists, the people at Gitmo have never been tried in court. What if they are innocent? What then does this make us? Does this make us the good guys?

There are more there that are guilty than not.

So your position is that the end justifies the means. Interesting. You don't see any problems with that philosophy?
If it saves American lives, than nothing wrong with it.

tenchar

 

[humanino]

The CIA was hands off and got the information it needed.

It's amazing. If I think of any other country, or any other time in history... it's the first time I see people practice torture and think they can get reliable information out of it. When we torture people, it's not to have them give away some information, it's to have them admit to whatever we want them to.

 

[MotoH]

It's amazing. Let me tell you, other countries, other times... it's the first time we see people practice torture and think they can get reliable information out of it. When we torture people, it's not to have them to give away information, it's to have them admit to whatever we want them to.

So all of those weapon caches and terrorist strongholds were just made up then huh?

 

[humanino]

If it saves American lives, than nothing wrong with it.

Easy stab at this one : go over Africa collect organs : you'll reduce world poverty AND save american lives...

 

[humanino]

So all of those weapon caches and terrorist strongholds were just made up then huh?

How do you know the method you used was efficient, and that there was no other method ?

 

[MotoH]

How do you know the method you used was efficient, and that there was no other method ?

Trial and error I suppose. Maybe there is a big wheel with different techniques on it?

Waterboarding should be a last resort type of thing. Most AQ and Taliban captured from my knowledge will crack very easily, and nothing drastic will have to happen.

 

[rootX]

Trial and error I suppose. Maybe there is a big wheel with different techniques on it?

Waterboarding should be a last resort type of thing. Most AQ and Taliban captured from my knowledge will crack very easily, and nothing drastic will have to happen.

You are making assumptions. It is not easy to prove/disapprove the effectiveness of waterboarding and if it really helps Americans.

 

[BobG]

Mullah Baradar was under interrogation by the Pakistanis because there are no rules against torture there. The CIA was hands off and got the information it needed.

Possible? Actually, there's no way for the public to know what kind of info interrogations revealed. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/world/asia/16intel.html

The officials said that Pakistan was leading the interrogation of Mullah Baradar, but that Americans were also involved. The conditions of the questioning are unclear. In its first week in office, the Obama administration banned harsh interrogations like waterboarding by Americans, but the Pakistanis have long been known to subject prisoners to brutal questioning.

So, yes, it's possible Pakistanis could torture Baradar.

American intelligence officials believe that elements within Pakistan’s security services have covertly supported the Taliban with money and logistical help — largely out of a desire to retain some ally inside Afghanistan for the inevitable day when the Americans leave.

The ability of the Taliban’s top leaders to operate relatively freely inside Pakistan has for years been a source of friction between the ISI and the C.I.A. Americans have complained that they have given ISI operatives the precise locations of Taliban leaders, but that the Pakistanis usually refuse to act.

Then again, why bother torturing him. If Pakistan has become serious about cracking down on the Taliban, then it would probably come as a huge surprise to Baradar. There's hardly any reason for him to resist answering any questions Pakistanis ask him.

 

[MotoH]

So we need someone in the CIA to tell us how effective any form of interrogation is. Until then it is pointless to talk about it because we can neither prove nor disprove the effectiveness of such actions as we have no real experience in the fields.

 

[vertices]

Your moral beliefs are not given constants. Morality is by nature a personal belief system and not necessarily held true by all people.

Demonstrably false. There ARE moral truisms - 'absolutes' if you like, values that you find in each and every single culture: One of them is that you should apply to yourself the same standards you would apply to others (ie. don't be a hypocrit). There is very strong evidence to suggest our sense of morality is something innate to all of us human beings - infact it has come about through our evolution (google 'recriprocal altruism'). Ofcourse there are people who don't adhere to these moral truisms - there is a word to describe such people in the English language - "psychopaths".

Only a sith deals in absolutes Defining what is or isn't torture is a HUGE gray area to start with!

Are you honestly telling me that an activity that:

precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, if uninterrupted, death.[4] Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years.[5]

is a gray area for you? Seriously?

The problem with people who support torture is that they know they will never be tortured themselves, but are perfectly happy for other innocent people to be tortured.

 

[vertices]

Most AQ and Taliban captured from my knowledge will crack very easily, and nothing drastic will have to happen.

a wealth of knowledge that is

 

[BobG]

Demonstrably false. There ARE moral truisms - 'absolutes' if you like, values that you find in each and every single culture: One of them is that you should apply to yourself the same standards you would apply to others (ie. don't be a hypocrit). There is very strong evidence to suggest our sense of morality is something innate to all of us human beings - infact it has come about through our evolution (google 'recriprocal altruism'). Ofcourse there are people who don't adhere to these moral truisms - there is a word to describe such people in the English language - "psychopaths".

This is only true within a given society. There's also a very strong us-them mentality that allows many inhumane things to be done to someone who is one of "them". Raping and pillaging the local populace was often the immediate reward for the warriors/soldiers that successfully invaded a village or town.

 

[MotoH]

BobG: I will try and find the article, but it did have something to do with the CIA being there during the interrogation for first hand information. This is unsupported as of right now until I get the article.

If Pakistan let's Baradar go (which they have already said they were going to.) A UCAV will be guarding the border very carefully and Baradar will suddenly disappear.

Vertices are you seriously calling known terrorists innocent? All interrogators for the US are tortured as part of training, so they know what it is like.

 

[humanino]

Vertices are you seriously calling known terrorists innocent?

Yes, the "terrorists" should be considered innocent until proven guilty, just as you or me could be attached to the board. Do you need instances of "terrorists" who are now back home, free, and innocent again ?

 

[edward]

Sometinmes it just takes something simple.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old Nigerian accused of attempting to bomb a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day, has been talking openly with investigators "for days" after visits from two of his family members, the New York Times reports. CIA operatives located the relatives in Lagos, Nigeria, and persuaded them to come to the United States and encourage Abdulmutallab to cooperate.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/0...-bomber-cooperating-with-investigators-afte/2

 

[humanino]

Thank you edward.

 

[vertices]

This is only true within a given society. There's also a very strong us-them mentality that allows many inhumane things to be done to someone who is one of "them". Raping and pillaging the local populace was often the immediate reward for the warriors/soldiers that successfully invaded a village or town.

yes ofcourse - people readily dispense with their moral values if they are told to do so by people higher up in the hierarchy (as the "Stanford Prison Experiment" and Milgram experiment demonstrated). Perhaps this explains how people can morally justify to themselves the use torture - ie. if the govt tell them it has to be done, they'll support it.

 

[arildno]

It's amazing. If I think of any other country, or any other time in history... it's the first time I see people practice torture and think they can get reliable information out of it. When we torture people, it's not to have them give away some information, it's to have them admit to whatever we want them to.

WAY too simplistic!

Perhaps you should read a bit about how people who actually USED torture judged the matter.

This is how the Romans thought of the reliability/unreliability of torture, and the intellectual level of that discussion is way over what you manage:

...
21) The magistrate in charge of the torture ought not directly to put the interrogation whether Lucius Titius committed the homicide, but he should ask in general terms who did it; for the other way rather seems to suggest an answer than to ask for one. This the Divine Trajan stated in a Rescript.


(22) The Divine Hadrian stated the following in a Rescript addressed to Calpurnius Celerianus: "Agricola, the slave of Pompeius Valens, may be interrogated concerning himself; but if, while undergoing torture, he should say anything more, it will be considered as proof against the defendant, and not the fault of him who asked the question."


(23) It was declared by the Imperial Constitutions that while confidence should not always be reposed in torture, it ought not to be rejected as absolutely unworthy of it, as the evidence obtained is weak and dangerous, and inimical to the truth; for most persons, either through their power of endurance, or through the severity of the torment, so despise suffering that the truth can in no way be extorted from them. Others are so little able to suffer that they prefer to lie rather than to endure the question, and hence it happens that they make confessions of different kinds, and they not only implicate themselves, but others as well.


(24) Moreover, faith should not be placed in evidence obtained by the torture of enemies, because they lie very readily; still, under the pretext of enmity, its employment should not be rejected.


(25) After the case has been duly investigated, it can be decided whether confidence is to be placed in torture, or not.

This is from Scott's Translation of the Digest of Justinian, Book 48.18, available online here:
http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps11.htm


The Romans were an extremely, even unacceptably brutal lot, but dumb, they were not..


The point is they knew perfectly well that torture might elicit untruths, rather than truths, but, for them, that didn't make it entirely useless. Torture can, of course, be used in a such a way that the information sought is of such a kind that its own verification/falsification can be made.

For example, by revealing where the murder weapon is hidden.

A modern equivalent to that would, for example, be to obtain a password or account number.
Whatever the one under interrogation tells you, it can be readily checked, and it might be very hard to obtain such information otherwise.

 

[humanino]

WAY too simplistic!

Although the point I made was simple, I think your quotation only strengthen it : in the Antiquity, the understanding of the matter was already better than the level we have seen displayed in US media (not even to mention those who do not even read them).

Perhaps you should read a bit about how people who actually USED torture judged the matter.

Perhaps you should not display your personal offending assumptions about people who you do not know personally. How do you know I never underwent or used torture myself ?

 

[arildno]

Although the point I made was simple, I think your quotation only strengthen it : in the Antiquity, the understanding of the matter was already better than the level we have seen displayed in US media (not even to mention those who do not even read them).

Read the rest of 48.18. I merely gave you a better framing of your own position than you yourself were able to..