What do you think?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2206219,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2206219,00.htmlhttp://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010827
Optional:Waterboarding demonstration/simulation. Please be advised that the content on the following link may be disturbing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdswfKFt4wo
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I find it incredibly disturbing that waterboarding is going on. torture violates the basic human rights that are so important to us american citizens. how are we fighting terrorism if we ourselves are terrorists? i feel like proponents of waterboarding are relying on the scare tactic, which is a powerful tool. how can you argue against something that will save millions of people from "terrorist attacks"? However, this view is far too hypothetical. waterboarding does not directly lead to prevention of an attack. the only thing waterboarding directly leads to is human suffering.
in reference to world war two, the allies' actions were by no means any more moral than their enemies. we can not preach one way and act another. actions speak louder than words, and the allies killed and tortured, just like their enemies.
it's also really important not to worry about the fact that condeming waterboarding is condeming our armies and leaders. blind support of our country is not what the founding fathers intended, taking the high road in the face of adversity is.
Here's the thing: if 9/11, for instance, could've been stopped if one person in US possession would reveal his secret, but refused to, wouldn't you support the torture of that one person in order to save to lives of thousands upon thousands of people, let alone their friends and families who would mourn their loss?
Without a doubt, waterboarding is torture.
That being said, there are a lot of repercussions to think about if we do indeed use torture as a method of interrogation:
1. Torture is unconstitutional, in the ways Sal said (human rights)
2. Torturing lowers our status in the rest of the world's eye
3. We set a bad example for developing nations following our governmental model
4. We cause long-lasting effects such as PTSD in the torturees.
The problem is that the system is often abused. If any sort of torture is allowed, and for necessary cases only, there will be those who deviate and use the system for purposes not DIRECTLY preventing a major crisis. For instance, a man may be an assumed leader of some fragment of some chapter of Al Qaeda which is planning a bomb in a bank in some US city. Torturing that one man to lead to more leads TECHNICALLY is preventing a major crisis, but he may not even be linked. This gray area in the definition of acceptability is what causes such debate.
If you think about it, if an Iraqi soldier is shot in the stomach and proceeds to bleed out an slowly die for four hours, is that not torture caused by us?
The system is flawed, because war and any sort of intentional human suffering is torture; there should be no law saying what defines torture, what defines prolonged human suffering. It seems to me the only way humans as a species, in our entire history, are able to solve conflict is through fighting and killing. After all, we are animals- look at every other animal on this planet. Conflict is resolved through fighting, through initiated suffering upon fellow beings. Perhaps it's an adaptation to control our population; perhaps a method of evolution and natural selection.
So we have to ask ourselves: are we as humans really different than our animal cousins, or can we use our higher brain power to overcome our nature and instincts to live in a safer, more peaceful, and less stressful world? Can we change our barbaric past and design a new future?
If you ask me, I think it will always continue. It's hard for us to imagine, but we are not the bulk of the world. Spend some time with someone of average intelligence and little exposure and you'll see why we are still fighting.
If you don't like it, move to Costa Rica.
Im really on the fence about thyis issue and i really dont know how to feel about such an issue. Waterboarding is no doubt, even without putting any thought to it, torture. However, there in state of emergency, waterboarding could be a useful techinique to save many lives. I am against human torture completely however i think there are certain cases when waterboarding can be used but the thought of human torture itself is so disturbing but the fact of the matter is, waterboarding can help save many lives.
Waterboarding is horrifying. It's the kind of thing you see in a James Bond movie. For some reason it makes me think of SAW. We see these films for entertainment, to get a little fright and then talk about it with our friends later. Meanwhile, torture not so far from that seen in horror movies is actually occuring in Iraq...and at the hands of American citizens?!? It scares me to think that someone who is NOT insane or a serial killer could ever actually watch a person shake on the floor as their lungs are filled with water from a bystander's bucket.
Learning now about how our country built itself so adamantly on the noble values of freedom and equality, it disgusts me to see how far we've come. I feel like our government is being corrupted. WWII was possibly the most unfortunate and evil war of all time. Its conditions aroused inhumanity in all participants. And yet, as was said in the opinion peice, it was a choice between lesser evils. In the case of Iraq, I feel there is currently only one evil. Will occasionally successful torture REALLY save our country from terrorists? I can't answer that question. But I have a pretty strong feeling it's a "no". The hypocrisy of our nation is depressing. Although we are a democratic country, I really feel that politics are out of my reach. Yes, I'm underaged, but even if I were not, I feel to decieved and insignificant to be influential. So many people are outraged at this un-American behavior. In fact, I find it hard to even articulate what being an "American" represents anymore. Land of the free? Maybe. Home of the brave? If only. If only Mukasey would be brave enough to take a stand AGAINST this HORRIBLE AND REPUGNANT practice. If only politics was more honest, and not such a complicated maze of consequences. Until then, I wait in avid anticipation for the next Roosevelt or Kennedy to come along and rescue us from ourselves.
I was hesitant to watch the water boarding video because of warnings that the contents would be disturbing. Upon watching the video I realized just how disturbing and immoral the act of water boarding truly is. It was a difficult clip to watch, a bitter pill to swallow, and I literally felt sick to my stomach as if something inside me knew that this was torture and it is wrong. It is a terrible act that degrades the dignity of a human being. I truly felt a sense of indignation when reading about Mukasey’s ambiguous response to water boarding. It is not right and never will be right to purposefully make someone suffer in order to obtain information. I think that interrogators are likely to obtain more information by simply talking to prisoners no matter how long it takes. Torture may actually lead the victim to divulge false information simply to stop the suffering. This shouldn’t be a difficult issue to understand; torture is morally wrong. But, even with the knowledge that I have that torture is wrong, I find myself wondering if in the long run it could save live? Is it right to make one person suffer if the outcome is the saving of many more lives? As horrible and repulsive torture is, I still cannot decide if it should be acceptable or at least necessary in some extreme situations where information gained could save many others.
thats heinous. that is completely and utterly heinous. there is no need to partially drown someone to get information. the video that was posted looks more like a home made tape from a taliban training camp than an american prison. we cant fight terroroism with terror and call ourselves the good guys because we have degraded our code of ethics just as much as they have. And you cant reference world war two as a parrallel to todays water boarding because they are two completely different situations. And the proposition that water boarding isnt torture is absolutlely ridiculous. the whole point of water boarding is to put someone in so much pain that they cant bear it anymore and spil the beans. thats is the definition of torture and anyone who calls it otherwise is not fit to hold office of any rank in the US government. whether they see it as necessary or not is another thing but to not accept the fact that water boarding is torture is a sign of a severe mental defficiency.
I don't really know what to think. Waterboarding is sickening, disturbing, and more than just immoral. But if it could really save tons of lives from terrorist attacks is it worth it? Is it worth it to ruin the life of one person by torturing them with near-death experiences in order to get the information to spare the lives of so many civilians? I really can't decide. It's tough. I mean, Paul Tibbets Jr. thought that he was justified in dropping the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima because it hastened the end of WWII and, in his opinion, ultimately saved the lives of so many. Do I agree? It's easy to say that I disagree with the complete annihilation of Hiroshima and all of the civilians living there for military gain, but if it really did end the war sooner, was it justified? I just don't know. I know I've said that a lot, but it's true. I really don't know.
Mukasey originally said that he would do nothing about the current use of waterboarding, but once he changed his mind by saying that he would enact any law that Congress made against waterboarding, he was able to win the vote. Was he just saying that in order to be elected? Is he really sincere? Who knows?
It's pretty obvious that I haven't decided what my opinion is on this issue, and I still have a lot of questions.
everyone makes a really great point in that we have to decide how far we will go to possibly save the lives of many. it's really a conflict of ideologies. do we take the utilitarian approach and say that torture is justified if it keeps the majority safe? it's a hard call to make. however, we have to agnoledge the gray area, as lauren said. what about the tortured people who don't have information? what if, as nisha said, we get wrong information? what if torture isn't the way to prevent another 911? lauren's completely right, war is torture, war is terrorism. what's going on every day on the battelfields in iraq is torture. and it is NOT justified. it's hard to find the line of what is torture. but we do know the extremes. we know that waterboarding is torture, we know that detention is not. and yes, humans have solved their problems with violence and war throught history, but as thomas paine said, just because something has always been one way doesn't mean it's right or that it can not change. i don't believe that in the case of hiroshima the end justified the means. does an unsure end justify waterboarding? can we invade iraq in the name of liberty and justice for ALL and proceed to torture? aren't we the same as the man we accused of exploiting his people, the man we had hung?
and yes, lauren, we should take a good look at the armyless costa rica and see what we're missing...pura vida!
Lauren brings up an interesting point about humans as animals and our tendency to solve conflict through violence. Of course not every human solves conflict with fighting and killing, but it seems like each day more and more people do. Like Lauren, I wonder if this will ever change and if we as humans will evolve into more peaceful beings. It is so hard to tell what justifies violence, or if it is ever justified at all. Like almost everyone who has commented so far, I still do not know if torture in necessary situations should be tolerated...If so, which are the necessary situations?
Hank brings up an intersting point. How can we fight terror with terror....it just makes no sense whatsoevcer. Nisha also mentioned that it is immoral and it degrades the dignity of a human being. I couldnt agree more. Waterboarding is ridiculous and disturbing. But think to yourself, is there not one scenario in which you yourself were to use waterboarding. There are certain times when partially drowining one person can help save thousands and thousands of lives. I dont know what to think on this issue.
I noticed that Lauren said that the US torturing people not only sets a bad example for developing nations, but lowers us in the eyes of the world. I think that's a really really good point. We are already creating more friends than enemies with this war we started. As our inhumane methods become more and more public, people are just going to have more reasons to hate us. Developing countries are going to see our methods, and attribute our success to the use of such brutality. These developing countries might begin to immitate us, and the standards for interrogation around the world are going to decrease.
Although after reading everyone's comments, I came across some really interesting and thought-provoking points. Sal said that the founding fathers did not want us to "blindly support" our country. We are allowed to disagree with the government, isn't that what our country was based on? Lauren said that war is torture. I completely agree. It is not only torture for the soldiers fighting in the middle east, but it is also torturous for their friends and families back home, although I do disagree with her when she said that waterboarding would not directly lead to saving many lives. I believe it could if we were to obtain the information needed to intercept a large terrorist attack. Also, Nisha brought up an interesting issue. What if a torturee gave false information in order to stop the pain? I can't even imagine what that would lead to. I'm pretty sure that I've fully developed my opinion on waterboarding: it is neither okay nor justifiable.
After watching the video I definately found myself disgusted at the method of torture that our government has been using, but the focus of one of the articles definately got me thinking. Does the end justify the means? If this torture technique could potentially save hundreds, maybe even thousands, of lives, should we not do all we can? I feel as though if we could potentially stop another 9/11, then this crime of humanity is worth it (of course, only with very probably cause, and a high likelihood that it would extract information necessary to saving the lives of citizens all over the world). I do believe all other methods of interrogation should be used before torture, but as a last resort it is acceptable only for the reason of saving hundreds more.
I definately agree with Allie's comment that its unclear whether or not dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was worth the loss of hundreds of thousands of people despite hastening the end of the war, but I feel that the circumstances are different. At Hiroshima we were in the middle of a war, and we were destroying innocent civilians as well as military targets. And if people say that dropping the bomb to end the war was acceptable, how can they say that torturing one person to save thousands is not? While the circumstances of Hiroshima were different than the waterboarding issue, I think that the torturing of one enemy of the state is not as horrifying as completely annihilating thousands of innocent civilians. I definately feel as though, in the waterboarding issue, the ends justify the means, but I'm still unclear whether or not the destruction of civilians at Hiroshima was acceptable to end the war. I also like how Nora related the issue to modern movies like James Bond and Saw. I just saw Saw 4 last weekend and it was horrible and disgusting and I actually had nightmares, and it reminded me somewhat of waterboarding. However, in the Saw series, there was no real point to the torture, and it definately was not for saving others.
It's really hard for me to pick a side on this issue. Although there are many reasons why torture should be illegal, such as it being unconstitutional, being inhumane, and poorly representing our country, there are also situations where torture could prevent dangerous repercussions by getting the information needed about an enemy or a terrorist attack, for example. I do agree that the video along with the idea of torture is disturbing, but if ultimately used in desperation and in an appropriate situation, so that its not abused and not used solely to harm, torture could be the determining factor to save millions of other innocent lives. It might just be a scare factor, as Sal said, and I don't know the statistics of waterboarding's effects, but when deciding between sacrificing our high status in order to frighten one convicted captive versus sarcrificing millions of lives in a terrorist attack that could've been prevented by finding out vital information from that one captive, I'm pretty sure we'd all choose the former.
I agree with Allie, that this is a moral dilemma. The idea of waterboardig and any sort of torture is sick and inhumane. As Americans we are guaranteed the right of protection from "cruel and unusual" punishment. How can we believe that only Americans should be allowed that right. If something is too inhumane to perform on our own citizens, then it is too inhumane to perform on any human. But then when you weigh in that this tactic could possibly save hundreds of American lives, it suddenly becomes a little less taboo. By torturing other humans, we are upholding our promise to our citizens to protect them from cruel and unusual punishment, mostly terrorism. The question comes down to: Does the possible protection of our citizens come before our duty as human beings to love thy neighbor? and What is the value of one human life in the grand scheme of things? Because people all have different situations and different backgrounds, it will be almost impossible to come up with a solid yes or no to either of these questions, which means that there will always be supporters of torture as long as there is a threat to our lives.
Nisha's point of giving false information brings up a thought that I had pondered but not completely developed. How do we decide what is true information, and what qualifies as sufficient information? I know from watching shows like Law and Order that often after torturing a detainee and receiving information, law enforcement officials wait for confirmation, say in the case of a missing child. However, if false information is given and that lead is followed, then the detainee has essentially sacrificed his life and/or freedom to throw police off. IN that case, perhaps a different method of policing would've sufficed, instead of wasting time torturing an individual who clearly had already made up their mind about the information they would share. Having said that, I also believe shows like Law and Order show us, in a quasi-realistic setting, the validity of sometimes having to cross the line in order to get the job done. I can't think of any stronger support FOR "torture" than thinking of the character Elliot Stable on L&O SVU. To be quite frank, fictional situations inspired form truth are pretty much the only direct access we have to what it is really like in an interrogation room, working these cases. The thing is is that these stories are so believable that we all could imagine ourselves in the positions of these characters and easily say, "I Would've done the same." This is what makes it so hard for us to truly define and make choices with regards to torture, given that movies and television have provided a sort of voyeurism into the reality of law enforcement and the execution of principles. I'm not saying real life is exactly like shows, because I know for a fact that CSI for instance is exceedingly unrealistic (I have a friend who is a CSI for LAPD and can't stand to watch it because it's so off). It's just that reality is there to some extent, because there's only so much falseness you can have when imitating a real situation of guilt or innocence, truth or falseness.
Post a Comment