What do US soldiers think of waterboarding terrorists?

If it's good enough for our troops, it's good enough for the enemy. Liberals want to give terrorist the rights of US citizens so why not.

heh... you know they gave swine flu immunizations to gitmo detainees... you and me cannot buy them though because they are rationed.

I say we become the real good guys. Lets just try diploacy and if that doesn't work we try more diplomacy. And if that doesn't work then we simply give in to their demands. Maybe if we avoid violent actions maybe they will not hate us, they will like us and want to be our allies. Why go to war, why kill people, why build such powerful weapons. I say we give peace and friendship a try.

If you guys want any more suggestions I'll be playing Call of Duty World at War.

you know that there is a big difference between being exposed to something you know is part of your training in a controlled environment where you know that they are your friends/allies and won't actually kill you and being exposed to it without knowing that. The fact that they are being prepared for waterboarding totally shows that the military considers it torture else there wouldn't be a need to prepare them for it.

Its kind of the same like saying that whipping is a legitimate punishment because there are people who pay for getting whipped.

Confessions made under torture have been proven to be rather unreliable although there are exceptions.

That could be true but then many people still get scared in haunted house, rollercoasters and horror movies. Unless you can claim they did not know what would happen in any of these situations even a person aware of what might happen can still get caught off guard and be scared.

I have to admit, that does make sense.

Actually it has been proven that they can be reliable as well. So this one is more of a 50/50 thing. It all really depends. You can't use this kind of argument when it can actually go both ways.

As a solution the interrogators can wear Obama masks, so the terrorist being interrogated will feel surrounded by friendly faces.

So how successful is the cake and ice cream method? What lengths would you go to foil a terrorist plot? Now, what  if a family member were at that location? The terrorist DO have a choice, and people seem to forget this. Don't harm innocents. If they DO choose to preform these act, they should know the consequences if they are captured. If the terrorists gave the same consideration as some folk give to their "human rights" there would be no acts of terror to worry about. Unfortunately these thoughts just give comfort to the terrorist, that he/she will be treated humanly, unlike their victims. IMO when a person commits such a heinous act, they forfeit their own humanity, by their own choice.

Torturing a person violates their human rights. That is the reason it is illegal. Suggesting to the brain that you are about to die is not some harmless hoax. You can kill a person if you don't let that person sleep for days on end. The chinese water torture drives people insane without hot pokers. I can't believe that civilized democratic people that I assume you to be could even consider rationalizing torture as a legitimate means to obtain information. It opens up a hole if you allow it once - because where do you stop? What price are you willing to pay for security? How much of a role do your so called values play - or is up to the judge to decide who is treated accordingly and who isn't? Oh right wait, that is exactly what happend in Guantanamo bay - a loophole exploited to make a concentration camp legal. And hello surprise - alot of people held there were in fact innocent. A few broken bones, mock executions.. Will it become general rules of engagement for the police to beat up suspects next? It's theoretically the same after all. A little Gestapo tactics will losen anybodys tongue, right? Never mind that you torture innocent people as well, but that's just what securing democracy costs, right?

I agree, lets never torture humans. Let's never torture combatants that adhere to the articles of war (Geneva Convention). Now sub-human animals that kill innocents intentionally, water board away... they forfeit their humanity by choice. We take no pleasure in performing this, and should use it as a last resort. More humanity for the beasts than they give. Nice guys finish last.

Since waterboarding = torture is apparently a given, where are the news reports of our Attorney General filing suit to stop the military from torturing our own soldiers?

He has filed suit to stop this torture hasn't he?

I hear and understand what you're suggesting... and it is a reasonable suggestion. I'm against it however, because there are too many potential adversaries out there that are not as meek as the US is. Our troops need to be prepared for the worse, because they can expect that "dirty" end of the stick. Besides liberals like Holder believe our troops are the enemy.

That was meant to be tongue in cheek. I really should have added the /sarcasm tag.

But your last line pegs it superbly as to why there are no lawsuits to stop our own military from 'torturing' it's own people. That in itself is the most telling point about the true motivation of the 'stop the torture' crowd.

If stopping the torture were truly the objective, there would at least be an equal, if not greater, outcry to stop the 'torture' of our own soldiers as there is to stop the 'torture' of terrorists.

Sub-Humans? Besides the fact that there is no such thing - who decides who is in that category and who isn't? What about those who were only suspected of being a terrorist but were captured anyway and tortured, mock executed etc. and turned out to be innocent?

Yeah I figured that much (based on previous posts), but I'm almost certain there are some folks that feel that way, because it sounds reasonable.

Figure of speech. You may call the (self-proclaimed) murders brother, friend, man-of-the-year...whatever you wish.

Why are they suspect? Give an example or something, but don't presume that I (or yourself for that matter) knows why a particular person is picked up. Of course mistakes are made, but your argument is if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...wait it might be a chicken. Please.

Why were woman burnt as witches? Because someone accused them of being a witch (usually to their own personal profit) and then they were tortured and viola, confessed to being a witch.

How are suspected terrorists being picked up in Afpak? I would hazard a guess that it has some similarities in regards of why information is passed on - otherwise you would have less people about whom someone said that they were terrorists in custody. And to the black slave traders back in the triangle trade times who caught slaves to sell them to the british slavers. The selling of information has always been a business. Now I suppose that there are also persons picked up who actually know something of value, which still does not legitimze torture.

Since I haven't picked any up myself, or know anyone personally that has, or seen the accompanying evidence, it would be improper for me to comment. That would be conjecture on my part and I don't regard such things so cavalierly. If you are privy to that information, then I guess you know better. IMO though, you seem more prone to give the suspects the benefit of doubt than the agencies that captured them. Motive? Or lack of trust in the authorities? Interesting. The prisons would be near empty if we just asked the inmates if they were guilty or not. Could their be abuses? Possibly. Do western government agencies hold a monopoly on ethics in capturing suspects and handling evidence? Doubtful. If an agency turns over a suspect, with it's evidence to the US should we say "no thanks your probably lying"? We all know about the number of poor innocents that were released only to return to combat. If Pakistan really wanted to "punish" someone, would they really turn them over, knowingly, for a relatively comfortable stay in beautiful Gitmo? Of course you are free to present evidence.

I would like to say something...

CONFESSIONS aquired under torture ARE unrealiable... because the person being tortured will just confess to whatever the torturer demands of him just to make the pain stop. So anyone can be made to confess to being a terrorist via torture.

INTELLIGENCE (which can be used to prove that a person is really a criminal) aquired under torture is extremely reliable for the same exact reason. The person being tortured will tell you whatever you want just to make it stop. That means you can squeeze any INFO he is hiding.

What is the difference between the two? The difference is "after much torture that person admitted to casting witchy spells and as such we can execute him" vs "after much torture this person told us WHERE he hid the corpse, when we looked there we found the corpse, the murder weapon, and a video he made showing him murdering the victim, those are evidence A, B and C."

Lets put it in a more "modern" application:

EX 1 (improper use of torture): Under torture this person admitted to being a memeber of al quaida. - this is bad, because the person will eventually admit it to stop the torture.

EX 2 (improper use): Under torture this person named a few random people, we didn't investigate them, we just arrested them all and tortured a confession out of them

EX 3 (proper use): Under torture this person gave us the exact location of a hideout containing weapons and plans, he named some names. We carefully followed the persons he named, some have done nothing are still being followed, we suspect he just added names to the list of people he didn't like; also his claim that bin laden is hiding in X did not pan out. However some of the people he has named have been observed to go in and out of a warehouse, our operatives snuck in and found bombs and detailed plans of using them and those people have been arrested.

Well put.

Fine - but who gets to decide if they did the crime that they are accused of?  After a trial is one thing - before a very different.

Just because they are picked up doesn't mean they are guilty - even if they walk like a duck.

Note the large numbers of people released from the bay who don't face any charges at all and walk free in what ever country they now live in.

In dubio pro reo. Do you know what that means Nitro? Our legal philosophy is centered around the fact that you have to prove in court that someone is guilty and if you can't, that someone can not be punished. It goes all the way back to ancient rome. Do you really want to live in a world where people are tortured on the suspicion that they might be terrorist and without the prisoners having any legal rights granted to them? Due process is not just some liberal fighting slogan that one is best to ignore.

The inmates in prison had their day in court and were convicted by a jury of their peers after a trial, that is completely different than from locking someone up without a trial.

Torture violates everything, every single value the United States used to stand for. Freedom, Justice, Equality. Saying that those who comitted the crimes weren't falling into the category of humans that deserve to be treated according to those values puts you in the same category with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and every other dictator that ordered millions to be killed. There is no proper use of torture.

I realize that the need to save lives can clash with nice sounding moral values that do not help you in the real world - but how far are you willing to go to preserve your ideals? The end does not always justify the means.

This is just a ploy on emotion and just because everyone says is right/wrong doesn't mean its right/wrong.

Everyone that's against torture here's a country you can go and protest in: Saudi Arabia. Why don't you all go and protest about torturing there.

While you're at it why don't you demand equal rights for homosexuals there.  Make sure if you are from the States or the U.K to tell all the 'nice' officals there that you are from the States or the U.K.

I'm sure you'll get the full service from them.

Everyone says it is wrong because it IS wrong. It has not that much to do with a ploy on human emotion but rather the fact that a person has moral value and can never be treated disregarding that value, like a thing. That is how human dignity is philosophically constructed and how it is interpreted in democratic western constitutions. Torture is not allowed in the US legal system for that very reason. If that weren't true, the US would be no better than Saudi.

Everybody knows that Saudi Arabia is not a country that respects human rights, but they sit on oil and thus everybody turns a blind eye. It shows the limit of praising the virtue of human rights when it is confronted by the harsh reality of national security and economic needs. But that does not mean what I said earlier should be mocked or that I was wrong. 

You words are confusing. If we apply your statement above there will never be another trial. There has to be a reasonable amount of evidence to have a trial, same thing in a war where the enemy doesn't wear a uniform.

This article is "what do US soldiers think of waterboarding terrorists". The pro-coddle prisoner advocates want to get into the semantics of law and what torture is comprised of. This is not my concern, as I don't view the methods used by the US as unreasonable, others are much better suited to answer those questions. But I'll play along for a little while.

What causes them to be picked up...bordom? Do you really believe the US says "we'll take him and him, but not him"? There has to be a credible reason. If it is later determined the prisoner is of no interest, so be it.

If you came home one night and found an unknown man in your house. Would you call the police? I'd hope so. How would you feel if the police just let him go after he said he had the wrong house? Wouldn't you want them to hold the man and check him out? Or would you just let him go. That would be the wrong time to find out some of your daughters underwear are missing. How would you feel now? Yeah, different story with terrorists, but the principle is the same with any suspect. Some ducks take a while to quack.

Your point? Roman Polanski is a convicted child rapist in the US, he fled before sentencing, and yet he walked free in France.

You appear to assume that as soon as a suspect walks into the prison at Gitmo, a water hose is waiting for him. That's not how it works. The prisoner is asked a series of questions which are verified. Witness and prisoner statements are reviewed (not much different from a fancy in court trial). Don't believe all the liberal propaganda you hear about Gitmo. If I were a prisoner, and had a choice, that is the prison I would want to go to.

Different prisoners respond to different techniques. Some will talk when treated friendly, some will throw excrement at guards no matter what. You are turning this OP into what you believe construes torture. I do not consider this torture, you apparently do. I would consider smashing fingers or toes, burning, electrical shock, etc. as forms of torture. Is water boarding, sleep deprivation, and rock music (I'd be saying turn it up) unpleasant? Sure, because that is what some prisoners respond to. If you want serious"torture" stories, talk to some US vets that experienced it first hand as prisoners. From what I've heard, 4 prisoners were water-boarded, out of over 400 prisoners. That's less than 1%. Sounds like our guys are using this method sparingly.

You know, I wonder what folks with views such as yours would do under certain circumstances. Imagine if you will - A group has taken a family member and video taped them blindfolded, with a knife at their throat, threatening to kill if their demands aren't met. In custody, standing right before you, is a person in custody with high probability of knowing this family members location. You ask him nicely and his only response is "That pig will be dead soon" with a big grin. But he has rights, better to let your family member die, than show the world how mean we are, even though we use the same techniques to train our troops. How would that make you feel? It's easy to be morally righteous when it's someone else's family isn't it? Need a real world example, ask David Pearl's father how he feels. The "man" that gave the order to kill his son is getting the show trial he wants in New York.

Observation -Funny how the left is the protector of a few hundred well treated prisoners in Gitmo, yet not a peep about Hugo Chavez locking up hundreds for disagreeing with his policies, and shutting down opposition media outlets. I wonder how comfy those Venezuelan prisons are? I guess those aren't on the tour route for visiting left-wing actors.

Do you think that waterboarding and other stress techiques should be applied when the US domestic police pick people up for crimes?

It has been argued that they are sub-human because they kill people therefore it is ok to waterboard them.  My point is that the waterboarding happens before they are found to be guilty of it.