Clear Evidence Waterboarding Works (but may still be a bad idea)

[Pangloss]

I also agree. However, Pangloss, isn't your position (in a very fundamental way) internally inconsistent? You opened this thread suggesting that waterboarding (and implicitly other forms of torture) should probably go "back on the list of approved measures." How can we torture someone and pretend to be leading by example... pretend to "demonstrate that we're better humans?"

 

I was pondering this the other day, and let me just expand on what you're asking me a bit before I answer it. There are basically three questions here:

 

1) Does waterboarding acquire information?

2) Is waterboarding torture?

3) Should it be used? (Should we be "leading by example"?)

 

My answers are as follows:

 

1) It sounds like it probably does (though I agree not in all cases, just as normal police techniques don't always get the right answers).

 

2) I don't know. I've never made up my mind on this. I believe at one point I had more or less decided that it was (in part because John McCain became convinced and stated as such). But I've read reasonable points of view suggesting that it is not.

 

3) IMO if it's torture it should not be used, but if it's not torture AND it produces results, then it should be used. So I don't have a clear answer to this question in my mind at this time, because questions 1 and 2 have not been answered to my satisfaction.

 

I think that answers your question, but if not please tell me, because I think it's an excellent question.

 

In part the problem is what constitutes torture. So there is a position that says, in essence, that that whether it constitutes torture or not, it should be banned, because of any combination of the following reasons:

 

1) The world views it as torture and objects to its use.

2) The majority of Americans object to its use.

3) The science is unable to tell us any more about psychological damage or quantify this damage for us. (Quite likely, really. Psychology can very vague about things like this.)

4) We (as a society) are unable to agree upon what constitutes torture. (Referring back to 1.)

 

But if that's the case then it becomes more a matter of politics than human rights. And on that playing field I'm quite comfortable playing a tactical game, and in that game you keep waterboarding on the playing field for the time being because they don't call them "progressives" for nothing -- we all need to know we're not just playing a game of whack-a-mole here. I want to know ALL the forms of coercion that are used and ALL the ones that are objected to before ANY are removed from the table. Then I want a decision made, and then I want it to be agreed to and stuck with, until (at the very least) legitimate new science tells us otherwise.

[iNow]

Thank you for that, Pangloss. Your post showed clearly that you put serious thought into it, and your reasoning makes sense.

 

I only have one response, and it truly is more philosophical than directed at you.

 

 

If we need to engage in such convoluted if/then logic to determine if an action is or is not appropriate, then that action is not likely the example by which we must lead in order to fix the problems we face together as a planet.

[mooeypoo]

Thank you for that, Pangloss. Your post showed clearly that you put serious thought into it, and your reasoning makes sense.

 

I only have one response, and it truly is more philosophical than directed at you.

 

 

If we need to engage in such convoluted if/then logic to determine if an action is or is not appropriate, then that action is not likely the example by which we must lead in order to fix the problems we face together as a planet.

I agree.

 

I'd use

 

switch () { }

though..

 

[iNow]

I found these two consecutive comedic presentations to be rather poignant:

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=156409&title=torture-talk

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=156410&title=waterboarding

[mooeypoo]

Not sure if you found this but I thought this was interesting, and fitting to the debate: