Should waterboarding be legal?
(70% of the 2301.8009 class thought yes).
(59% of the 2301.8012 class thought no).
(71% of the 2302.8006 class thought yes).
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/01/28/national/w142155S63.DTL
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Interestingly, if one were to check wikipedia for more explanations of waterboarding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding), it would be apparent that some form of physical harm could possibly occur to the person being subjected to it. People can claim that it is a simulation of drowning, but the effects and hazards are no different than the real thing. In the "simulation" the person's ability to breathe is hampered with a wet cloth and continuous streams of water over the face. Simulation or not, is deprivation of oxygen or air via forceful and intentional means not called suffocation? I dont see how it would be different from using bare hands to choke the fellow. I really don't think waterboarding is or should be legal. In class a fellow classmate made the point that what we do to these people isn't as bad as what they have done. However what about those people who are only suspected of convicting some form of crime that is a threat to national security? Suspect meaning that we cannot be completely sure that they have done such acts. If we could be sure, i doubt we would even be questioning them anymore. Whatever happened to the notion of innocent till proven guilty? Also we were talking about how these countries commit certain atrocities and they torture our soldiers as well. Thing is, they dont walk around telling the world that they are a free country and pride themselves on rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If we were to carry out acts like waterboarding, what would that speak of our values and assertion on human rights?
I strongly disagree the use of waterboarding as a means of tortureing suspected individuals to get information, becouse it has a very dangerous consquence on the health of the person, phisycally and mentally that could last for about four years after the torture.
More over it expose the individual to sudden death before even knowing the suspected is guilty as charge or not.
Torture: the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. (Dictionary.com)
I don't think waterboarding falls under this definition. It would be a stretch to say that the simulation of drowning causes mental 'pain', excruciating or not.
That being said, I don't think this method of interrogation is any more brutal/cruel/inhumane than any other type of interrogation methods in employ.
Interrogation is the act of trying to get information from someone that doesn't want to give it. Clearly in order to get this information, one can employ any variety of methods. Who's to say that waterboarding is more cruel than extreme verbal abuse, or physical abuse (punches, etc)? Certainly waterboarding falls more along the lines of verbal abuse than physical abuse, such that verbal abuse is the idea of dominating your victim mentally into submission. Although you are using physical means in waterboarding, the effect is still mental, as no physical threat is endured by the victim.
I think it is obvious that any interrogator is going to start with the least extreme measures as possible and then, based on how resistant the victim is, increase the nature of the methods used.
So which is worse: beating the victim within an inch of his life (legal), or simulating the near-death of a victim (legality questioned)?
I guess when I look at it in perspective, it's really not a big deal to me, really it isn't. Personally I think our justice system is already being obstructed by too much red tape and "humane" penalties, but that's just me.
-Mr.Powell
Would waterboarding be considered "cruel and unusual" punishment? If so, then it should be illegal, however since the case we're talking about is torture, there is no punishing taking place, yet. Rather to torture would be to inflict pain, usually in order for confessions or information.
Who would be the one that's waterboarded? Is it some random person whom we suspect is a terrorist and is being detained against his will? Is the person a U.S. citizen? Would Article III Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution help in deciding an answer in this case?
- David Nguyen
My answer to the question is absolutely not! For me waterboarding sounds like a torture and coming back to Nazis. You are taking a person to the edge of death over and over again to get the "truth". It is a horrible act of torture and abuse and should never be use by any government and for anything. If a society lets their government use this it makes both the society and the government criminal.
Ewelina S.
Some people who are commenting are saying that waterboarding does not cause pain, and therefore it should not be considered torture. "Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent" (wikipedia). It has also been made clear that waterboarding can cause lasting pain to the body, whether it be brain damage from oxygen deprivation, lung damage, PTSD, broken bones and even death. So, I'm pretty sure that falls under the category of torture. Even if the person walks away with not a single physical injury on their body, mental pain can be just as harmful. There have been victims of waterboarding who were scared of showers or even rain after this technique was used on them. In Waterboarding, the average amount of time the person would last before they started talking was 14 seconds, that's not very long, considering that there are about 86,400 seconds in a day. Most torture tactics can last for days ,but in waterboarding- 14 seconds, so that has to say something about the amount of pain or mental anguish that these people are having inflicted upon them. Waterboarding simulates a "'mock execution'- which is illegal under international law claims John Sifton of Human Rights Watch". America also has stated in their constitution that we do not stand for "cruel and injust punishment", granted that these rights are given to American citizens; but how can we as Americans say that we stand for these rights- but then whole-heartedly want to use these torture tactics on others- just because they aren't citizens of our country doesn't mean they are any less of a person and deserve any less respect.
- Lisa G.
waterbording gives more mental tension rather than physical one. as we all know that terrorists are trained and physically strong so it is not possible to get inofrmation by giving them physical torture. the best way is to give them mental torture and i think waterboarding is one of the best way to give mental torture...
sanjay k kurmi
If some people hold vital information then it would be a good method to use if they don't talk. But we shouldn't abuse the power. It could be tramatizing but it also be tramatizing if 3,000 more people die and it could have been avoided. So i think it could be legalized but that would give the gov't too much power.
I think waterboarding should be legal, but with a few restrictions:
- It should only be used when there is strong evidence stating that the person to be tortured has information that can directly save lives.
- It should be video taped at all times
- A warrent should be manditory
I think that if there is a terrorist that has information that could save ten, a hudnred or even a thousand lives it is our country's duty to interrogate them in order to protect our liberty and our freedom
I personally do not have a problem if they only do this to terrorist suspects but since they can not pass a law saying that they will only do this to terrorist suspects I am against it. I am afraid if it becomes legal the government may take it to the extreme and perform waterboarding when it is not necessary.
On the other hand I am for it when it comes to terrorist suspects. I think that this would really help our government get the answers that society wants and needs to move on and come together again. If this is what it takes to send a message to terrorists to stop if it has that kind of effect on them then go for it.
Brianna M
Post a Comment