Donald Trump: I'd bring back 'a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding'

More information (this is directed at people who think waterboarding isn't potentially fatal or damaging)

Waterboarding

Waterboarding is a form of water torture in which water is poured over a cloth covering the face and breathing passages of an immobilized captive, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning. Waterboarding 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, and death.[1] Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years.[2]

In the most common method of waterboarding, the captive's face is covered with cloth or some other thin material, and the subject is immobilized on their back at an incline of 10 to 20 degrees.[3] Torturers pour water onto the face over the breathing passages, causing an almost immediate gag reflex and creating a drowning sensation for the captive.[4][5][6] Vomitus travels up the esophagus, which may then be inhaled. Victims of waterboarding are at extreme risk of sudden death due to the aspiration of vomitus.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you let me waterboard the scientist who said it had been proven by science for a few hours I might believe him. Sometimes when they tell you what you want to hear it is the truth and even if not some information is better than none if they aren't talking. They might say something they didn't want to if pressure is applied.

If they are talking there is no need but if they aren't and the evidence against them is solid and there is a credible threat I would want to apply pressure on them. Better than doing nothing and I could sleep at night knowing I had done all I could.

originally posted by: GuacBowlMerchant
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you let me waterboard the scientist who said it had been proven by science for a few hours I might believe him. Sometimes when they tell you what you want to hear it is the truth and even if not some information is better than none if they aren't talking. They might say something they didn't want to if pressure is applied.

So useless noise is better than silence? Yea... No... You can't tell what is truthful and what is a lie.

If they are talking there is no need but if they aren't and the evidence against them is solid and there is a credible threat I would want to apply pressure on them. Better than doing nothing and I could sleep at night knowing I had done all I could.

Yet somehow anti-terrorist agencies all over the globe manage to defuse "credible threats" all the time without stooping to waterboarding.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
I really don't give a damn if evil is used against evil. Maybe if the USA still used fire to fight fire, instead of worrying about blowing sparks...we wouldn't have to talk so much about the possible use of mental anguish.

Oh, I can't claim the moral high ground here myself. Every person/situation is its own thing. Some respond one way, others another. I will say they wouldn't bother training you to face these techniques if they didn't work whatsoever.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Look I don't know if waterboarding should be the main technique used but I would certainly let the interrogators have it in the arsenal if they want it and a lot more depending on the situation. To me morality is something you worry about after you win the war or defuse the threat. I know that isn't popular but it is usually how the victors have operated in history. Trump wanting to win at all costs is very refreshing. In business that's how it is done almost all the time.

a reply to: GuacBowlMerchant

Tradition is a poor reason to continue to practice something. Especially when it has been proven to be ineffective and misleading. Plus the Geneva Conventions clearly spell out what should and shouldn't be done in this matter.

We certainly can't take the moral high ground over terrorism if we are willing to resort to barbarism to take them out. It may take some thinking, but figuring out ways to handle terrorists without being inhumane about it CAN be accomplished. We just need to put on our big boy britches, our thinking caps, and crunch it out.

Also, keep in mind that the quote from Trump is, "I'd bring back 'a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding'". That tells me that he is going to engage in more than just mild torture, but actual sadistic torture like pulling people's fingernails out and stuff.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Blah blah blah. Easy to pontificate when you aren't the one going to sleep at night knowing you could have prevented a terrorist attack if you were allowed to apply pressure on a terrorist in custody. In theory most ideas are really awesome, especially moral ones that make you feel good because they aren't real and nothing is at risk.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You know exactly what Trump 'means'. Instead of releasing known terrorists we will keep them imprisoned. He will call a radical attack in the US Islamic terrorism and not workplace violence. How soon people forget the woman who lost her head at her job by a devout Muslim who was stopped by a CWP holder. That is a nightmare for the current POTUS so it is never discussed.

He is drawing a line in the sand and if you believe him and are worried, that would show that it would work, in talk, against those who would want to harm us. If they continue to move forward knowing what can happen, so be it. If we tell them their would be no waterboarding but you get 3 hots and a cot what is that telling our enemy?

originally posted by: GuacBowlMerchant
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Blah blah blah. Easy to pontificate when you aren't the one going to sleep at night knowing you could have prevented a terrorist attack if you were allowed to apply pressure on a terrorist in custody.

That really isn't something that we should be worrying about... We don't hire these guys to feel assured at night that they were able to torture someone.

In theory most ideas are really awesome, especially moral ones that make you feel good because they aren't real and nothing is at risk.

In theory, torture is an awesome idea. In practice, it doesn't work. Morals don't even really matter to be honest. It doesn't work.

originally posted by: matafuchs
If we tell them their would be no waterboarding but you get 3 hots and a cot what is that telling our enemy?

So now you want to use torture as punishment rather than information extraction?

So what happens when the CIA get it wrong and innocent person is tortured? What happens when YOU are accidently picked up a tortured over say a protest?

TRY and CONVICT terrorist first then either:
1) lock them in a some basic Prison to die with no access to the public to spread there vile message and a pork only diet.
or
2) stick them against a wall and shoot them the bury there remains with pig entrails.

But give them due process first and don’t give the government power to circumvent such a vital part of legal process and certainly don’t give the government power to torture!

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You know exactly what Trump 'means'. Instead of releasing known terrorists we will keep them imprisoned. He will call a radical attack in the US Islamic terrorism and not workplace violence. How soon people forget the woman who lost her head at her job by a devout Muslim who was stopped by a CWP holder. That is a nightmare for the current POTUS so it is never discussed.

No, actually I DON'T know what he means. Leaving that expression open like that and knowing Trump, that could mean a HELL of a lot of things regardless of you trying to speak for him right now.

He is drawing a line in the sand and if you believe him and are worried, that would show that it would work, in talk, against those who would want to harm us. If they continue to move forward knowing what can happen, so be it. If we tell them their would be no waterboarding but you get 3 hots and a cot what is that telling our enemy?

No, he's saying controversial things so that people such as yourselves lap it up.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hire these people? They serve and a lot of them could do better in the private sector but they do what they do to make the nation safe. I don't think it's a good idea to take any technique out of their arsenal if the situation warrants and they believe it will help.

The only reason to bring back waterboarding (and worse) is if we're looking to build up a pile of false intel to justify misleading congress and the American people into another false war.

originally posted by: GuacBowlMerchant
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hire these people? They serve and a lot of them could do better in the private sector but they do what they do to make the nation safe. I don't think it's a good idea to take any technique out of their arsenal if the situation warrants and they believe it will help.

Repeat with me. Torture. Doesn't. Work.

Look. Right from the horse's mouth. One of the VERY people you are so terrified won't be able to sleep at night, lest they are torturing someone.

Experienced interrogator: Torture doesn’t work

I’ve sat across the table from murderers, sex offenders, terrorists, and drug dealers. As a former professional interrogator, I know there’s a good chance that information obtained through coercion isn’t accurate. This is why the release of details about the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” of terrorist suspects after 9/11 is so important.

The just released 500-page executive summary of this report reveals that the CIA’s torture program was even more ruthless than we were led to believe. Waterboarding, beatings violent enough to break bones, assault, mock executions, electric shocks to sensitive areas: all of this was performed by our government on our behalf.

The report also shows that abuse was an epic failure as an intelligence-gathering technique. It didn’t prevent any attacks and or gain information that couldn’t have been gained legally through rapport-based interrogations. As for the claim that torture produced information that led the United States to Bin Laden: no, wrong, it didn’t. At the same time, abuse elicited bogus information that hindered counterterrorism efforts.

I care deeply about the honor and effectiveness of U.S. intelligence and law enforcement. It pains me to hear about what the CIA’s tactics because I know firsthand that there’s a better way. I look back with great satisfaction at the confessions and convictions my colleagues and I have won, all within the legal framework.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well if none of the interrogators want to use it then it is a non-issue. One guy talking to the press when he probably shouldn't be is not likely to be the full picture though.

a reply to: GuacBowlMerchant

Holy crap... I've already posted scientific evidence of it not working. You are literally incapable of admitting fault in your arguments.

It doesn't matter what the truth is. Republicans don't care about truth. Bush brought us waterboarding, and redefined torture-- and effectively changed the brains of Republicans forever. No amount of factual evidence will open their eyes to the truth.

[SNIP]

a reply to: GuacBowlMerchant
I fail to see how you can claim victory in this argument just by denying everything I've presented to you showing that you are wrong.

Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture - findings

-The CIA's use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees.
-The CIA's justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on inaccurate claims of their effectiveness.
-The interrogations of CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than the CIA represented to policymakers and others.
-The conditions of confinement for CIA detainees were harsher than the CIA had represented to policymakers and others.
-The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice (DOJ), impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program.
-The CIA has actively avoided or impeded congressional oversight of the program.
-The CIA impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making.
-The CIA's operation and management of the program complicated, and in some cases impeded, the national security missions of other Executive Branch agencies.
-The CIA impeded oversight by the CIA's Office of Inspector General.
-The CIA coordinated the release of classified information to the media, including inaccurate information concerning the effectiveness of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques.
-The CIA was unprepared as it began operating its Detention and Interrogation Program more than six months after being granted detention authorities.
-The CIA's management and operation of its Detention and Interrogation Program was deeply flawed throughout the program's duration, particularly so in 2002 and early 2003.
-Two contract psychologists devised the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques and played a central role in the operation, assessments, and management of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. By 2005, the CIA had overwhelmingly outsourced operations related to the program.
-CIA detainees were subjected to coercive interrogation techniques that had not been approved by the Department of Justice or had not been authorized by CIA Headquarters.
-The CIA did not conduct a comprehensive or accurate accounting of the number of individuals it detained, and held individuals who did not meet the legal standard for detention. The CIA's claims about the number of detainees held and subjected to its enhanced interrogation techniques were inaccurate.
-The CIA failed to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of its enhanced interrogation techniques.
-The CIA rarely reprimanded or held personnel accountable for serious or significant violations, inappropriate activities, and systematic and individual management failures.
-The CIA marginalized and ignored numerous internal critiques, criticisms, and objections concerning the operation and management of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program.
-The CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program was inherently unsustainable and had effectively ended by 2006 due to unauthorized press disclosures, reduced cooperation from other nations, and legal and oversight concerns.
-The CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program damaged the United States' standing in the world, and resulted in other significant monetary and non-monetary costs.

Mod Note: Please do not quote alerted posts.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

When the terrorist strikes there will be no moderators to save you.