Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.- Andre Gide
I believe that as american we have to obey the laws that we try to pass. Not only for Americans but for everyone, this country wasn't brought on americans but alians people from other countrys trying to make something better of themselves. I find that forcing any type of information on anyone through the torture is unjustified and just plain cruel. I believe that only people with low level of intellgence would argue that torturing people is acceptable.
People will always find an excuse or a way around what they are really doing to make it look better or to make them feel better.. Torture of any form is torture no matter if its for government purposes. The government doesn't feel but a human with flesh and blood does so how does that justify anything? I agree with Nyrva that only people of ignorance would argue that torturing people is acceptable. Maybe they need to switch places for a split second and see how it feels to be in the other shoes.
Waterboarding is definitely is a torture. Pouring water on a cloth over someone's face giving them a sensation of drowning is absolutely and undoubtedly a torture. It has the after effect on both physiology and psychology. According to Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture stated that 'Some victims were still traumatized years later and one patient couldn't take showers, and panicked when it rained.'The fear of being killed is a terrifying experience', he said. We all are human being, whether we are innocent or guilty, rich or poor. We all will experience the same if we were to undergo waterboarding procedure. There is no doubt in my mind that none of us would agree to waterboarding. For those who believe that waterboarding is NOT a torture say otherwise after they experienced the waterboarding themselves. According to Wikipedia, On 22 May 2009, a radio talk show host Erich "Mancow" Muller subjected himself to waterboarding to prove that it is not torture, but changed his mind because of the experience. There's no way a human being would agree that waterboarding is not a torture, especially to those who have experienced it first hand before. It is a wrong way to interrogate someone by torturing them. The whole procedure could causes extreme pain, damage to the lungs and/or brain from oxygen deprivation and if it's done wrong, it could cause the captive their death. The whole thing isn't right. It is a pure inhumane torture that none of us human being deserve to go through.
It is in my opinion that to suffer a death through asphyxiation or drowning is horrible. It is also my opinion that a death by hunger or starvation is equally as bad. Why do I point out starvation as a point, because starvation is a basic and fundamental technique in torture. The United Nations Convention definition on torture seems extremely broad and subjective, leaving interpretation to the individual acting on, receiving, or reprimanding the techniques. The politicians that debated this point should have been straight forward and answered the question plainly, but politicians use double speak and rhetoric to try and appease the population.
Honesly if anyone who this that to get information from someone who don't wanna talk or who don't know for sure is to torture them, I will take that person and torture them until they change their mind. Theirs lost of law that can consider as crime. Unfortunatly, the only thing we can do is shut up to these kind of injustice.
Waterboarding intentionally causes someone to suffer, so it is a form of torture. Just because it’s considered an effective technique for questioning and getting information, it still shouldn’t be excused. Calling this an "enhanced technique" makes it seem as if waterboarding is an exception of torture, and it's not. It's a quick way of getting a response from the suspect because their life is at risk, but it doesn’t mean it should be allowed. Forcing someone to give information by suffocating them is definitely torture.
To answer your question, no it wouldn’t be better for the candidates to admit that they are for torture because at the end of the day they want to look good for the voters. I’m not saying that torture is right because it’s the complete opposite, I think it’s wrong. But what the candidates are doing is simply sugar coating their words. The word “torture” sounds too aggressive and harsh but “enhanced technique” sounds much better and cleaner. When addressing the entire nation you have to choose your words very carefully and that’s what they are doing. -Azbelly Delgadillo
Waterboarding is without question a type of aggression and torture. When the technique is used, the person suffers psychological and physical damage and that is the main part of the definition of torture by the UN. It is NOT and enhanced technique and the worst part is that it not only causes the person to suffer but the information obtain is not always right because a person would say whatever the other needs to hear in order to avoid or stop being tortured that way
Drowning is one of my biggest fears ever, that and being buried alive. To experience the feeling of slowly drowning, as if drowning wasn’t already slow enough, would be a form of torture that I would personally never want to experience. It traumatizes both emotionally and physically, leaving behind a sense of fear and possibly leaving the victim with hydrophobia, the fear of water. Waterboarding has indeed proven, in some cases, to be an effective procedure for life-threatening situations. However, it has also been performed on people who sincerely have none of the knowledge the officials are looking to obtain while performing this torture. I believe that Cain, Bachmann, Gingrich and the others should just admit to being in favor of torture on victims who could be holding vital information. I think that waterboarding has some valid reasoning behind it, however it’s not something that I personally am in favor of.
Water Boarding is torture, not an “enhanced” interrogation technique. Some will say “By all means necessary” to get information from a suspect. Yet, they are human, even if they are the bad guy or the terrorist that killed people, why do we have to stoop to that level just to get information that may or may not be entirely accurate. Torturing someone until they say something does not qualify , in my opinion, as proof. Some will say they deserve it. True, they deserve everything that will come to them because of the crime committed but until the shoe is on the other foot, we cant justify torture.
My opinion is that waterboarding is torture. People want to make it look like it’s not torture by putting it off as an enhanced technique. But the reality of things is that it’s an excuse for what they don’t want to admit, torture. These candidates that lie their way to the top are using this excuse of an enhanced technique, are just using another lie. I personally think that any type of pain to an individual, say emotional, mental, physical is torture. In America we as the people have our rights and it should be applied to every person even if they are not American. It’s a person as a human that counts. And no one has the right to be tortured. I know if the role where reversed the torturer would not like that he be suffocated with water to get the answer to some question. They need to find another way in which they can interrogate people without torturing them. It’s against human rights and not sympathetic.
In my opinion, any act of torture, whether physical or psychological, is morally wrong. It seems that those in favor of it are subjective absolutist and Utilitarians. They are subjective absolutists because they feel that the action is right because they approve it. I call them utilitarian because they approve torture to satisfy and bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greater majority of people for the situation. Both of these ethical theories , that these people abide with, have a number of issues and problems. Let us look at a more sound ethical theory, Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative; both the first and second formulation. The first formulation talks about universalizability and reversability. In the cold war, when the U.S. Invaded vietnam, where there were several POW and MiA cases. John McCain being one of them vividly described the torture that these soldiers endured from Vietnamese. He is not ion favor of torture. Obviously no one wants to be tortured. So the reversability rule would be an effective moral code to follow in this case. The second formulation is not to treat people as a means to an end but as an end. Those in favor do not follow this ethical theory either. Although I understand why the act of torture is necessary, especially in a state of war, but it is not an moral act.
In my opinion, any act of torture, whether physical or psychological, is morally wrong. It seems that those in favor of it are subjective absolutist and Utilitarians. They are subjective absolutists because they feel that the action is right because they approve it. I call them utilitarian because they approve torture to satisfy and bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greater majority of people for the situation. Both of these ethical theories , that these people abide with, have a number of issues and problems. Let us look at a more sound ethical theory, Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative; both the first and second formulation. The first formulation talks about universalizability and reversability. In the cold war, when the U.S. Invaded vietnam, where there were several POW and MiA cases. John McCain being one of them vividly described the torture that these soldiers endured from Vietnamese. He is not ion favor of torture. Obviously no one wants to be tortured. So the reversability rule would be an effective moral code to follow in this case. The second formulation is not to treat people as a means to an end but as an end. Those in favor do not follow this ethical theory either. Although I understand why the act of torture is necessary, especially in a state of war, but it is not an moral act.Water boarding is torture and any way you word it its torture. If there would be a policy on torture which would cause a political uproar, I hope that we follow it.
According to the United Nations Convention, torture is defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining information from him. Waterboarding fits comfortably under this description of torture. Waterboarding is a form of torture in which water is poured over the face of an immobilized captive. It induces panic and suffering while causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning. Calling torture an “enhanced technique” of interrogation definitely sounds more appealing and acceptable to the simple-minded American. Torture just sounds horrible and wrong but, “enhanced techniques” sounds like an intelligent thing to do, sounds like something that everyone should be doing. It is important to remember that these candidates one and only goal is to obtain votes of the American people to win them the 2012 Presidential elections. So, they will sugar-coat any and everything to appeal to the masses of ignorant Americans.
I agree that torturing a human being as an act to confess his or her own crime is considered an act of punishment. Punishments like water boarding is consider a torture, and it can bring severe permanent damage to the brain whether it is physically or psychologically. Also, it can traumatize the person to feel fears or in many cases it can bring the death of those who are being punished. Torture is against the law; it should not have been used as a technique or as a way to obtain information from an individual. I believe that the one that has the power to punish someone is God, and no other.
Waterboarding, just like any other "enhanced technique" are by definition considered forms of torture. Replacing the word torture with enhanced technique does not lessen the act or make it more acceptable. It is what it is whatever way you put it. So is Cain, Bachman and Gingrich just fluffing it up for the public by not fully admitting they are for it? Of course they are, because who would be in favor of a person who clearly states they are for torture? Although they are indirectly stating that they stand on the side of torture and find it by all means neccessary, what they are saying seems clear enough to me. Now is it morally correct? In my opinion no; however, when you need someone to talk and they're just not talking, sometimes it is needed to give them a little push from the governments side.
I believe that the use of waterboarding to interrogate suspected terrorists should be legal for the sake of national security. Traditional warfare has rules, and terrorists do not abide by these rules in planning and executing their attacks. While some feel we should not lower our standards in dealing with terrorists, I believe that these people are extremists and we should be totally willing and able to utilize extreme methods of interrogation with those who are in our custody. As long as they are certain that the suspected terrorist has information they need. Although mentally trying, waterboarding does not actually cause any physical harm and has been proven to be an effective way of getting information while leaving them unharmed after the event. We're talking about suspected terrorists here, not your everyday people. Only those who have reason to be suspected terrorists or accomplices get waterboarded. And there's no denying that it's effective with the capturing of both Sadaam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden since 2001. Many of other planned attacks were also uncovered through the use of waterboarding, saving thousands of lives. Most of these people have no regard for human life, and we must get information out of them for our nation's safety. In the world, there are so many terrorists that are not only angry at America, but other countries as well. They have no regard for human life in the acts that they commit, and don't value their own live.
It is clearly obvious that waterborading is in a fact a way to torture. what I think is that they should admit first that yes, waterbording is a way of torture indeed. They probably are standing in the position justifying their action in order to hide what is pretty clear. About torturing people, I am completely against it because it attempts against the rights of humans. If a country passes a law that approves it, it will become an issue because criminals or enemies can use this method under the stand of obtaining necessary information. I think that every law has to be flexible in some cases because it could not be applicable in the same way to every single case. I do agree with waterbording if it is 100% accurate that the person being torture posses some relevant information that can be use to avoid wars, or to save people's live.
In my opinion I believe that all candidates should admit they are in favor of torture. Water boarding or as the candidates call it “enhanced technique” is a kind of torture and it should not be allowed. I believe that nobody should be tortured just for the government or any other person to get information from them. This is just cruel and people end up suffering from these events and it should not even be considered to be legal actions.
In my Opinion, Yes Water boarding is torture , the technique has a very long and infamous history . It was a common interrogation technique during the Italian Inquisition of the 1500s and was used in Cambodian prisons during the reign of the Khmer Rouge regime during the 1970s. As late as November 2005, water boarding was on the CIA's list of approved "enhanced interrogation techniques" intended for use against high-value terror suspects. And according to memos released by the U.S. Department of Justice in April 2009, water boarding was among 10 torture techniques authorized for the interrogation of an al-Qaida operative. Basically water boarding makes a person feel like he is drowning it is a violation of international law which prohibits inhumane treatment of captives, also torture has been proven to be an unreliable method of collecting information, the fact that Marines are trained to resist water boarding is proof.
By the United Nations’ definition, water boarding is indeed torture. It is a cruel form of retrieving information and most importantly it is against the law—being a form of torture. Unfortunately, many people believe that by giving a euphemism to something awful—or just pretending it doesn’t exist—it would make it okay. In my opinion, all these candidates should admit they are in favor of torture. Politicians aren't known for their morality, so their use of euphemisms for something so heinous comes as no surprise. It is unquestionably a form of torture and, on their part, a very strong opinion against the fact, so why hide it?
Post a Comment