What is your opinion on this? (Constitutional Rights & Waterboarding)?
How is lying to a hostage taker in order to save lives or shooting someone to save a friend any different than waterboarding someone to save lives...many lives? I mean isn't shooting someone more severe?
Some opponents of waterboarding talk about preserving our constitutional rights...but what about the constitutional rights of those who lives are endanger? We forget about their freedom.
Would any of you not use waterboarding...if it could have stopped 911?
Would any of you not use waterboading...if it could prevent someone from killing YOUR family?
I think these are tough questions that we need to ask. We don't necessarily have to know right now...but I think we need to think about it thoroughly before we discount it.
I agree with waterboarding if there is a strict criteria that justifies it (which I am sure there is...for legal means)
Why? Because I want to protect the constitutional rights of others.
Where am I wrong?
All points are welcome...I CAN TAKE IT.
All great points...
I think that it is something that needs to be discussed with greater detail.
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
I believe you truly believe in what you wrote, but I don't & here's why:
1. If we spend more money on truly organizing our
Iintelligence" - updating to one (1) system instead
of many systems that don't communicate with one
another, for example - our need for "stoolies" or
using torture on someone would incrementally
decrease as we perfected our info system. (We
should work on bettering plain, old communication
between the different intelligence agencies, too.)
2. Psychologically speaking, people who enjoy
torturing animals, let alone humans, are usually
referred to counselors to help them understand
what is driving their desire to do so.
3. As the first answerer posits - some of the people
incarcerated at Gitmo were picked up on the say-so
of one of their neighbors. Do you have a neighbor
you don't get along with? What if they reported you
to the police for kiddie porn? Would you have rights?
Should the cops just lock you up with no lawyer, no
looking into the accusation, no you're innocent until
4. If America is supposed to "role model" the way we
want other countries to behave - especially toward
our soldiers if they become incarcerated by another
country - what message are we sending by torturing
people without using any other recourse?
So, that's where I stand on the issue & why. A discussion about all points of view is a good thing. Sure better than some of the tirades & language I've seen on the site.
- 1 decade ago
The biggest problem with waterboarding, as with any other form of physical torture, is that it is not a reliable method of extracting information.
Historically speaking, torture is used for one of two reasons: Either to make a person confess regardless of actual guilt or as part of the punishment sentence. If you look at the laws of countries that practice torture, many express that a conviction cannot be passed without a confession from the prisoner.
Someone under torture is likely to confess to anything and a confession is almost always forthcoming under those circumstances...even from innocent people. So how is a false confession possibly of any use?
I'm certain that if I waterboarded my mother right now I could get her to confess to a plot to murder my family. I'd get the same results if I waterboarded my neighbor down the street, even though I've never met him.
I think that the people who argue against waterboarding by stressing "constitutional rights" might be confusing it with the Geneva Convention that forbids torture.
- Mary NLv 51 decade ago
Waterboarding is torture since the Spanish Inquisition.
"Saving lives" ------How many? Which ones? Where? Who? Give me specifics.
The information gained from torture is not valid, it is simply convenient to the victim of the torture to stop the torture.
As you express support of waterboarding if it could have prevented 9/11, does that mean you want to have George W. Bush "waterboarded" when he decided to go on vacation to his ranch in Texas rather than pay heed and due diligence to the August 6, 2001 memo from the intelligence agencies that Bin Laden was determined to do massive damage within the US?
Further, the argument is that waterboarding needs to be avoided based on human, not consitutional rights.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I'll answer your question by playing devils advocate. I agree that water-boarding, or any other form of torture is wrong and should not be practiced ever, especially by a country that prides itself on being a democracy and a supporter of human rights. I also believe that torture can do more harm than good. I believe a person being tortured will confess to just about anyhting if tortured enough. History id full of examples of innocent people that were tortured for crimes they didn't commit (Agimet of Geneva and Johannus Junis). Torture is also unconstitutional.
The flip-side of the argument is that those being tortured are not American Citizens, so cruel and unusual punishment, and they aren't being tortured on American soil.
Sadly, if torture tapes are or were being destroyed then there is no way to prove thus is happening. Additionally, one can argue that we are involved in a war, and those detainees at gitmo aren't civilians and aren't subject to the laws of civilian prisoners.
Nonetheless, the practice is deplorable and should be abolished. The longer this practice goes on the more of a whole our country is digging itself. In the long run we are putting the lives of our troops in unnecessary danger.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
First of all, there has been no one that has been water boarded that is a citizen of the U. S. that anyone knows of. So if that statement is true then no persons constitutional rights have been violated. I have not seen, read, or heard anyone say that it is written in the constitution that the rights that are in there apply to anyone who is not a citizen of the U. S. and if there is any reason whatsoever that someone is trying to kill our citizens I believe that when we get the answers that we need that the prisoner should be sent to be with his 71 virgins. That way he could not say anything about his rights.
- MR HENRY SLv 51 decade ago
If we are discussing insurgents, they have NO constitutional rights. Read the Geneva Convention. It is on line.
From the dawn of time such combatants have been legally faced with a bullet to the head or its current equivalent.
These people torture, maim and butcher their captives, then publicly display the mangled remains. They take pride in showing videos of what they have done to their captives. Waterboarding (the old Chinese water torture) does not bother me after this.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
i don't get it you agree with torture, as long as it's legal?...well fine maybe there's a legal loophole where combatants aren't POWs because they don't have uniforms or soldier IDs, but what about habeus corpus? no one in Gitmo has been processed through a court, they were all picked up from all over the globe based on intel that could be faulty because it comes from locals who claim to be cooperating with US forces and even then all that has to go through a translator who is usually highered locally...the thing is there MUST be something that seporates our tactics from Jihadist barbarism, and if we condone torture, we lower our standards to their level.