...is ok when in situations of national security. If they are found innocent after the water boarding, then we aren't doing our jobs right now. I only agree when the person clearly is guilty and to extract information.
I just can not believe that someone would think otherwise. I have no doubt that if the shoe was on the other foot the Bush administration would be the first to cry torture.
i can't condone torture, not on any moral grounds, but a person who is suffering will say allmost anything too make it stop, the information gained in this way is therefore completely unreliable
Christopher Hitchens' account on waterboarding might be of interest to those reading this thread: [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58[/YOUTUBE] (The full article he wrote on the subject can be read on Vanity Fair's website here.)
This is the same principle used by the Spanish Inquisition before putting people on the rack. Once you have been tortured, you will admit your guilt to make it stop, hence nobody is found innocent after waterboarding.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure they don't use waterboarding unless the person is "clearly guilty." So yes, they wouldn't be doing their jobs right, but there are always going to be incorrect cases like that.
im sorry but waterboarding is just WRONG. seriously, how can u do that to another human being? torture should not be accepted-and its proven that torturing someone won't bring out the real information becuz the tortured person would just say false info to stop the torture!
