waterboarding - would you do it?

[DwightShrute]

Some call waterboarding a fair and necessary interrogation technique for suspected terrorists; some call it torture.

My question is:

If you were in a position to save someone you love and had a terrorist in custody who knew valuable information, WOULD YOU or would you NOT use waterboarding and other similar methods to extract information?

Or, would you go Jack Bauer on him!

[Chi_archie]

both.....


I'd like to see if I could take 4 secs of waterboarding...

ryanspeer and his friends waterboard each other and bet on the over/under of how many secs they can last....

[Iwinyourmoney]

http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-talk/179272-i-have-decided.html

[DwightShrute]

http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-ta...e-decided.html

oops!

must have missed the previous thread

[mathdotcom]

duh

id waterboard a suspected terrorist even if it wasnt to save anyone

most suspected terrorists could use a wash

[pavyracer]

Problem is no terrorist has ever revealed information due to waterboarding. I would rather have them flayed alive.

[DwightShrute]

Problem is no terrorist has ever revealed information due to waterboarding. I would rather have them flayed alive.

how do you know Pavy?

[pavyracer]

Have you ever seen anyone being flayed alive not revealing information?

[DwightShrute]

ahh, I agree, flayed would be more effective, I thought that you meant no terrorist has ever revealed information due to waterboarding.

[robzilla]

Waterboarding sounds like a beach sport.
Anyone wanna start a league?

[Willie Bee]

Sorry, before I can answer I need a few words and phrases specifically defined:

"someone you love"
"terrorist"
"Jack Bauer"

[big joe 1212]

yes

[DwightShrute]

Sorry, before I can answer I need a few words and phrases specifically defined:

"someone you love"
"terrorist"
"Jack Bauer"

OK. Your daughter goes to school in the City.

It's 9am and your neighbour has a fire and you rescue him by pulling him out of the flames, thereby saving his life. You ask him, "what the hell were you doing?", he tells you that he was building a bomb, much like the bomb they placed earlier in the basement of a school in the city that is set to go off at noon. Fearing for your daughter's well being and the hundreds of other children, you demand that he tells you. All he does is laugh in your face and tells you to go **** yourself and he will never tell.

would you do anything and everything to get him to talk?

[Willie Bee]

OK. Your daughter goes to school in the City.

It's 9am and your neighbour has a fire and you rescue him by pulling him out of the flames, thereby saving his life. You ask him, "what the hell were you doing?", he tells you that he was building a bomb, much like the bomb they placed earlier in the basement of a school in the city that is set to go off at noon. Fearing for your daughter's well being and the hundreds of other children, you demand that he tells you. All he does is laugh in your face and tells you to go **** yourself and he will never tell.

would you do anything and everything to get him to talk?

I would just drag him back into the fire after I poured gasoline on him, then notified the police/schools. Should be plenty of time to at least evacuate the schools.

[pico]

commies has worse techniques.

[DwightShrute]

I would just drag him back into the fire after I poured gasoline on him, then notified the police/schools. Should be plenty of time to at least evacuate the schools.

too many schools and not enough police available, telephone service is down due to last weeks tornado and you forgot to pay your cell bill and your cell is temporarily disconnected. Due to the mortgage crisis, your block is full of empty homes due to foreclosures and it's a virtual ghost town, all except for your and your terrorist neighbour.

The slightly burned terrorist then corrects the timeline when the bomb will go off, forgetting that he forgot to change his wristwatch after being overseas. You have 30 minutes and it take 15 to get to the nearest phone which is at the police station.

what would you do?

[Willie Bee]

So Dwight, if I give you yet another answer are you going to throw in even more caveats?

First off, there aren't "too many schools" where I live. Secondly, last week's tornados, if that severe, would have the schools closed, so my daughter would be home. If my neighborhood is a virtual ghost town, then I would've already known about this loser next door and would've already reported my suspicions to the constable who does live down the road from me...trust me, his house isn't going to be foreclosed on.

[L2Gunz]

too many schools and not enough police available, telephone service is down due to last weeks tornado and you forgot to pay your cell bill and your cell is temporarily disconnected. Due to the mortgage crisis, your block is full of empty homes due to foreclosures and it's a virtual ghost town, all except for your and your terrorist neighbour.

The slightly burned terrorist then corrects the timeline when the bomb will go off, forgetting that he forgot to change his wristwatch after being overseas. You have 30 minutes and it take 15 to get to the nearest phone which is at the police station.

what would you do?

I would shoot him in the face once, chest twice...light him on fire...then go get my daughter!!!

[DwightShrute]

So Dwight, if I give you yet another answer are you going to throw in even more caveats?

First off, there aren't "too many schools" where I live. Secondly, last week's tornados, if that severe, would have the schools closed, so my daughter would be home. If my neighborhood is a virtual ghost town, then I would've already known about this loser next door and would've already reported my suspicions to the constable who does live down the road from me...trust me, his house isn't going to be foreclosed on.

LOL, ok ok, but you are starting to sound like a politician.

All I was trying to get to is, would you "torture" him to get the vital information in order to save lives, especially those you love. I suspect that if ypu were ever put in any horendous situation that required extraordinary means, you would in fact do any and everything to extrat vital information.

Almost certainly, you will never have to make that call but I am willing to bet, you would start chopping off appendages if needed.


Maybe I am wrong.

[Willie Bee]

I'd go to the ends of the earth to protect my family and friends and property.

Oh, and don't ever call me a politician again

[DwightShrute]

I'd go to the ends of the earth to protect my family and friends and property.

Oh, and don't ever call me a politician again

[pavyracer]

I think everyone is missing the point here. The reason waterboarding doesn't work in getting information from terrorists is because it is not cruel enough. These people come from countries where if you steal they cut your hand and you gonna frighten them with fake drowning? They probably get a good laugh after they get waterboarded.

[SBR Lou]

The problem here is you cannot use the "someone you love" angle to justify whether or not torture should be permitted. Something to keep in mind, the rules are what make us better than these people.

[pavyracer]

Maybe this will work better in my opinion:

Being roasted alive -- one of the most horrific expressions of human bestiality -- is the burning of the condemned over a fire while impaled upon a sharpened wooden stake that has been inserted into the victim in the following manner: The condemned man is made to lie down with his legs spread-eagled and his hands tied behind his back. For the executioner to not be distracted from his work, the victim is rendered motionless by having one the executioner's helpers sit on a saddle placed upon the prisoner's back. The executioner then facilitates the entry of the wooden stake by smearing it with lard, after which he grasps it with both hands and forces it into the victim as deeply as he can. He then pounds it in with a mallet so that it penetrates another fifteen or twenty inches more. The victim is then hoisted upright and the stake is firmly implanted into the ground as the tortured soul is left to expire in indescribable pain and suffering. Because he is unable to secure a foothold, his own weight forces the stake deeper into the victim\'s body, until the point finally exits, usually from an armpit, the chest, or the abdomen. The death that would put an end to the abominable suffering does not come quickly. There are reports of impaled prisoners who have lasted as long as three days. How long a man lives is a function of his physical condition and the direction the stake happens to take. This is easily comprehended when one considers the following epitome of bestial and inhuman behavior: The executioner very carefully ensures that the stake's point is not sharp but blunted and somewhat rounded in shape. Were it sharp, it would pass through the victim\'s organs while being pushed in, and would cause immediate death. The blunt end, however, pushes aside the vital organs, moving rather than penetrating them. In spite of the excruciating pain caused by this pressure on the vital parts, life remains for awhile longer. It is clear that were the stake to penetrate on a slant -- instead of following the body's natural axis -- it would not exit through the breast or from an armpit, but would pierce the abdomen. This way the chest cavity remains untouched and vital organs are not threatened, thereby prolonging the life of the condemned.

[DwightShrute]

The problem here is you cannot use the "someone you love" angle to justify whether or not torture should be permitted. Something to keep in mind, the rules are what make us better than these people.

I respectfully disagree. The terrorists chop off our heads on camera for the whole world to see.

If someone breaks into your house at 3am, and you fear for your life and the one's you love and have a shotgun next to your bed, I would never convict you if you went to trial and I was a jury of your peers, if you were charged with a crime if you blew the intruders head off rather than calling 911 and hoping they would arrive in time to help your family.

We are better than these people and by using all and any means necessary to save those lives is justified and right. IMO

[Shark79]

chop his pecker ... he'll talk.

[MonkeyF0cker]

I respectfully disagree. The terrorists chop off our heads on camera for the whole world to see.

If someone breaks into your house at 3am, and you fear for your life and the one's you love and have a shotgun next to your bed, I would never convict you if you went to trial and I was a jury of your peers, if you were charged with a crime if you blew the intruders head off rather than calling 911 and hoping they would arrive in time to help your family.

We are better than these people and by using all and any means necessary to save those lives is justified and right. IMO

What if that "intruder" was just drunk and walked into the wrong house somehow? You make a lot of presumptions of guilt and extraneous tactical knowledge in this thread. It isn't really relevant.

[Willie Bee]

What if that "intruder" was just drunk and walked into the wrong house somehow? You make a lot of presumptions of guilt and extraneous tactical knowledge in this thread. It isn't really relevant.

This actually happened in Houston about 15 years ago, sad story and all but the guy didn't even make it into the home and the homeowner shot and killed him. No charges filed. Two things to note on the story are the legal 'drunk' mark in Texas is now 0.08, what this guy's blood-alcohol level tested then, and at the time there had been numerous 'home invasions' in Houston. The homeowner had a wife and infant in the house.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/21/us/scot-shot-to-death-in-texas-was-not-drunk.html

Published: Friday, January 21, 1994

A Scottish businessman who was shot and killed by a Houston homeowner who apparently mistook him for a burglar was not legally drunk at the time of the shooting as earlier reported, the Medical Examiner's office said today.

The businessman, Andrew Peter De Vries, 28, of Aberdeen, Scotland, had a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent when he was killed on Jan. 7 by the homeowner, Jeffrey Agee, officials now say.
A blood-alcohol level of 0.10 percent is considered legally drunk in Texas.

Neighbors said Mr. De Vries and a business companion, Sydney Graves, 42, also of Aberdeen, were pounding on doors in an upscale Houston neighborhood at about 4 A.M. But Mr. Graves said he and Mr. De Vries had not been drunk but had only been trying to get someone to call them a taxi.

[Bread]

Pavy that was disgusting. Man some people have suffered some unimaginable shit here. Unreal.

Reminds me of the Catherine Wheel.

In France the condemned were placed on a cart-wheel with their limbs stretched out along the spokes over two sturdy wooden beams. The wheel was made to revolve slowly, and a large hammer or an iron bar was then applied to the limb over the gap between the beams, breaking the bones. This process was repeated several times per limb. Sometimes it was 'mercifully' ordered that the executioner should strike the criminal on chest and stomach, blows known as coups de grâce (French: "blow of mercy"), which caused lethal injuries, leading to the end of the torture by death. Without those, the broken man could take hours and even days, before shock and dehydration caused death. In France, a special grace, the retentum, could be granted, by which the condemned was strangled after the second or third blow, or in special cases, even before the breaking began. Afterwards, the condemned's shattered limbs were woven ('braiden') through the spokes of the wheel, which was then hoisted onto a tall pole so that birds could eat the sometimes still-living individual.

[DwightShrute]

What if that "intruder" was just drunk and walked into the wrong house somehow? You make a lot of presumptions of guilt and extraneous tactical knowledge in this thread. It isn't really relevant.

I am not talking about a drunkin idiot, who breaks in, passes out on the floor. What if he was a violent drunk? How do you know?

Unless you were 100% sure he was harmless, 100%, are you gonna take that chance? Why do the bad guys have all the rights?

If the guy's stupid enough to get wasted, breaks into your home at 3am and endangers you and your family, and you blow his head off, too bad for him. You never wanted to be in that position and did nothing but sleep in your own bed and some idiot breaks into your house??? Maybe he just gets what he has coming?

Unfortunatety, they have more rights that the law biding folks.

Imagine if you did nothing and he walks into your kids bedroom and does something that you could have prevented? It's a no brainer to me IMO

[MonkeyF0cker]

There's a certain concept in the American judicial system called presumption of innocence or ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies). Read about it once. Apparently you have no sympathy for those who are drunk. Suppose that person suffered from dementia or was sleepwalking. Are they still deserving of death?

[L2Gunz]

my friend used to sleep walk...me and his brother would push him down or trip him...fun times

[DwightShrute]

There's a certain concept in the American judicial system called presumption of innocence or ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies). Read about it once. Apparently you have no sympathy for those who are drunk. Suppose that person suffered from dementia or was sleepwalking. Are they still deserving of death?

Better him that you or one of your kids! Right?

Life's isn't always fair

[MonkeyF0cker]

The point is that force should only be used when necessary. And you belong in jail if you use it otherwise, because you are a threat to society and the very kids that you are trying to protect. It's funny how people who wish to twist and contort the values and principles of American freedom always have to bring up fukkin kids.

[DwightShrute]

The point is that force should only be used when necessary. And you belong in jail if you use it otherwise.

we agree somewhat

when necessary you agree. The question is on a case-by-case basis, what is deemed to fit that criteria.