On March 8, 2008, President Bush vetoed legislation that would ban the CIA from using harsh methods of interrogation including waterboarding. So there is no confusion; Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward (the Trendelenburg position), and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent. The act of torture is defined as: 1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. 2. a method of inflicting such pain. 3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone. 4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony. 5. a cause of severe pain or anguish. As far as I am concerned, waterboarding is a form of torture, a harsh one at that, which under the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which came into force in 1987, should be banned. International Law permits no exception to it - so why is the US any different? According to Mr. President, the technique can be used but requires the consent of the attorney general and the president. However, the fact still remains that waterboarding is a method that is still legal for the CIA use, even if it is not "part of the CIA program". Although we may not be able to do anything about it, do you personally believe that waterboarding should be tolerated? This, in no way, some form of attack. I just want to know the reactions and thoughts of others on the matter.
Interesting thread Gaelen. It's a very interesting point for discussion, and I personally do not agree with the use of any forms of torture, especially anything which has been quite clearly defined as such. That said, I can understand why some people believe that sometimes the end justifies the means, however that is not my opinion. I did read that it isn't actually used, which in a way I find strange, because why veto it if it isn't used anyway? I was also interested in John McCain's view on the issue.
I've read that since the 9/11 attacks, the US government had subjected three prisoners to waterboarding. Granted it has been said that they divulged massive amounts of crucial information, again it depends on if you believe that the end justifies the means. Its strange that although the CIA have admitted to using waterboarding as an interrogation technique, they have also said the practice is very rare. Yet it's still, technically, legal for the CIA to use. Why veto the ban when the rest of the world bans it and you've said you're not going to use it? I was also interested in John McCain's view on the issue. He was part of the army, and possibly has seen it being implemented. He knows what waterboarding is all about and its good that he's voicing his views on the subject, as have the other presidential hopefuls. However I think he has the most crediblity in the matter.