'UK lives saved by waterboarding': Bush

[Rum]

In his memoir 'Decision Points GW says that waterbaording saved lives. He says that the practice, which is essentially simulated drowning stopped a number of attacks by al-Qaeda.

He is coming down in serious favour of the the ends justify the means side of that particular argument.

Anyone got any comments?

[devogue]

If exact, precise evidence is forthcoming then I will reassess my thoughts.

[Feck]

The ticking bomb justification for torture ...I'm not impressed it's a lie, terrorists use the 'cell' structure for this very reason .

And Is he really saying that torturing muslims has made us safer ? that's not true, just like the war on Iraq made us safer ? from Terrorists ? .

FUCK OFF BUSH Even if one plot to attack the UK was foiled by torture it's still not worth it !

[devogue]

FUCK OFF BUSH Even if one plot to attack the UK was foiled by torture it's still not worth it !

If it was a simple case of waterboarding a man and he gave information that prevented a bomb attack that would have killed hundreds of people at Heathrow airport then it is worth it. It might be morally repugnant, but in such a circumstance the end would absolutely justify the means.

[Rum]

If exact, precise evidence is forthcoming then I will reassess my thoughts.

I am an idealist of sorts, even at my age, when most people seem to develop serious cases of cynicism. I do not believe the ends justify the means...or not to date. I have read up on all those moral dilemmas which include scenarios where you have to let go of a switch which will kill one person in order to save five elsewhere..and so on. I find it usually in those theoretical conditions relatively easy to combine idealism and pragmatism.

The reason I didn't express a view in the OP is that for the first time in my life I am seriously unsure if I am right on this one. Much as I hated Bush, I wonder if I was in that position, an al-Qaeda leader in my mits, knowing I could save a potential second 9/11 happening, would I be able to say that torture (which is what it is no matter what anyone says in my view) would not be not justified?

[PsychoSerenity]

My questions would be, did they know they were going to be saving lives when they did it? and in how many cases did they do it when lives weren't saved, or there wasn't even any real threat? If they tortured a hundred people in the hope that some of them might have information, then there is no way to justify it.

The only way I could justify it is, if you knew for certain that a specific person was withholding information about an attack that couldn't be stopped without that information, and that couldn't be got any other way. - but outside TV or film I'd imagine that sort of scenario is pretty unlikely.

[devogue]

The only way I could justify it is, if you knew for certain that a specific person was withholding information about an attack that couldn't be stopped without that information, and that couldn't be got any other way.

That's exactly the scenario in which I feel the moral enigma lies.

[Feck]

FUCK OFF BUSH Even if one plot to attack the UK was foiled by torture it's still not worth it !

If it was a simple case of waterboarding a man and he gave information that prevented a bomb attack that would have killed hundreds of people at Heathrow airport then it is worth it. It might be morally repugnant, but in such a circumstance the end would absolutely justify the means.

Well I've still to hear of that EVER happening ..Ex-directors of the CIA have still yet to hear of that EVER happening !.. So far 'we' seem to have been torturing children who threw grenades at invading troops and anyone who got sold out to the 'Merkins for money in Pakistan and the results ?

Over and bloody over again IF you have a plot and someone who knows the plan gets arrested then the fucking plot gets shelved !

clinging to this "What if there was a ticking Bomb " is a shit argument it's a special hypothetical case of the ends justifies the means that has no fucking relevance to what has/is happening .

And as A Brit I won't EVER take any Merkins advice on Terrorism I've lost friends and very nearly family to a terrorist war funded by Americans (in part) and at no point did I think the British Government imprisoning people without trial or torturing people helped keep me safer or helped resolve the conflict ,it just made it worse .

[Clinton Huxley]

Sounds like a good dose of post-hoc rationalisation to me. That and believing that 24 is a documentary.

[Robert_S]

Sounds like a good dose of post-hoc rationalisation to me. That and believing that 24 is a documentary.

Reagan used to confuse movies he acted in with real life. Has W confused TV shows he watch with real life?

Also, I wonder how many terrorists were made in our torture chambers. I know I'd be pissed as hell if it happened to me.

[devogue]

FUCK OFF BUSH Even if one plot to attack the UK was foiled by torture it's still not worth it !

If it was a simple case of waterboarding a man and he gave information that prevented a bomb attack that would have killed hundreds of people at Heathrow airport then it is worth it. It might be morally repugnant, but in such a circumstance the end would absolutely justify the means.

Well I've still to hear of that EVER happening ..Ex-directors of the CIA have still yet to hear of that EVER happening !.. So far 'we' seem to have been torturing children who threw grenades at invading troops and anyone who got sold out to the 'Merkins for money in Pakistan and the results ?

Over and bloody over again IF you have a plot and someone who knows the plan gets arrested then the fucking plot gets shelved !

clinging to this "What if there was a ticking Bomb " is a shit argument it's a special hypothetical case of the ends justifies the means that has no fucking relevance to what has/is happening .

And as A Brit I won't EVER take any Merkins advice on Terrorism I've lost friends and very nearly family to a terrorist war funded by Americans (in part) and at no point did I think the British Government imprisoning people without trial or torturing people helped keep me safer or helped resolve the conflict ,it just made it worse .

Okay. I was just saying, that's all.

[sandinista]

The ticking bomb justification for torture ...I'm not impressed it's a lie, terrorists use the 'cell' structure for this very reason .

And Is he really saying that torturing muslims has made us safer ? that's not true, just like the war on Iraq made us safer ? from Terrorists ? .

FUCK OFF BUSH Even if one plot to attack the UK was foiled by torture it's still not worth it !

even though the US has been torturing people for decades, long before the "war on terror", torture is not a bush era US tactic. If, as a country, you wish to torture people, don't be surprised when it comes back to you.

[mistermack]

George Bush is full of shit. This business about bomb plots is a pack George Bush lies. You simply can't just believe what they say without question, you would have to be incredibly gullible.
And a story like that is so nebulous, it's a nothing anyway. They could build that kind of story out of any garbage a torture victim came up with. If you are drowning (literally) you will say anything to make it stop.
I would love for one of Bush's kids to be kidnapped and waterboarded. I wonder if he would still support it as a legitimate method of "interrogation".
.

[MarkS]

I was just going to say does this mean that it's morally OK for other countries to waterboard US service personnel (or indeed UK)?

[Pappa]

Spin, aka lies.