'UK lives saved by waterboarding': Bush

[sandinista]

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)?

of course.

[maiforpeace]

Interviewer: Why is waterboarding legal?
Bush: Because the lawyer said it was legal.

[Clinton Huxley]

I love this idea that it "simulates" drowning. As Christopher Hitchens pointed out - it IS drowning.

[JimC]

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.

I agree, but I suspect that it is a big "if". It would be very hard in the circumstances to trust the word of Bush or any of his administration that it was such a black and white case.

[Clinton Huxley]

How many lives need to be at risk to justify torturing someone? Is there an algorithm?

[JimC]

How many lives need to be at risk to justify torturing someone? Is there an algorithm?

It would be a complex, nasty decision with no easy answer. In practice, I suspect that it is an unlikely scenario in many ways, and torture is certainly no guarantee of being a "truth serum".

However, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility. If many innocent civilian lives were definitely going to be lost unless some vital bit of information was found one way or another, and if the person who held the knowledge was part of such a murderous plot knowingly, and if torture had a chance of being effective, then maybe... It would be foolishly quixotic to insist that it would be wrong in any conceivable circumstance.

However, I doubt that was the case with the Bush administration.

[Clinton Huxley]

It's a vanishingly unlikely scenario and I concur, this statement from Bush is total flannel.

I worry about precedent, though. Once the torture line has been crossed, it becomes easier to justify doing it again and makes it impossible for Blighty to adopt the moral high ground and lecture the benighted portions of the globe on proper conduct.

[tattuchu]

Oh, I get it now. Bush lives in the Bizarro universe where everything is opposite

[sandinista]

It's a vanishingly unlikely scenario and I concur, this statement from Bush is total flannel.

I worry about precedent, though. Once the torture line has been crossed, it becomes easier to justify doing it again and makes it impossible for Blighty to adopt the moral high ground and lecture the benighted portions of the globe on proper conduct.

The torture line was crossed long ago, this is nothing new. Precedent has already been set.

[Trolldor]

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

I wouldn't, not even if it saved my life.

[Mysturji]

Reminds me of Nixon's quote:
"It was legal because I was the president when I did it!"

[Deep Sea Isopod]

Scenario:
Members of my family have been kidnapped by the Taliban. They are threatening to kill them. (And we know they are capable of carrying out this threat)
Allied forces have captured one of the captors. He is refusing to give details of their whereabouts.

Pass me that plank, and turn on the fucking taps, I say!!!!

[devogue]

I don't like the idea of waterboarding at all.

Surely a few wedgies and Chinese burns would have sufficed?

[Warren Dew]

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)?

I'm pretty sure Al Qaeda already thinks far worse things are "morally ok".

[Robert_S]

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)?

I'm pretty sure Al Qaeda already thinks far worse things are "morally ok".

If Al-Quaeda sets the moral standard....