The lesser of two evils is always the better option. So on a scale of objectivity, torture > terrorist bombing. However, demeaning the lesser evil just makes you look like a complete asshole. Your point gets lost when you make it subjective and talk down.
There is a lot of literature that suggests many people who deal in interrogation require to be subject to their own interrogation methods, but I promise you that what they are subjected to is nowhere near as bad as what real waterboarding is like, because subjecting someone to that in any capacity is illegal by the GC. They put a towel over your mouth and drip some water in it. Boo f*cking hoo. Try having your face completely covered while someone pours a f*cking hose down your throat. Oops, that kind of hurts. And for the record - dry drowning and heart attacks are serious and valid complications of waterboarding. Most cases of drowning are revealed to be caused by dry drowning, not by wet drowning. That means that the same process your body goes through when you are held under water is the exact same process your body goes through when you are waterboarded, only you maintain more awareness during waterboarding than you do during drowning.
While the point is a valid one, the logic is still irrational because torture does not work. The logic is further irrational by your condescending tone. While you may think you are condescending to terrorists, by making it about the act - you are condescending the act, not the terrorist. Furthermore, every CIA and FBI agent and police officer out there is going to tell you the exact same thing: Rapport building is always the most beneficial way to accumulate information. Anything else is subject to interpretation by the "victim" who wants to just get the f*ck out of there. If you want the "victim" to be a terrorist, they're going to be a terrorist. They will either focus on the struggle too much to be coherent (oxygen deprivation prevents your brain processes from functioning normally, waterboarding deprives you of oxygen) or they'll admit they raped their own mother to get out of there.
There is absolutely no way that you can possibly describe being waterboarded to someone who has never had it done to them before. Even by comparison, drowning is less traumatic than being waterboarded because the implications involved in waterboarding make the incident automatically an act done. Most people are not restrained while drowning, in fact, most people barely struggle whilst actively drowning. Because waterboarding is less "severe" than drowning, a person maintains their fight or flight response until either it is stopped or their lungs shut down. That means throughout the entire experience your entire body is flooded with adrenaline and cortisol, your heart is racing, your thoughts are reeling, and yes - you are convinced you are going to die. So how accurate do you think information is going to be when it is obtained under that much duress?
I also might add that in many cases of waterboarding illicit drugs are used to make the experience more intense and frightening. That automatically should invalidate most things someone says while intoxicated and forced to endure repeated neurological and psychological distress. The only torturous threat that can be made is when the victim is lucid and conscious, by threatening to do it again. Whether or not they develop PTSD is not relevant to whether or not they will or can supply accurate information while currently being stressed. The ramifications for torture, while necessary to be examined, are actually not that relevant in your scenario.
Once again, your point has merit only in that it highlights your rational style of thinking: The lesser of two evils is always the better choice. But your examples and your justifications are what are irrational, and they leave a lot to be desired and indicate you know nothing of what you are talking about. I absolutely applaud everybody here who stood up to that comment. It has made me brave enough to do the same. It has nothing to do with moral high ground. Everybody here understands the cause/effect relationship between less evil > more evil. The issue is the lesser of two evils in this situation is abhorrent and fails to produce any accurate and reliable results, therefore making it pointless evil rather than necessary evil.
Obviously this topic is a sensitive one to everybody involved, it challenges a person to look inward to their own emotions and figure out what they believe, not just what they have an opinion about. I have an opinion that mustard is the superior condiment, but I don't cry over mustard. This thread is as long as it is because it deals with the sensitive nature of Human beings interacting with one another in abhorrent ways, it deals with the nature of evil and the nature of just what is, or is not, necessary to be rid of it.
I will be the first to admit that anything that can work, should be done to prevent terrorist attacks. Anything that can produce results accurately. If you are going to blow up a building full of innocent people, anything that can make you give someone the information they need should be used. Yes, I am pretty sure we all agree on that. Once again, it is the nature of logic. But when you talk about torture, you are not just talking about "any necessary measure". You are talking about relying on a practice that basically estimates whether or not a potential, possible, maybe-terrorist (what is the criteria for that, by the way?) can maybe, possibly give you information while drugged out of their mind and terrified. I truly believe if you honestly want to rely on that kind of information and that kind of source, you are not really concerned with the terrorist or with your job or with your information, you are concerned with power and fear.
I also understand that this topic is one not widely discussed in most circles, so many people feel the most logical choice is the exact same thing you are saying, without doing enough adequate research to back up an opinion they probably would not have if they truly understood the implications of it. I would also suggest to keep in mind that if you approve torture for terrorists, you are potentially approving torture as a method that could be used against Americans. Oh, well, this person obviously has done something worthy of torture, let's find out and see. How many people have you known who have been falsely arrested or falsely accused? What if torture were allowed to be used on them to "find out"? It is like approving police using handcuffs on potential victims. Anybody can get handcuffed if they are suspected.
For myself, and this view obviously isn't popular or congruent with those who even stood up to your comment, I believe terrorists should be killed and should be punished and should be prevented by any means necessary. I truly do believe that. You do not have to be a proponent of torture to believe in justice for American citizens or to be anti-terrorist.
Sorry if I've offended anybody.
