Below is a clip of a journalist volunteering to undergo the procedure. It is not violent or gross in any way.


But is it torture? Was this guy physically hurt? maimed? Beaten? Bloodied?

Obviously this is psychologically taxing.....but is this "torture"?


http://content1.clipmarks.com/content/7E8A...4-3A07CF501B7C/

I think of it as humane torture

yes.

One guy they did it to can't control his bladder when he gets nervous now because of it. Besides the fact of the matter is torture doesn't work. You or I would say anything to stop the pain of physchological pain stop. It just doesn't work. Interrogation isn't perfect but it works better.

Of course it works.

That's just Hollywood silliness saying that torture doesn't work.

It has always worked when done right.

The military had to change their 'rules' about soldiers being tortured in Vietnam because it always worked. They went from it being an act of treason to give in to torture, to just hold out as long as you can. ( Because it worked )

And the 3 guys who got waterboarded by the US in the last 8 years? Worked on them too

Yes torture, but not as bad as watching an average Geico commercial.

There you go.

Every person who has had it done to them agrees it is torture.

And no, torture doesn't work, unless the goal is to get people to say things that make you stop torturing them regardless of the truth of what they are saying.

The US government agrees it is torture because they convicted a number of Japanese soldiers of war crimes for water-boarding American troops during World War 2.

Worked on Abu Zubaydah

Maybe. If you believe everything your government tells you, I guess. And if you believe that he gave information that would not have been acquired by other means.

And you don't believe in fundamental human rights.

So maybe.

I thought you knew I was a republican...

Of course, the belief in fundamental human rights has no bearing on the effectiveness of torture.

Well, it depends on the end toward which you want to be effective.

Well all I know is:

Zubayduh knew something and wasn't talking

They waterboarded him

Then he talked

and talked


and talked


and we got intel that saved lives.

So you may not want them on that wall, but you NEED them on that wall

This reminds of that story I heard about this one guy who had some really hard luck, but then the welfare system picked him up and he went on to turn around his life.

Of course, the pre-Clinton welfare state was, on average, a disaster, trapping multiple generations in poverty and harming way more people than it helped.

Even if you can find a case where torturing somebody possibly helped, you must admit that, over the longer picture of human history, giving governments the right to ignore the fundamental value of a human being has cost way, way more lives than could ever be saved through the use of torture. I believe the current total of deaths due to governments ignoring fundamental human rights is well over 250,000,000. How many lives has torture saved?

You better hope he doesn't use the model that obama is using to calculate saved jobs.

Like many folks that have been through advanced special forces training, I have been water boarded... and YES it's torture. Much of it however is technically psychological, as the technique causes a sensation whereby your brain/body feels as is you're drowning. It was a horrible experience to say the least. Like a lot of people, I have a tendency to black out from the experience... but results and experiences differ.

Does it work?? Certainly the victim is scared sh!tless, and believes they are suffocating. But most studies show that torture just forces the "victim" (i use that term loosely) to tell the one doing the torturing what they want to hear... 'cause that's what stops the torture. So you get sooo many false positives. You'd be surprised what people will admit to under duress

[waiting patiently for BG to turn this into a christian vs. atheist government argument]

I am becoming too predictable...

I guess the question then becomes what are the acceptable ways to get information?


We certainly have a right and duty to try to get information from prisoners in a war setting especially.

I agree that this waterboarding procedure looks terribly uncomfortable, but so was getting tickled to the point of tears as a kid by my brother until I screamed "Uncle".

I am also pretty sure that "uncomfortable" techniques do not rank up there with whipped, beaten, vice-grip fingernail extraction, car battery shock therapy, hot cigar branding, etc.

Regarding the false positive concern, my guess is the folks doing this know when people are full of shit or if are telling them the truth. I mean, those advocating the "lets just have tea and crumpets, give them hugs and just ask them nicely" technique could still get that same false positive.


Not advocating waterboarding exactly but if this was the worst we did than I think we were pretty humane about the whole thing.

Yes, clearly, the only two possible interrogation techniques are either simulated drowning or lets just have tea and crumpets.

I am glad that you guess that the folks doing this know when people are full of shit. My counter-argument would be the "intelligence" used to make the case for the Iraq war. Either everyone missed that a source was 'full of shit' or it was all made up. Not two attractive options.

Lol at comparing being tickled to simulated drowning. You can certainly make the argument that there are circumstances where it seems appropriate to torture someone. But stop pretending like water boarding was 'pretty humane'.

I'd like to hear vb's thoughts on the idea that psychological torture is humane.

Well one thing I can add is that "psychological" and "physical" pain are not really distinct entities. We know now that psychological pain recruits many of the same brain circuits as physical pain. In other words, it really hurts.

So if one is against physical torture, exempting psychological torture on the basis that it is "only" psychological does not seem to me a very strong position.

A) Waterboarding is a form of torture
I have no problem if it's used to protect people's lives

I advocate a level playing field. If "they" don't want to wear uniforms, use civilans as shields and crash planes into buildings, so be it. I would be happy ****ing them up the ass with an incendiary dildo.

Stop jumping to conclusions. Just because he posted the video doesn't mean he watched it.


Seriously, in a controlled enviroment knowing it will be viewed by the public he managed to last 4 seconds. And its compared to tickling...

"Trust us, we're from the government."



I would like you to have it done to you, get it filmed, post it here, and then tell us how humane it is.

I wonder if any of you have ever been in a fight much less a fought in a war.

I have been in fights, I remember one time when a guy picked up a bicycle frame and came at me when he was losing, and I remember thinking "No fair." It never occurred to me that he was just doing what he thought might help him win.

This is alot like that. War in and of itself is not humane, once we engage in it we lose humanity in the name of (insert cause) we are never going to win these things- and, incidentally, never have- whilst trying to bend to some higher calling. In the past when we have won wars it's because we were willing to pick up the bicycle frame, and it really is no more complex than that. It's nice to wish for more peaceful times and means of accomplishing goals against enemies, but wishing is a terrible way to defend ones self, guys, it really, really is.

This is just the worst- should he walk through a street filled with I.E.D.'s so he can tell you how humane that is or isn't?

The argument isn't whether or not it's inhumane or not, we never should have started caring about that in the first place. Huge mistake to let those without the stomach to fight dictate the rules.

See my post above to BG about what happens when governments stop caring about being humane. Sorry, but that's not a world I will accept.

It's a world you personally benefit from assuming you live here, and by extension readily accept. When we have "won" conflicts it's because we took it to a level to bring the other side to it's knees, and hopefully the ends justifies the means- kill 140,000 in a day to save time and American lives, instead of killing 140,000 over the course of ten years and losing 60,000 American.

You live in that world because even having made that choice looking back we can still go "Yeah, it was ugly but that was the way to go." It's horrible and inhumane and pain and sorrow was brought on levels never seen before by the human race, yet it was still the best path. That's the only way a war should ever be fought.

From simplistic wikepedia:

Debate over bombings
Main article: Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Further information: Operation Downfall
“ The atomic bomb was more than a weapon of terrible destruction; it was a psychological weapon. ”

—Former U.S. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, 1947[92]

The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender and the U.S.'s ethical justification for them has been the subject of scholarly and popular debate for decades. J. Samuel Walker wrote in an April 2005 overview of recent historiography on the issue, "the controversy over the use of the bomb seems certain to continue." Walker noted that "The fundamental issue that has divided scholars over a period of nearly four decades is whether the use of the bomb was necessary to achieve victory in the war in the Pacific on terms satisfactory to the United States."[11]

Supporters of the bombings generally assert that they caused the Japanese surrender, preventing massive casualties on both sides in the planned invasion of Japan: Kyūshū was to be invaded in October 1945 and Honshū five months later. Some estimate Allied forces would have suffered 1 million casualties in such a scenario, while Japanese casualties would have been in the millions.[93] Others who oppose the bombings argue that it was simply an extension of the already fierce conventional bombing campaign[94] and, therefore, militarily unnecessary,[95] inherently immoral, a war crime, or a form of state terrorism.[96]



Earlier it mentions that estimates of how many die varies from 100,000 to 220,000, and I way undershot on how many lives were saved, possibly millions on both sides by just taking it to the next level. Even faced with numbers as great as that, though, we still have those that say "No fair." Which is good, during times of peace when dealing with normal circumstances these people make the world a better place, but during war times the Jane Fondas of the world have no place.

you say conflicts plural but really your "lesson" only applies to WWII. We won the following conflicts by keeping it at a normal level:

Revolutionary War, Spanish-American War, War of 1812, WW One, Desert Storm, Korea.

So everything you said applies to WWII and nothing else. Which makes your point meaningless.

You have a bad recollection of History.

We were brutal to the British in the revolutionary war, it's why we won.

As for Dessert Storm, we launched night after night after night missile attacks on Baghdad until they gave up and left Kuwait.

This.

And, what part of "Ended a world war" do you have a problem with Cain? If soldiers sitting down and seeing who could eat the most pancakes would do it I would be all for it, but that's not what wins war. You also referenced a "normal"- what is that exactly? What's normal about trying to find ways to get in such proximity to people as to shoot them in the face and kill them?

Incidentally, how many of those conflicts could have been ended in a day if one side decided to do one thing that would save many lives?

No more brutal than they were to us....and acting like that was the only reason why we won the Revolutionary war is ridiculous. We won for the same reason we are leaving Iraq. Occupation is really hard and really costly for lots of reasons. Making a blanket statement like that is not a proper recollection of history.....and (in typical Republican fashion) attempts to take something incredibly complex and dumb it down into something that can fit on a bumper sticker (while also denigrating/ignoring the contributions of the French!).

The missile attacks in Baghdad were typical of modern warfare; we have no obligation to fight to the technological level of our opponents. We do have the obligation to not waterboard people since we helped prosecute Japanese who waterboarded Americans during WWII.

I'm not passing judgment on whether dropping the bomb on Japan was ok. I think history has given us a pass and that seems fair. What I have a problem with is you coming on here and taking one example from one war and making the argument that it has clearly applied to all war we have waged over the years. I wish we could eat pancakes to end war too. What I know is that your conclusions about how the United States has ended wars over the last few centuries is erroneous. Please explain how we took it to another level to win those other conflicts. (You can't, I know.) All I was pointing out was that you are wrong.

The last line of this is borderline incoherent. It's probably pretty rare that any of our previous conflicts (including WWII) could have been ended in a day. Can you even come up with a reasonable hypothetical of this? Even the Pacific engagement of WWII did not end by the actions of one day. It took two bombs and many days.

I'm not talking about the battlefield, which is really a different issue than capturing somebody and personally violating all notions of humans.

But I do see your point. Basically, you've reduced my argument to "I'd rather just kill them on the battlefield than bring them back to safety and torture them." And in a way, that's true, because when you step onto a battlefield, you've accepted death as a possibility. But according to all international law and all sense of humanity, torture is not OK.

And no it doesn't make sense.

But part ofe the reason, too, is that there is no evidence that torture works any better than traditional interrogation techniques, because there is no way to distinguish valid information from false information. And that makes torture inhumane for no gain. At least a quick death moves us closer to victory.

Again, not advocating waterboarding, but I ask... what would you folks consider "ACCEPTABLE" ways/ means/techniques for extracting information?

Interesting question, because no matter what the answer, there is something on either side of it that is a little worse or a little less painful. That means there is no easy answer, but waterboarding seems to be one pretty much everyone who has been through it agrees is torture -- in other words, it's not really close to the line. Other things, like keeping them awake for a week straight, is closer to the border. I think a good criteria would be the likelihood of leaving permanent physical or emotional scars. Another good test would be the likelihood of false self-incrimination based on the level of suffering.

When I think about torture, I think if it saves innocent lives, I will support it. The only problem I have run across with the argument FOR things like waterboarding is the argument that you can get people to say whatever you want. Just saw the It's Always Sunny Episode where Dee gets waterboarded and says 'I admit to whatever you want to hear.' Of course a dramatization but..... maybe it's just a way to find scapegoats in certain situations. Although I do know it has worked to the benefit and capture as well. Tough subject.

I guess the fact that the British wore red jackets and marched in straight lines while playing drums didn't help either.

The gentlemanly way to do things at the time.

I guess when it comes down to it I just don't get the borderline obsession that really only we and some of our allies have with playing by a set of rules. Often we face an enemy that has no real rules, or they are aware of the rules but laugh at us for following them. Whether on the battlefield or captured the enemy is still just that, the enemy. There are many arguments to be made whether or not they should even BE an enemy in the first place, but if we are to, as a nation, decide to go about the business of killing another set of people, than do it well and do it right, do it efficiently and do it as fast as possible, by any means necessary. I just don't have any problem with really anything when it comes to war, it's brutal and it's supposed to be. I mean, we actually allow for the fact that sometimes you just might kill your allies, just part of the game, how horrible is that? Every little bit of it is horrifying and sickening and scary and every negative thing you can think of, and this is acceptable. I say take it one step further, and actually drown them, resuscitate them if possible,and then go again, why **** around? I think the fact that it's fake is actually right neighborly.

There is a difference between a just and moral nation and a terrorist state. I know which one I prefer to live in.

I don't think there actually is, we just like to pretend it is so. Horrible shit happens in war, there is absolutely no way to get around this. We can make it "cleaner" by developing unmanned planes that do it for us, but the end result is still horrific. We like to pretend that we are on some sort of higher plane because we choose to not do certain things, but that which we do take part in is just as bad, there is no difference, just the perception we sell ourselves.

The question we have to ask ourselves is what is the price we are willing to pay to perpetuate our way of life? If going to war is the price, than we should absolutely accept that people will be perpetuating horrific acts to further our chosen agenda, if we cannot accept this we might as well not even bother showing up.

<--- laughing uncontrollably

That is the joke, but it's exactly what I am talking about. We ambushed and killed unmercifully entire Brigades of British soldiers who would not/did not do it that way.

I like what Dee has been saying, basically once the troops are sent in, it's time to leave the PC world behind.

I also see Henry's point that it is preferable to not become a nation that uses torture as a standard interrogation technique.


But having used it a total of 5 times on 3 people total in the last 8 years, are we really in danger of "losing our moral compass'?

And when we did use it, it was on people of extreme high value, and their information paid off and saved American lives.

Personally I am okay killing large numbers of 'them' to save each and every soldier of 'ours'.

And I don't see 'them' hating us more, because their hatred is already enough to hijack planes and fly them into buildings with 50,000 people in them just to make a political statement, so it's not like we can make them more mad.

Once troops are sent in, once the state department and politicians have failed, then I only care for the American soldiers. The other people are secondary to them.


Now having said that, once the Iraq war was finished, Mission Accomplished, we changed to an occupying force, and the rules for engagement were greatly reduced to be more humane. That has caused more deaths on our side than if we kept allowing them to shoot first etc. but I understand the reasoning. Now the politicians are responsible for the soldiers lives.

Pray for the soldiers when the politicians are responsible, the democrats have already proven that they place politics above the lives of the soldiers.

citation needed. everything i've come across that i can think of right now has said nothing of value was obtained. it also sticks out in my memory that one of these guys was borderline retarded and couldn't have given a useful answer if he wanted to (and this was after the fbi had determined he was useless through normal interrogation).