Very interesting – Steve Harrigan of Fox News volunteered to get waterboarded – the video is here:
After viewing the video, I believe I have a better understanding of it now - though viewing isn’t the same as experiencing, obviously.
Is it torture? Maybe I am just a lawyer, but it seems to me it depends on the definition of torture - which was the point of the arguments on those threads a while back. The main effect of waterboarding seems to be pyschological – fear; there appears to be no lasting physical damage.
If it is torture, it is quite a bit different than getting your testicle put in a thumbscrew, or your knees broken with a sledge hammer. Not everything that is unpleasant or is something I wouldn’t want done to me is torture. But I suppose this is all circular unless and until people agree on a solid definition of torture.
I find this to be another cheap political stunt. The bottom line is that the environment that he was in was missing one key element: Real fear. He knew no matter what happened, he wasn’t going to die. It was just another shameless stunt that didn’t really prove anything.
If it is torture, it is quite a bit different than getting your testicle put in a thumbscrew, or your knees broken with a sledge hammer. Not everything that is unpleasant or is something I wouldn’t want done to me is torture. But I suppose this is all circular unless and until people agree on a solid definition of torture.[/quote]
I don’t have audio so I apologize if I ask q’s that were answered in the video, but was that ‘in accordance with the field manual’? It seemed pretty sterile. I always pictures something more like a ‘Barry the Baptist’ scenario. In which case, I know the inhalation/regurgitation of fluids can cause some physical effects esp. in a compromised health situation.
But I agree. Personally, I honestly wouldn’t subject them to anything I wouldn’t expect to be put through in the same situation (Which includes things I might not like), but I know others would draw the line differently.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
I find this to be another cheap political stunt. The bottom line is that the environment that he was in was missing one key element: Real fear. He knew no matter what happened, he wasn’t going to die. It was just another shameless stunt that didn’t really prove anything. [/quote]
If death is the source of fear, apparently you’ve got more to fear from the bed sheets in Gitmo than the guards themselves.
I agreed it was pretty sterile, but fear, fear of death, and torture are very different states to live in.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Very interesting – Steve Harrigan of Fox News volunteered to get waterboarded – the video is here:
After viewing the video, I believe I have a better understanding of it now - though viewing isn’t the same as experiencing, obviously.
Is it torture? Maybe I am just a lawyer, but it seems to me it depends on the definition of torture - which was the point of the arguments on those threads a while back. The main effect of waterboarding seems to be pyschological – fear; there appears to be no lasting physical damage.
If it is torture, it is quite a bit different than getting your testicle put in a thumbscrew, or your knees broken with a sledge hammer. Not everything that is unpleasant or is something I wouldn’t want done to me is torture. But I suppose this is all circular unless and until people agree on a solid definition of torture.[/quote]
“The main effect of waterboarding seems to be pyschological – fear; there appears to be no lasting physical damage.”
Pyschological effects are physical. Not in the same sense of crushed nuts or broken knees but psychological trauma can have lasting damage.
“Interestingly, we weren’t nearly as blithe about waterboarding when it happened to our own guys during World War II. Then, we considered it a war crime and a form of torture.”
If it is torture, it is quite a bit different than getting your testicle put in a thumbscrew, or your knees broken with a sledge hammer. Not everything that is unpleasant or is something I wouldn’t want done to me is torture. But I suppose this is all circular unless and until people agree on a solid definition of torture.
I don’t have audio so I apologize if I ask q’s that were answered in the video, but was that ‘in accordance with the field manual’? It seemed pretty sterile. I always pictures something more like a ‘Barry the Baptist’ scenario. In which case, I know the inhalation/regurgitation of fluids can cause some physical effects esp. in a compromised health situation.
But I agree. Personally, I honestly wouldn’t subject them to anything I wouldn’t expect to be put through in the same situation (Which includes things I might not like), but I know others would draw the line differently.[/quote]
One of the officers asked him at some point: “are you ok Steve?”. That’s how realistic it was.
A question: was private Englands only crime to be ahead of her time?
Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.
“Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. “We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II,” he said.
I was always under the impression that the intelligence gathered under torture was largely held in low regard by intelligence operatives, because people tend to fabricate evidence (or whatever is being extracted) in order to get the torture to stop?
So what do you guys want to do? Ask the terrorists “nicely” to tell us when they are going to attack and where they plan to do so?
America doesn’t torture. This is not torture and I for one rather have this done and obtain the information necessary to protect Americans than to have no plan like those who oppose such methods and be more vunerable to attack.
I also think the argument against this type of method seems to cast those who are subject to it in a good light. Really think about who it is that will undergo such interrogation methods – people who are in the business of killing others. It is really simple --if you don’t want to get waterboarded, then don’t go into the terrorist business.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
So what do you guys want to do? Ask the terrorists “nicely” to tell us when they are going to attack and where they plan to do so?
America doesn’t torture. This is not torture and I for one rather have this done and obtain the information necessary to protect Americans than to have no plan like those who oppose such methods and be more vunerable to attack.
I also think the argument against this type of method seems to cast those who are subject to it in a good light. Really think about who it is that will undergo such interrogation methods – people who are in the business of killing others. It is really simple --if you don’t want to get waterboarded, then don’t go into the terrorist business.[/quote]
Since torture gives bad intel, and leads to more terrorism—why do it?
I want good intel. I want less terror. I want to be able to actually bring one of these scumbags to justice so they can be hung or thrown in prison. I want their intel to be able to lead to other terrorists convictions. I want our troops to not be tortured if captured.
You don’t
It’s that simple.
Oh and waterboarding is still obviously torture, and yes we do torture.
[quote]The Beast wrote:
I was always under the impression that the intelligence gathered under torture was largely held in low regard by intelligence operatives, because people tend to fabricate evidence (or whatever is being extracted) in order to get the torture to stop?[/quote]
Yup.
Turns out that a lot of the bullshit ‘intelligence’ used to justify invading Iraq, was gathered via torture.
Then they turn around and say “we didn’t know the intelligence was bad!!!” (wink wink)
[quote]Michael570 wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Very interesting – Steve Harrigan of Fox News volunteered to get waterboarded – the video is here:[quote]
After viewing the video, I believe I have a better understanding of it now - though viewing isn’t the same as experiencing, obviously.
Is it torture? Maybe I am just a lawyer, but it seems to me it depends on the definition of torture - which was the point of the arguments on those threads a while back. The main effect of waterboarding seems to be pyschological – fear; there appears to be no lasting physical damage.
If it is torture, it is quite a bit different than getting your testicle put in a thumbscrew, or your knees broken with a sledge hammer. Not everything that is unpleasant or is something I wouldn’t want done to me is torture. But I suppose this is all circular unless and until people agree on a solid definition of torture.
“The main effect of waterboarding seems to be pyschological – fear; there appears to be no lasting physical damage.”
Pyschological effects are physical. Not in the same sense of crushed nuts or broken knees but psychological trauma can have lasting damage.
[/quote]
[/quote]
I was making this very argument with my buddy who just graduated MIT with a neuroscience degree. His response was that by that logic imprisionment IS torture. Imprisionment has some very serious pychological effects as well. He pretty much stands by the belief that no torture causing permanent non-brain physical damage is acceptable but that all other forms are and that the person that is actually torturing the person must have undergone the same treatment, much like how many people that are authorized to carry pepper spray must be sprayed.
My only caveat personally is that there should be clear cut accountability as to who authorizes any forms of serious torture. Since we are in fact in a war then people’s asses up high (i.e. the president) should be on the line. That way if you lose the war you can be tried.
[quote]100meters wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
So what do you guys want to do? Ask the terrorists “nicely” to tell us when they are going to attack and where they plan to do so?
America doesn’t torture. This is not torture and I for one rather have this done and obtain the information necessary to protect Americans than to have no plan like those who oppose such methods and be more vunerable to attack.
I also think the argument against this type of method seems to cast those who are subject to it in a good light. Really think about who it is that will undergo such interrogation methods – people who are in the business of killing others. It is really simple --if you don’t want to get waterboarded, then don’t go into the terrorist business.
Since torture gives bad intel, and leads to more terrorism—why do it?
I want good intel. I want less terror. I want to be able to actually bring one of these scumbags to justice so they can be hung or thrown in prison. I want their intel to be able to lead to other terrorists convictions. I want our troops to not be tortured if captured.
You don’t
It’s that simple.
Oh and waterboarding is still obviously torture, and yes we do torture.[/quote]
I’m generally on board with you. However we need to make a few distinctions. People are trying to argue both that torture is wrong and that it is ineffective. In many cases torture is effective. Perhaps not so much to gather info, but definately to verify info you have a hunch on.
It is okay to admit torture occasionaly works but is wrong on moral grounds. That is called intellectual honesty and pretty much where I stand. The idea however that not torturing our enemies will somehow help our troops is rather silly however. History is replete with examples of that falsity.
And yeah, anyone that watches a video of waterboarding knows that it’s torture. If you disagree, go get it done to yourself and youtube that video. I’d like to see it.
