Nevermind.
I would agree, NO ONE would volunteer to subject themselves to torture. But by the journalists volunteering for this does no prove that waterboarding is not torture. It only proves how much they and many others have been indroctrinated into believing that waterboarding is not torture. They quickly found out otherwise. As to it causing no permanent psychological damage from one session does not prove anything either. How about adding numerous sessions along with sleep deprivation and other sundry techniques and then ask the question about permanent damage.
Such as? 
because its sensational and garners ratings.
under this scenario, when they can quit whenever they want, no it doesn’t
but in the case of an actual waterboarding, it is painful and can be deadly.
i think its quite clear waterboarding falls under this definition.
it does involve actual drowning, being that there is water being poured into your mouth and nose. there is plenty of risk of death there.
you have some proof of that?
because i can show you plenty of proof that torture, or “enhanced interrogation”, whatever you want to call it…does not lead to reliable information.
Why did I think that in this case the WB in the title stood for Will Brink? I guess envisioned you pushing someone to some sort of failure so they could test themselves…
Anyway, yes, waterboarding appears to be torturous. Apparently conventional self defense mechanisms seem to fail without question.
But torture as defined by conventional and historic terms? Hardly.
And so having fingernails ripped off would have the same journalist appeal? Maybe being dislocated by the rack, perhaps.
:rolleyes:
Exactly. No one would watch if it was really torture anymore than a reporter would undergo it.
under this scenario, when they can quit whenever they want, no it doesn’t
So they just keep waterboarding and waterboarding even if the person is willing to give them information? That’s what torture is. It isn’t really about the information as much as the sadism. WB doesn’t really allow for much sadism. It’s quick, effective and gets to the point WITHOUT harming them. When they’re done, the “victims” can get up and walk away. Real torture not so much.
but in the case of an actual waterboarding, it is painful and can be deadly.
Anything unpleasant can be defined as pain. The pain endured doesn’t even come close to torture. As for being deadly? Who has died? I don’t know of anyone, even opponents, who’ve made that claim.
Moreover NUMEROUS opponents, INCLUDING John McCain have said that in the case of an imminent attack that he WOULD order “extreme interrogation” to save American lives. That in that scenario torture can be ordered legitimately. As far as anyone knows those are the guidelines that have been adhered to.
So basically it’s not a black/white issue.
i think its quite clear waterboarding falls under this definition.
By what objective standard? That we don’t use iron maidens and the like it’s pretty clear we adhere to a higher standard. War doesn’t allow for idiotic niceties like “miranda rights.” If it’s my men or family under imminent threat, I’d order actual torture if I thought it would save their lives.
Given the rarity and specific focus of WB any comparison to the US use of waterboarding to regimes that actually do torture is not only inappropriate but misguided.
All things considered, I’m for it.
the only reason it isn’t torture in the journalists’ cases is because they all have a safe word and give up 10-15 seconds in.
being tied down and subjected to this for hours and hours is quite different than these little demonstration scenarios.
apparently so. was it KSM that was waterboarded over 100 times?
if its so quick and effective, why are Gitmo detainees being subjected to it hundreds of times?
no, thats not really true. i find plenty of things unpleasant that are not painful.
thats interesting. you admit to not having ever been waterboarded, yet you know exactly what its like?
you really think that pouring water down someone’s mouth and nose doesn’t have the possibility of being deadly? 
thats the most ridiculous argument there is in support of torture.
first of all, where does this imminent attack information come from? how do we know we’re under the threat of imminent attack, and how do we know who to torture to glean info to stop it? its a ridiculous argument at best.
and that brings me to the info obtained from torture. experts generally agree information obtained under torture is not accurate because the victim will say anything to make the torture stop. so using your example, lets say we’ve somehow figured out we’re under imminent attack, and we’ve also figured out who we should torture to learn about this attack. now lets throw him up on the table and waterboard him. he immediately starts spilling his guts about where, when, and how. problem is, he gave you 100% false information that you now have people out there chasing. then repeat over and over again. see the problem yet?
torture can not be ordered legitimately under ANY scenario. we are a nation of laws, we are a part of the Geneva Conventions outlawing torture. if we start disregarding these laws due to fear or paranoia, well bye bye america.
by your definition.
From Merriam’s
Main Entry: 1tor·ture
Pronunciation: \ˈtȯr-chər
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
Date: 1540
1 a : anguish of body or mind : agony b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
ahhh, so now some torture is considered a “higher standard” than others. :rolleyes:
whther your waterboarding or drilling someone’s kneecaps, torture is torture. we as a nation should be better than that.
problem is, it could end up costing more lives in the long run, first due to chasing misinformation gleaned from torture. then once word gets out that we as a nation torture folks, it makes a great propaganda and recruiting tool for terrorists.
kinda cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Where did i say any such thing?
I think we all know where you stand.
Equating the exceedingly rare American use of WB on a select few of the worst terrorists, who have shown no such hesitation to murder, torture and otherwise engage in some of the depraved acts we have ever seen is pretty absurd.
Moreover there is ample legal justification in the case of an imminent terrorist act.
That it has already saved hundreds if not thousands of American lives demonstrates its value.
Never bring a knife to a gunfight, as it is we’re already demonstrating significant restraint.
Interesting that you didn’t mention the second definition. I know some people’s marriages that would be considered torture under the first.
Everyone talks after a creatine enima…everyone…
Having never been tortured, having never tortured, having no experience/background in soft or hard interrogation methodology, I will offer no opinion on the issue if it or or is not torture.
What I do know is wars are never won with your hands tied, more people die vs less when you fight wars half way, nor do I think the writers of the US Const intended it to be used against us by affording our enemies protections, and we know some Const Rights have been suspended various times throughout history for our citizens when it was seen as essential to the security of the country. Hindsight is always 20/20 and people will debate forever whether or not past deeds in that area were needed as a matter of national security.
They kill thousands of our citizens, and we worry about the discomfort of our enemies who have every intention of killing thousands more?
As Mr Natural said “It Twas Ever Thus.” Meaning, those who are safe in their beds who think “it cold never happen here” and worry about the rights of people who treat their own kind worse then we treat them in ours prisons, will continue to do so, while those of the thin green line will keep on doing what they have always done: do the nasty business that is war and let the historians do the 20/20 thing.
The realty is, as someone else said “America is not at war. America is at the mall. The US military is at war.”
If a mushroom cloud appears over DC or NY some day, we will no longer have the luxury of this debate, and channels will be opened to take off the gloves. You wold think an attack that killed thousands on national TV would have done the trick, but memories fade and there’s a sale at the local mall…
no, i don’t think you do. you’ve done a lot of assumption on where i stand, problem is you’re simply wrong. assumption is the mother of all f*ckups.
i did no such thing.
really? what legal justification do you speak of? anything to back this up?
this is the second time i’ve had to ask for some proof of this in this thread.
so again, do you have anything to back that up?
i agree. i think our ROE are screwed up. but i believe we as a nation are above torturing people.
this is hilarious. weren’t you the same person who got their panties in a bunch because i referred to a second definition in another thread? :rolleyes:
the first definition is number one for a reason.
neither you nor I have been personally waterboarded, so we really can’t speak on whether or not its painful.
Funny how you continually lob rhetorical bombs and then back away saying “I never said that.”
Sorry but that’s getting a bit old.
If you’re willing to sacrifice your family and American lives because you lack the courage to do what is necessary, despite that it doesn’t even come close to a reasonable definition of torture, that’s your call. You have the freedom to do that because men of courage are out there protecting you and your family. Do you want to win the war? or no?
The Constitution, as the cliche says, is not a suicide pact. Even still we maintain a far higher standard than ANY other nation that finds itself in a war.
The first definition is the one in “common usage” a figurative, generality that could apply to any circumstance or condition we find unpleasant…saying “That meeting was torture” doesn’t make it so. The second is a literal definition that doesn’t really apply to common usage.
When the mammalian reflex is triggered, there are some things that happen to us… aspirating ANY water in this state can cause mental duress. Some people freak the hell out and others seemed annoyed and wish you would stop.
It is what it is… this is Chess, not Checkers. If it bothers you, turn your television off.
ETA: Thanks Will for the creatine enema image; talk about cruel and unusual 
While I no longer grace the many malls here in NJ (the mall capital of the world), this statement speaks volumes regardless.
Such was surely not the case 68 years ago, but things were a bit different then and the scope was larger I suppose. Could be the case again here one day.
No. He was waterboarded about 6 times [meaning sessions] (or some number close to that – that is my remembrance and could be slightly off).
The fictional number 183 that is reported is the number of POURS that he went through in his half dozen sessions. The people who did it maintained very good records and the press ran with numbers they did not understand.
edit: found a link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/28/despite-reports-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-waterboarded-times/
By the presses standard, that guy in the video was waterboarded a half dozen times approximately – I did not count actual pours but it looked to be about that many.
And it was very effective with KSM. He gave up lots of verifiably good info that helped them roll up lots of others.
WB is not torture. Look it up in the dictionary. Only the loosest definition of “provoking agony” applies and that is not talking about the same torture we are talking about. Watching college football for some is torture under that definition.
specifically what are you talking about? vague bullsht doesn’t really fly. you’ve continually put words in my mouth throughout this thread that I never said, implied, or even alluded to. if i said it, surely it can be proven. and that burden of proof is on you. if you can’t or choose not to, then you are simply full of sht.
except that torture is not necessary under virtually any circumstance, unless you get your rocks off by causing people great pain and stress. otherwise it has no useful purpose. experts agree that torture does not provide reliable information. so what other purpose is there to torture?
torture will not make the difference whether this war is won or lost.
and we should keep those high standards. for example, the Geneva Convention (that we were a part of) that outlaws torture.
thanks for the english lesson.
let me clarify…so you just want to use the definition that is convenient for you at the time?
waterboarding clearly falls under torture based on the definition you provided. nearly everyone who has actually been waterboarded says its torture. i think its pretty clear that it is.
While senseless drama can always attract a crowd, I wonder if it is the desired kind.
Just a humble thought.