Another verdict on waterboading: it's torture.

[MobBoss]

body? psyche...

Ok...where is his psyche damage then? Evidently, he wasnt damaged past the ability to write about his experience....

 

[Grisu]

Ok...where is his psyche damage then? Evidently, he wasnt damaged past the ability to write about his experience....

so as long as you're sane enough afterwards to be able to tell about it it's not torture? :crazy:

 

[MobBoss]

so as long as you're sane enough afterwards to be able to tell about it it's not torture? :crazy:

No, the premise is being made here in this thread that it may not damage someone physically, but rather mentally. I am merely asking...where's the damage?

Did it, for instance, scare Hitchens into becoming a christian and believe in God?

No?

/meh, maybe he wasnt as traumatized as you think.

 

[nonconformist]

I bet John McCain loved his years in Vietnamese POW camps, seeing as he's well enough to run for president

 

[nonconformist]

Oh and Elie Wiesel became a celebrated author

 

[nonconformist]

Simon Wiesenthal obviously must have had a whale of a time with the SS seeing as he was well enough to hunt down Nazis the rest of his life

 

[Grisu]

Did it, for instance, scare Hitchens into becoming a christian and believe in God?

well, yeah, that would have truly been a horrible fate

 

[JollyRoger]

Ok...where is his psyche damage then? Evidently, he wasnt damaged past the ability to write about his experience....

Would you agree that his reasoning ability was damaged, since he now reaches presumably the wrong conclusion, whereas pre-waterboarding, he presumably reached the correct conclusion?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

A - evaluation of the information is necessary, but the information extracted from the suspect by torture would hardly cause more harm than good
B - reputation hit would be minimal and it would certainly not increase the number of terrorists targeting the country. Jihadists don't target the West because of its domestic policies related to combating terrorism, they attack it because of its very nature.

A - I don't disagree, that's why I had the [positive] note. However, it may be negligible if, much of the time, the terrorist is lying or doesn't know where the bomb is or the police doesn't get to the bomb in time or there is no bomb or or or...
B - Let me get this straight. You think that having an official policy of using torture will be a "minimal reputation hit", and that "because of its very nature" won't be more plausible at all as a jihadist argument once they can use torture as more evidence for the US being the Great Satan?

I think you miss the point. Terrorists are being tortured. Under certain circumstances, they'd be tortured even if torture was banned by 100 different conventions. So far, the only country which admits it would torture terrorists is Israel.

What I propose would not change what's already happening, it would just subject it more control. As usual, simple ban does not solve the problem.

Two words and one concept for you: [wiki]Overton window[/wiki].

What's going to be at "acceptable" once you put torture at "policy"?

 

[MobBoss]

Would you agree that his reasoning ability was damaged, since he now reaches presumably the wrong conclusion, whereas pre-waterboarding, he presumably reached the correct conclusion?

The point is that his 'waterboarding' had no such lasting effect upon him whatsoever. Which is the point made about it not being 'torture'.

Sure, waterboarding IS drowning, in about the same way I AM suffocating if I hold my breath.

His description of it actually convinces me more that it isnt torture. I mean if he were somehow harmed or scarred mentally, yeah. But thats not what occurred to this guy.

Now, can the same be said if he had been skinned alive? Hit with a blowtorch? Electrodes to his genitals? Beaten? Bamboo under his fingernails?

Not really. He came through his waterboarding with flying colors. If he had actually been 'tortured' he would have had the scars, either physical or mental, to show it.

 

[Simple Simon]

No, the premise is being made here in this thread that it may not damage someone physically, but rather mentally. I am merely asking...where's the damage?

Did it, for instance, scare Hitchens into becoming a christian and believe in God?

No?

/meh, maybe he wasnt as traumatized as you think.

tsk tsk, you have not read the entire article. Bad MobBoss, go stand in the corner.

 

[Patroklos]

My hat is off to Hitchens - he is the sole case (I know) of a guy publicly stating (implicitly) that waterboarding is not torture, then go and actually try it out.

Him, and all the special forces and intelligence guys (thousands) who have done it in training and still maintain it isn't torture. You fail.

 

[philippe]

Him, and all the special forces and intelligence guys (thousands) who have done it in training and still maintain it isn't torture. You fail.

to quote noncon:
IT'S NOT TORTURE COS I'M IN THE US ARMY AND I'M HARDCORE AND I COULD TAKE BEING WATER BOARDED FOR HOURS ON END, AND YOU KNOW WHAT? I'D ENJOY IT. THAT'S RIGHT. IN FACT, I'D HAVE A VERY HARD TIME NoT EJACULATING.

 

[JollyRoger]

The point is that his 'waterboarding' had no such lasting effect upon him whatsoever. Which is the point made about it not being 'torture'.

Does torture have to have lasting effect?

Sure, waterboarding IS drowning, in about the same way I AM suffocating if I hold my breath.

The better suffocation analogy was if I was holding a pillow over your head. You make waterboarding sound like a recreatonal sport.

His description of it actually convinces me more that it isnt torture. I mean if he were somehow harmed or scarred mentally, yeah. But thats not what occurred to this guy.

Again, why is a scar necessary for it to be torture?

Now, can the same be said if he had been skinned alive? Hit with a blowtorch? Electrodes to his genitals? Beaten? Bamboo under his fingernails?

How are those any different from an exfoliating scrub, playing with matches, masturbation, and a manicure?

Not really. He came through his waterboarding with flying colors. If he had actually been 'tortured' he would have had the scars, either physical or mental, to show it.

Actually, the process changed his opinion, so it did result in a change in his mental processing. From your standpoint, you could argue that the process scarred his ability to reach the so-called correct opinion.

 

[Patroklos]

to quote noncon:

Nice phillipe, you should be very cautious it quoting noncom instead of using your words. The best part about the current anti-torture rhetoric is that really everything is torture.

 

[nonconformist]

So was John Mccain not tortured in Vietnam or was he?

 

[philippe]

So was John Mccain not tortured in Vietnam or was he?

he wasn't, he just can't fully use his arms anymore from all the waving to the friendly vietcong for about 7 years.

 

[lovett]

The point is that his 'waterboarding' had no such lasting effect upon him whatsoever. Which is the point made about it not being 'torture'.

Perhaps you've read 1984. if so, you might be acquainted with the concept of 'The Dial'. It's really a fairly simple idea. A device that inflicts pain on the individual in an intensity and length determined enitrely by the operator. The device inflicts pain directly: there is no lasting effect other then the psychological. I.e, The fear of more punishment and the memory of previous punishment. Does this constitute torture? If torture requires 'lasting effect', then surely not. Correct?

 

[Patroklos]

Perhaps you've read 1984. if so, you might be acquainted with the concept of 'The Dial'. It's really a fairly simple idea.

Obviously you didn't read the book either, because the dial did have permanent effects on Winston, both physical and psychological.

The problem with the psychological thing is that EVERYTHING can cause damage. People have mental breakdowns with permanent effects sometimes from traffic jams, from watching the news, from the neighbors dog barking. Causing mental trama can not be the sole determination of torture, if that were the case Nocon's posts are clearly torture.

A better example though is prison. Do you honestly think prison is not causing permanent psychological trama in some people? Do you honestly think that is torture?

 

[lovett]

Obviously you didn't read the book either, because the dial did have permanent effects on Winston, both physical and psychological.

Our memories clearly differ. Regardless, the concept is the important part. I.e, A device that inflicts pain directly, through the nerves or the brain or whatnot. One that leaves no physical damage to its victim. Is this a torture device, or is it not?