Waterboarding Rocks!

[A'isha]

I'm not going to play his game, David. Or I'll be here all day addressing a dozen hypothetical scenarios from each and every one of those on the other side of this issue.

No, that's not why you avoided my question.

Because unlike them, I would have to think about each case individually and it's implications (because I'm not responding in a purely emotional way like they are).

...says the person creating a hypothetical so ridiculous it'd be rejected by the producers of "24" and basically boils down to "torture and kill someone or meeeeellions of innocent people will die right now!"

Nope, no emotional responses from him at all, nosiree.

Now don't chicken out, David, like so many others.

Mmmm...thick, rich, delicious, creamy hypocrisy.

 

[Praktik]

And yet the Convention does not consider sleep deprivation torture. Manson has been kept in isolation 23 hours a day many times during the last 35+ years of his incarceration. Are you going to write your Congressman to stop the Corcoran Prison from subjecting Manson to isolation because it can result in psychological problems?

I am not represented by any congressmen - I got a Member of Parliament and a Member of Provincial Parliament and I would be fully behind the ending of solitary confinement in all Canadian jails given the empirical evidence demonstrating not just its harm to the individual, but its harm to society due to increased rates of recividism and crime on the part of those subjected to it.

But up here we have a different view of justice than you guys - less punitive, more focus on rehabilitation.

 

[Cicero]

Strange, then, that they picked the mildly unpleasant technique of waterboarding which, according to you, only causes "temporary discomfort" to perform on the same prisoners that they would beat, burn, and starve. Why do you think that is, Cicero? Wanting to give their victims a little break during their torments?

According to me? No. According to Chris Hitchens who actually equivocated about the experience. Considering that the Japanese would continue to do this to their prisoners, who had been in their custody so long that any military information gleaned would prove valueless, there is no rhyme or reason other than they enjoyed dispensing cruelty.

However, why not ask the reverse of the question. Why did the Japanese employ other methods simultaneously if waterboarding alone was sufficient agony?

 

[A'isha]

You really are desperate to defend your views on moral equivalency.

You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.

And you haven't been listening because that question has been answered.

No it hasn't, and especially not by you.

But if you want to answer a question for me, I still have one posed directly to you that you haven't answered...

 

[Cicero]

I am not represented by any congressmen - I got a Member of Parliament and a Member of Provincial Parliament and I would be fully behind the ending of solitary confinement in all Canadian jails given the empirical evidence demonstrating not just its harm to the individual, but its harm to society due to increased rates of recividism and crime on the part of those subjected to it.

But up here we have a different view of justice than you guys - less punitive, more focus on rehabilitation.

Thanks. All we need is a "rehabilitated" Charles Manson to turn loose on society. Wow!

 

[Praktik]

Thanks. All we need is a "rehabilitated" Charles Manson to turn loose on society. Wow!

Not everyone in solitary confinement is Charles Manson. We DO have life in prison up here you know..

 

[Upchurch]

However, why not ask the reverse of the question. Why did the Japanese employ other methods simultaneously if waterboarding alone was sufficient agony?

Perhaps because "agony" is not synonymous with "effective".

 

[Cicero]

Not everyone in solitary confinement is Charles Manson.

Correct. Many are much worse.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

When it comes to the application of true torture, is there really a hierarchy of abomination?

Yes. I think some forms of torture are more heinous than others. However, they're all illegal and immoral and not practical in the long run.

If America is in the torture business, why not use all methods? In for a penny, in for a pound.

I think the approach of people who think they can justify it (Gonzo and Yoo for examples), the idea is that if you narrow the definition of torture from that which we already agreed to and codified into law, you can treat some forms of torture as if they weren't actually torture. Then you can do what Dubya did and stand before the American people and the world saying that the U.S. does not torture.

I think the "in for a penny, in for a pound" thinking probably does apply to their approach. Bush made that public denial, for example, after the Dilawar case (and others) where U.S. agents tortured prisoners to death.

You, and other detractors, keep insisting that waterboarding is useless in getting "reliable" and "useful" (and now the added caveat of "legally" obtained) information. When accused witches were tortured in Salem, Massachusetts in order to get them to admit to being witches, they were not then asked to perform feats of witchcraft to prove what they said was true.

I find that a mind boggling approach.

Are you suggesting that suspected terrorists were made to perform acts of terror to prove that what they said was true? You think when someone named names under torture, they simultaneously produced admissable evidence of their allegations?

 

[Praktik]

I find that a mind boggling approach.

Are you suggesting that suspected terrorists were made to perform acts of terror to prove that what they said was true? You think when someone named names under torture, they simultaneously produced admissable evidence of their allegations?

I was also boggled on that one. So boggled, I couldnt even formulate a question to figure out exactly what he meant - but I was thinking along your lines.

 

[Cicero]

Perhaps because "agony" is not synonymous with "effective".

Except the Japanese were not motivated by anything other than inflicting as much agony for as long as possible on their POW's. Whether they died in their custody was not of the slightest interest to them.

 

[Upchurch]

Whether they died in their custody was not of the slightest interest to them.

Is it to you?

 

[BeAChooser]

The part where it says "The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."

Of course, you yourself pointed out that you are reading from the "Army Interrogation Manual prior to Bush taking office" which means prior to our rude awakening that terrorists were willing to cross the WMD threshold and murder tens of thousands (because that's what they tried to do on 9/11), and were seeking weapons that could kill hundreds of thousands in a fell swoop. Things changed on 9/11 but you are apparently one of those for whom they didn't.

Why must we use waterboarding, instead of the other "harmless yet effective" techniques that were considered good enough for the US Army during a potental war with the Soviet Union.

Hint, hint ... something to do with the time available to get an answer? Something to do with how important getting that answer in a timely fashion might be? You know, the concerns that have been mentioned over and over and over on this thread.

And by the way, I notice that you never responded to my response to your earlier claims that since previous methods were "good enough" to wage the struggle against the "evil empire" they are obviously "good enough" in this one. Like David observed, "that really puts things in perspective."

 

[A'isha]

According to me? No. According to Chris Hitchens who actually equivocated about the experience.

No he didn't, not in the least.

t was difficult for me to completely forget the clause in the contract of indemnification that I had signed. This document (written by one who knew) stated revealingly:

“Water boarding” is a potentially dangerous activity in which the participant can receive serious and permanent (physical, emotional and psychological) injuries and even death, including injuries and death due to the respiratory and neurological systems of the body.

As the agreement went on to say, there would be safeguards provided “during the ‘water boarding’ process, however, these measures may fail and even if they work properly they may not prevent Hitchens from experiencing serious injury or death.”

...

Steeling myself to remember what it had been like last time, and to learn from the previous panic attack, I fought down the first, and some of the second, wave of nausea and terror but soon found that I was an abject prisoner of my gag reflex. The interrogators would hardly have had time to ask me any questions, and I knew that I would quite readily have agreed to supply any answer. I still feel ashamed when I think about it. Also, in case it’s of interest, I have since woken up trying to push the bedcovers off my face, and if I do anything that makes me short of breath I find myself clawing at the air with a horrible sensation of smothering and claustrophobia.

...

I apply the Abraham Lincoln test for moral casuistry: “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.” Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.[/B]

Considering that the Japanese would continue to do this to their prisoners, who had been in their custody so long that any military information gleaned would prove valueless, there is no rhyme or reason other than they enjoyed dispensing cruelty.

As opposed to those in the CIA, who dispensed a very measured cruelty that hopefully they did not enjoy, but nevertheless did it anyway.

However, why not ask the reverse of the question. Why did the Japanese employ other methods simultaneously if waterboarding alone was sufficient agony?

Where do you get that ridiculous idea? One might as well ask why the Inquisition had to use both the rack and the blazing hot pincers to rend flesh.

 

[Cicero]

Are you suggesting that suspected terrorists were made to perform acts of terror to prove that what they said was true? You think when someone named names under torture, they simultaneously produced admissable evidence of their allegations?

You suggested the Salem Trials were a valid analogy in the uselessness of waterboarding the three detainees. Since it was impossible to verify the validity of a person confessing to be a witch, how could it be analogous to a detainee confessing to being part of the 9/11 plot, and to having information to future possible attacks? The distinctions between the two should be obvious even to you.

 

[Upchurch]

Because it won't go away just because you ignore it:

BAC, read about integrity.

Cicero, you have something to learn from these old guys, as well. If you don't feel ashamed, there is something wrong with you.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You suggested the Salem Trials were a valid analogy in the uselessness of waterboarding the three detainees. Since it was impossible to verify the validity of a person confessing to be a witch, how could it be analogous to a detainee confessing to being part of the 9/11 plot, and to having information to future possible attacks? The distinctions between the two should be obvious even to you.

Are you saying that we only torture prisoners when we can validate what they tell us?

You asked why people talk when they are tortured. I said for the same reason anyone talks when they are tortured, including those who confessed to impossible things like witchcraft. I further pointed out that this unreliability of information gleaned from torture is the reason why such information is inadmissable as evidence in any legitimate court. Indeed, torture could ruin a prosecution against a bad guy.

You seemed to say that the witchcraft torture is somehow different than other torture, because the suspected witches didn't give demonstrations of what they claimed. I pointed out that suspected terrorists who are tortured also refrain from giving demonstrations that prove what they are saying while being coerced by torture.

Now. . . you're claiming that torturing an accused witch is somehow different in torturing an accused terrorist with respect to the reliability of the information that is given. You're wrong. People--including those innocent of any crime at all--will confess to crimes or say whatever else they think you want to hear when severe pain is being inflicted on them.

ETA: Just to make this clear: I am making no analogy whatsoever. I'm speaking of an example of torture that resulted in forced confessions that are known to be utterly worthless. There is no analogy at all. People accused of witchcraft were sometimes tortured, and they confessed to being witches because of the torture. Since I'm sure we all agree there is no reality to the fantastic claims of witchcraft, we can agree that those confessions were worthless.

 

[Cicero]

No he didn't, not in the least.

t was difficult for me to completely forget the clause in the contract of indemnification that I had signed. This document (written by one who knew) stated revealingly:

“Water boarding” is a potentially dangerous activity in which the participant can receive serious and permanent (physical, emotional and psychological) injuries and even death, including injuries and death due to the respiratory and neurological systems of the body.

As the agreement went on to say, there would be safeguards provided “during the ‘water boarding’ process, however, these measures may fail and even if they work properly they may not prevent Hitchens from experiencing serious injury or death.”

...



Steeling myself to remember what it had been like last time, and to learn from the previous panic attack, I fought down the first, and some of the second, wave of nausea and terror but soon found that I was an abject prisoner of my gag reflex. The interrogators would hardly have had time to ask me any questions, and I knew that I would quite readily have agreed to supply any answer. I still feel ashamed when I think about it. Also, in case it’s of interest, I have since woken up trying to push the bedcovers off my face, and if I do anything that makes me short of breath I find myself clawing at the air with a horrible sensation of smothering and claustrophobia.

...

I apply the Abraham Lincoln test for moral casuistry: “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.” Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.[/B]



As opposed to those in the CIA, who dispensed a very measured cruelty that hopefully they did not enjoy, but nevertheless did it anyway.



Where do you get that ridiculous idea? One might as well ask why the Inquisition had to use both the rack and the blazing hot pincers to rend flesh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tSiiWSU7SA

3:35 to 4:40 in the video. Hitchens says about his own experience, "that if you can stand it for two times it is not torture....."

 

[BeAChooser]

They cracked under torture for precisely the same reason people who have confessed to witchcraft and such cracked under torture.

Seems to me you are claiming that the allegations against KSM and the al-Qaeda operatives that were waterboarded have no more basis than the allegations made against people at the Salem witch trials? Wow, the lengths to which you people will go to defend your outrageous (dangerous) views on moral equivalency.

As has been pointed out, torture is effective at making people crack. It is not effective at getting reliable and legally useful information or confessions.

We don't know that, especially where waterboarding and some of the other methods the liberals are now whining about is concerned (I know you like to label them "torture" because that paints a certain picture of the uninformed mind, but if you were honest you'd at least acknowledge that there are shades of severity when it comes to "torture"). We have conflicting statements coming from those who were involved in the interrogations at to waterboarding's effectiveness, so we really don't know the truth about your statement where THIS form of "torture" is concerned. The only way we will know is if Obama releases all the documents and intel materials needed to make that judgement.

I can't help but notice that your side of this debate has steered away from my question whether you'll join me in demanding that Obama release those materials so we can actually resolve this issue. I can't help but notice that your side in this debate has offered no response to observations about what it might mean if Obama doesn't release the materials but instead lets rumor and a complicit press and emotion make these important decisions.

 

[Praktik]

I further pointed out that this unreliability of information gleaned from torture is the reason why such information is inadmissable as evidence in any legitimate court. Indeed, torture could ruin a prosecution against a bad guy.

Do Cicero and BeAChooser support changing the criminal justice system to admit evidence gleaned from torture?

After all, if they claim that torture can produce solid evidence, then why shouldn't that be admitted in a court for later prosecution?