Mancow got waterboarded

[Toke]

That's weird. Are you missing a lung or part of one? I'm pretty sure the human body floats unless the lungs fill with water.

Maybe I'm wrong?

I have always been pretty skinny and ended up floating with only the crown of my head above water. Not very usefull.
It works slightly better in seawater, but still not enough to breathe.

 

[BeAChooser]

If you're going to run the old "West Coast 9/11" nonsense by us as "evidence," save it. That crap was discredited almost the moment it came out. Try again or post a link that isn't the LA "plots."

Here, as posted on this forum many times already:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDE5YTNmZTg5OWUyOTlkMGUxOTk3OGMxY2I4ZDQ4YWQ=

Summarizing the facts claimed in it one could say ...

1) On 9/11 a terrorist plot horrifically murdered over 3000 innocent men, women and children in the United States.

2) We captured the mastermind of that plot, a man with the initials KSM. He was a man so evil that he actually plotted the death of 30,000 people and managed to murder over 3000.

3) KSM was interrogated by conventional means and yes, he did reveal some information, but apparently nothing that he didn't already think we knew. They were totally unable to get him to reveal information about any ongoing or still planned plots, and he did not give up the names of any other terrorists that he thought we didn't already know.

4) When asked what al-Qaeda plots were in the works, KSM told the interrogators that "Soon, you will know". So here was a terrorist, who they already knew had masterminded the killing of 3000+ people in a horrific manner; who destroyed four commercial passenger jets and a complex of skyscrapers to do it; who caused a trillion dollars in damage to an economy overall; and who damaged the psyche of an entire nation, and he was leading investigators to believe that "soon" there would be other such calamities.

5) And those investigators knew that there were indeed other plots underway. They knew that the terrorist organization was large, with many members. They knew that KSM was high enough in the al-Qaeda organization to know about some of the plots. In fact, they'd already discovered that he looked into crop dusters before he was caught ... planes whose only terrorist use might be to spread some form or biological or chemical weapon, which it was feared they might have obtained. So if nothing else, they suspected that might be an ongoing plot.

6) So they decided to waterboard him. And after getting nothing out of KSM by conventional interrogation, that he didn't think they already knew, he broke in minutes and started telling them things about ongoing plots and the names of other terrorists. Sure, he continued to resist, week they learned many things that indeed did prevent the loss of many additional lives (and not just Americans).

7) The article I linked lists some of the life saving facts they learned from waterboarding KSM and the two other top al-Qaeda members. As result of the information they obtained, they captured multiple additional terrorists ... terrorists who they hadn't known anything about even after months of conventional interrogation ... terrorists who were actively plotting additional mass murders at the time they were caught ... terrorists who were involved in the mass murder plots that had already taken place or that had been involved in plots that had been stopped.

8) And as pointed out in that article, one the plots (carrying out simultaneous attacks on the consulate, western residences and westerners at the local airport in Karachi) was stopped only days before it was completed. And the only reason that happened is that we used enhanced interrogation techniques on another captive.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have always been pretty skinny and ended up floating with only the crown of my head above water. Not very usefull.
It works slightly better in seawater, but still not enough to breathe.

Goodness, you have to be horizontal with your chest to the surface. You put your face up. You want your chest (IE lungs) to be the buoy.

Maybe you guys need to practice floating. Have a swim teacher show you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here, as posted on this forum many times already:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDE5YTNmZTg5OWUyOTlkMGUxOTk3OGMxY2I4ZDQ4YWQ=

Summarizing the facts claimed in it one could say ......

If the information obtained by torture was useful (because I am not convinced the evidence is there given that Cheney has been caught in lie after lie and stands to gain from lying about this)

• there is still no evidence the information could not have been obtained by other means,
• there no evidence torture provides useful information in general since people will say anything if you torture them,
• there is a consensus among military interrogators that torture is not an effective means of interrogation,
• you run the risk of torturing innocent people (which we did),
• you waste a lot of resources chasing false leads,
• and you do more harm than good.

Those Abu Ghraib pictures have done tremendous harm to this country.

 

[King of the Americas]

Here, as posted on this forum many times already:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDE5YTNmZTg5OWUyOTlkMGUxOTk3OGMxY2I4ZDQ4YWQ=

Summarizing the facts claimed in it one could say ...

1) On 9/11 a terrorist plot horrifically murdered over 3000 innocent men, women and children in the United States.

2) We captured the mastermind of that plot, a man with the initials KSM. He was a man so evil that he actually plotted the death of 30,000 people and managed to murder over 3000.

3) KSM was interrogated by conventional means and yes, he did reveal some information, but apparently nothing that he didn't already think we knew. They were totally unable to get him to reveal information about any ongoing or still planned plots, and he did not give up the names of any other terrorists that he thought we didn't already know.

4) When asked what al-Qaeda plots were in the works, KSM told the interrogators that "Soon, you will know". So here was a terrorist, who they already knew had masterminded the killing of 3000+ people in a horrific manner; who destroyed four commercial passenger jets and a complex of skyscrapers to do it; who caused a trillion dollars in damage to an economy overall; and who damaged the psyche of an entire nation, and he was leading investigators to believe that "soon" there would be other such calamities.

5) And those investigators knew that there were indeed other plots underway. They knew that the terrorist organization was large, with many members. They knew that KSM was high enough in the al-Qaeda organization to know about some of the plots. In fact, they'd already discovered that he looked into crop dusters before he was caught ... planes whose only terrorist use might be to spread some form or biological or chemical weapon, which it was feared they might have obtained. So if nothing else, they suspected that might be an ongoing plot.

6) So they decided to waterboard him. And after getting nothing out of KSM by conventional interrogation, that he didn't think they already knew, he broke in minutes and started telling them things about ongoing plots and the names of other terrorists. Sure, he continued to resist, week they learned many things that indeed did prevent the loss of many additional lives (and not just Americans).

7) The article I linked lists some of the life saving facts they learned from waterboarding KSM and the two other top al-Qaeda members. As result of the information they obtained, they captured multiple additional terrorists ... terrorists who they hadn't known anything about even after months of conventional interrogation ... terrorists who were actively plotting additional mass murders at the time they were caught ... terrorists who were involved in the mass murder plots that had already taken place or that had been involved in plots that had been stopped.

8) And as pointed out in that article, one the plots (carrying out simultaneous attacks on the consulate, western residences and westerners at the local airport in Karachi) was stopped only days before it was completed. And the only reason that happened is that we used enhanced interrogation techniques on another captive.

Ends justify the means...

And, if he hadn't known anything helpful, then we just tortured/waterboarded a guy for nothing.

I whole heartedly reject the above rational for waterboarding anyone even some like KSM.

 

[Toke]

Goodness, you have to be horizontal with your chest to the surface. You put your face up. You want your chest (IE lungs) to be the buoy.

Maybe you guys need to practice floating. Have a swim teacher show you.

I know that.
Have spent countless hours of my youth both as competition swimmer and one or twice weekly for fun.
The problem is that even if I start in approporiate position straiten my body and relax, I still don´t have enough bouancy to keep more than the crown of my head above water.

Body fat and lungs have positive bouancy, the rest negative.
I happen to be skinny.

 

[negativ]

Here, as posted on this forum many times already:

Do you thoroughly disagree with this assessment?

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090420_torture_and_u_s_intelligence_failure

Defenders of torture frequently seem to believe that the person in custody is known to have valuable information, and that this information must be forced out of him. His possession of the information is proof of his guilt. The problem is that unless you have excellent intelligence to begin with, you will become engaged in developing baseline intelligence, and the person you are torturing may well know nothing at all. Torture thus becomes not only a waste of time and a violation of decency, it actually undermines good intelligence. After a while, scooping up suspects in a dragnet and trying to extract intelligence becomes a substitute for competent intelligence techniques — and can potentially blind the intelligence service. This is especially true as people will tell you what they think you want to hear to make torture stop.

Also - and I am very curious to know this - would you be in favor of allowing civilian law enforcement to use waterboarding in interrogation of, say, murder suspects?

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, first let me say, I'm in full agreement with those who say that torture is bad because a) it doesn't work and b) we ought to be better than that anyway.

However, I can't help but wonder if the success above was due to a good-cop bad-cop reaction. In other words, the man being questioned knew there was the potential for torture (the bad cop) and the contrast in treatment was what softened him up.

If so, it's an elegant solution: using torture to extract information without needing to actually torture anyone. But of course the problem is that the bluff can't work forever, unless enough people are actually tortured to prove it isn't a bluff.

Actually, I think it can also be just "good cop".

Psychologically, to try to kill someone, you try to dehumanize them first. "They're the great satan, the murderers, bla, bla, bla. Why, they're not even human."

That's the lesson these guys heard and told themselves.

So here you have the enemy actually caring about your diabetes. Maybe they're not mosters after all, you know? Maybe you can actually talk to them?

Or if you want to see it as good cop / bad cop, in a way for this guy the diabetes was already the "bad cop" there. It doesn't take any further threat, other than what he already knows: you could just let him die of that, if you wanted to. He already ran that possibility through his head on his own, likely before he even saw the inside of the cell. All it took was adding the "good cop" into that mix.

 

[GreyICE]

In case you go back in the water, inflated lungs will keep people afloat if they don't have any counter weights on. Take a deep breath as you start to sink. Stay calm. Wait for your inflated lungs to bring you back to the surface. You can breathe short fast breaths and keep your lungs inflated while still breathing.

It's amazing. People who have never been in a panic situation post stuff like this.

Why do you think the military breaks its front line troops in drills the way it does? So when you are in a panic situation you react properly.

This involves literally breaking your normal reflexes, and replacing them with the reflexes you actually need.

That's a bit more complex than 'read a book.'

P.S. A certain percentage of the population sinks. Most happen to be black, some happen to be white. All have a very low percentage of body fat (probably very similar to someone suffering from disease). These people are denser than water, with lungs inflated. Active muscle motion is needed to prevent drowning. The navy researched this, most swimmers know it.

 

[BeAChooser]

Do you thoroughly disagree with this assessment?

It's just one more OPINION among many. The fact is there are now two sides of this issue with supposed experts on both sides. The fact is that waterboarding has been used only by the CIA in three instances and they say it worked in each case and it saved lives. That's completely the opposite of what the other camp in this debate claims. So one side is lying. There is a way to know who is right. Obama should release whatever documents detail the interrogations, what was learned and how that intel saved lives. If he won't do this, I can only assume that Obama knows the documents back up the CIA version and that releasing them (even heavily redacted to protect information that is still useful or ongoing) would show his policy is unwise and some of his supporters are liars. If the CIA is lying, then I can see no reason why he isn't cleaning house. Or does he want a bunch of liars in the CIA giving him advice on national security? Does he want this issue settled through nonsense like what is going on in this thread and in the media? Perhaps he does and if so that not only reflects badly on him but is a danger to the country.

Also - and I am very curious to know this - would you be in favor of allowing civilian law enforcement to use waterboarding in interrogation of, say, murder suspects?

negativ, perhaps this will help you understand where I am coming from:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4782820&postcount=249

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's amazing. People who have never been in a panic situation post stuff like this.

Amazing, people who have learned how to manage panic post stuff like this.

I worked in ICU for years. When your patient crashes, your adrenalin reflex goes into overdrive. I learned to consciously relax and then act. It actually works.

I was also in a house fire. I managed to grab the key to the room that was on fire and a fire extinguisher, (the person who alerted me called the fire department) go to and unlock the door, pull the guy out of his burning room, and shut the door again. I then went up a smoke filled stairway and made sure everyone else got out of the house.

And I think I pretty much kept my cool when I fell through the ice in a lake.

So you really shouldn't make dumb assumptions about people.

Why do you think the military breaks its front line troops in drills the way it does? So when you are in a panic situation you react properly.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. Of course drills improve actions under pressure. Who said they wouldn't?

This involves literally breaking your normal reflexes, and replacing them with the reflexes you actually need.

Again, what's your point?

That's a bit more complex than 'read a book.'

I was speaking about learning how to float before one sinks. I think you may have been skimming posts here instead of reading them.

P.S. A certain percentage of the population sinks. Most happen to be black, some happen to be white. All have a very low percentage of body fat (probably very similar to someone suffering from disease). These people are denser than water, with lungs inflated. Active muscle motion is needed to prevent drowning. The navy researched this, most swimmers know it.

I'd love to see a reference about this. I thought everyone could float if they learned how and I've never heard otherwise. I'm all for learning something new, but I'd like some more evidence than just a thread post.

 

[GreyICE]

"Credibility."

And his ability to fly I assume?

 

[GreyICE]

I'd love to see a reference about this. I thought everyone could float if they learned how and I've never heard otherwise. I'm all for learning something new, but I'd like some more evidence than just a thread post.

Well, in response to your only salient point, I didn't find the original study, but I did find a study on human body density: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD639241&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Please note how every subject exceeds 1 gm/ml, which already makes them negatively buoyant in fresh water. Outlier at 1.088 (seawater 1.036), so... well, I don't think I need to prove anything to you really. Also... learn to float? Like really? How? Get fatter? Floating without using muscle movements isn't a SKILL it's a function of buoyancy (women are better at it than men).

As for all your other points I'll just notice that, in a thread about reflexive responses to mortal danger (waterboarding and drowning) you managed to list non-mortal situations which you equated. Nope, don't buy it. Reflexive responses to mortal danger are very difficult to conquer. Tell me your response to being set on fire rather than being in a house fire, and I might... not care about your anecdote, these responses are v. well documented.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, in response to your only salient point, I didn't find the original study, but I did find a study on human body density: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD639241&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Please note how every subject exceeds 1 gm/ml, which already makes them negatively buoyant in fresh water. Outlier at 1.088 (seawater 1.036), so... well, I don't think I need to prove anything to you really. Also... learn to float? Like really? How? Get fatter? Floating without using muscle movements isn't a SKILL it's a function of buoyancy (women are better at it than men).

Here's a more easily read citation:

Chemical determination of human body density in vivo: relevance to hydrodensitometry

TABLE 7
Body density (D) and chemical components expressed as a fraction (f) of body weight:

Density measured / D calculated
Males: 1.054 ±0.011 / 1.048 ± 0.013
Females: 1.028 ± 0.018 / 1.024 ± 0.015
Total: 1.038 ± 0.020 / 1.034 ± 0.018

Lung Volume from Wiki:
Total lung volume: Male: 6 liters, female: 4.7 liters.

Assuming body density calculations are based on deflated lungs but not on a subtraction of lung space altogether, expiratory reserve is about a liter.

The larger the person, the larger the lungs so we can calculate based on an average weight male with maximum lean body mass and rounding off numbers for ease of calculating, the density above water would be about .065 times say a 180 pound male and you get ~12 pounds. The question then is will a 5 liter air filled balloon float a 12 pound lead weight?

This site has air density and water density and a calculation feature, but I am confused as to why it shows air being more dense than water so I will ask someone else to take the calculations from here.

As for all your other points I'll just notice that, in a thread about reflexive responses to mortal danger (waterboarding and drowning) you managed to list non-mortal situations which you equated. Nope, don't buy it. Reflexive responses to mortal danger are very difficult to conquer. Tell me your response to being set on fire rather than being in a house fire, and I might... not care about your anecdote, these responses are v. well documented.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about here. I thought you were addressing my comments about using one's lungs to float. You're off in lala land trying to claim one must be on fire to learn how to not panic during a fire.

Perhaps you should restate your original misconception about what I posted so I can clear it up for you.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Total lung volume: Male: 6 liters, female: 4.7 liters.

Assuming body density calculations are based on deflated lungs but not on a subtraction of lung space altogether, expiratory reserve is about a liter.

Ok, first off: You're confusing terms here. Even at the maximum possible exhalation, there is still air in the lungs. That volume is known known as the residual volume. Depending on what is meant by "deflated", expiratory reserve volume (amount of air generally present in the lungs at the low ebb of standard, unconscious breathing that might still be forcibly exhaled) should -also- apply.

The larger the person, the larger the lungs so we can calculate based on an average weight male with maximum lean body mass and rounding off numbers for ease of calculating, the density above water would be about .065 times say a 180 pound male and you get ~12 pounds. The question then is will a 5 liter air filled balloon float a 12 pound lead weight?

If you're trying to determine whether the buoyancy provided by that miscalculated volume is enough to overcome a 12 pound downward force, the answer is no:

By archimedes principle, the net upward force is equal to the weight of displaced water - weight of substance. Using the 15 degree C listing for air density: (5 L X ( 1 g / ml) - 5 L X (1.225e-03 g / ml))= (5000 ml X (1 g / ml)) - (5000 ml X (1.225e-03))= 4,993 g = equivalent of 11.010 pounds

(Note: Although grams are technically a measure of mass rather than force, they can be used as a sort of force equivalent here because they are directly proportional - provided we make appropriate conversions when comparing to pounds, which are a measure of force)

This site has air density and water density and a calculation feature, but I am confused as to why it shows air being more dense than water so I will ask someone else to take the calculations from here.

It does not. Note:

D = ρ = 101325 / (287.05 × (15 + 273.15)) = 1.2250 kg/m3

15 999.10

(Being a table of temperature, 15 degrees C, versus density, 999.10, in kg/m3)

 

[Toke]

Well, in spite of being a good swimmer I am lousy at floating.

It has zero relevance at water torture.

 

[shadron]

It was a long time ago, but I managed to flumox the PE instructor I had in college by taking a breath and sitting on the floor of the swimming pool in 5' of water. I was a bit fat at the time (5'10", 160 lbs), but he swore that was simply impossible. He still gave me a C for trying to learn to swim.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ok, first off: You're confusing terms here. Even at the maximum possible exhalation, there is still air in the lungs. That volume is known known as the residual volume. Depending on what is meant by "deflated", expiratory reserve volume (amount of air generally present in the lungs at the low ebb of standard, unconscious breathing that might still be forcibly exhaled) should -also- apply.

I'm not confused. I subtracted the residual volume. You should read more carefully and also, note the dif between functional residual volume and residual volume. I make my living providing health care, I think I understand lungs. Of course maybe you didn't understand what expiratory reserve meant?

Assuming body density calculations are based on deflated lungs but not on a subtraction of lung space altogether, expiratory reserve is about a liter.

If you're trying to determine whether the buoyancy provided by that miscalculated volume is enough to overcome a 12 pound downward force, the answer is no:

Miscalculated on what basis, since you missed the part where I subtracted residual volume?

By archimedes principle, the net upward force is equal to the weight of displaced water - weight of substance. Using the 15 degree C listing for air density: (5 L X ( 1 g / ml) - 5 L X (1.225e-03 g / ml))= (5000 ml X (1 g / ml)) - (5000 ml X (1.225e-03))= 4,993 g = equivalent of 11.010 pounds

(Note: Although grams are technically a measure of mass rather than force, they can be used as a sort of force equivalent here because they are directly proportional - provided we make appropriate conversions when comparing to pounds, which are a measure of force)


It does not. Note:



(Being a table of temperature, 15 degrees C, versus density, 999.10, in kg/m3)

Since you didn't read my post carefully, I'll wait until you do for your recalculation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, in spite of being a good swimmer I am lousy at floating.

It has zero relevance at water torture.

Yes and I apologize for the sidetrack.

 

[Shadowdweller]

I'm not confused. I subtracted the residual volume. You should read more carefully and also, note the dif between functional residual volume and residual volume. I make my living providing health care, I think I understand lungs. Of course maybe you didn't understand what expiratory reserve meant?

Your pathetic claims to special expertise regarding a subject toward which you have demonstrated ineptitude are utterly irrelevant here. To refresh your memory:

Assuming body density calculations are based on deflated lungs but not on a subtraction of lung space altogether, expiratory reserve is about a liter.

(Bolding for clarity). Expiratory reserve is not (individually) relevant here (i.e. to your cited figures). I interpreted your use of the term to mean that you were subtracting expiratory reserve from Total Lung Capacity. If that was not the case, my apologies, but your approximation is still poorly made (i.e. miscalculated) in that that extra .2 L is significant when one is talking about a maximum of 6 L.

Since you didn't read my post carefully, I'll wait until you do for your recalculation.

Pity. Because if you had bothered to read -my- post with any degree of care, you would have noticed that I used your own miscalculated figures and assumptions.