Conservative talk show host waterboarded

[cristo]

There were other forms of torture used there. The prisoners were punched, kicked, and in other ways beaten, they were held nude for long periods, their families were threatened, they were sleep deprived, they were held in stress positions for hours upon end, they were denied access to a toilet and forced to go in a diaper, they were made to swear that they had renounced Islam (which goes against everything Islam stands for), and they were confined in a box.

...allegedly.

 

[russ_watters]

I was hoping that something like this would happen. Not having any knowledge of interrogation techniques or SERE, I haven't been able to hold an informed opinion about what is and isn't torture. But I always wondered why those who said it wasn't torture didn't try it. Sure, you won't be able to replicate it perfectly -- but you should be able to get some reasonable idea about it.

I applaud this talk show host (about whom I know nothing beyond the contents of this thread) for
1. testing his ideas
2. having the courage to change his opinion.

He's an idiot - and I don't use that word often.

He's not smart enough to realize the flaw in his method and those in this thread jumping on this love the irony so much, they also don't see it.

What we have here is a case of choosing the person least able to construct a rational definition to construct the definition (a person who seconds before had this done to them). Waterboarding was devised precisely because it causes people to rapidly lose the capacity for rational thought and self-control. For him to not realize this going in is beyond stupid. This isn't a game show. It's not "Fear Factor".

There must be more rational thought put into the question than 'I don't like it and don't want it done again.'

IMO, the way these debates go and the way the definition is constructed is like spitting on the graves of people who were tortued to death in Vietnamese (and other) prison camps. At the very least, rational people need to acknowledge that today, the definition of torture is being changed from what it traditionally meant. Whether a new age requires new rules or not, I'm not completely sure, but it is the height of simplistic non-thought to base a definition on this test.

So let's try putting some real thought into the issue and trying out some real definitions. Here are a couple of candidates:

1. Any technique that causes physical or emotional pain/discomfort as a coercion technique.
2. Any technique that causes physical or emotional injury as a coercion technique.

Note the difference and note that 2 is a subset of 1. Any thoughts on these definitions before I go further into the issue?

 

[russ_watters]

...allegedly.

Just to clarify/expand, discussion here should focus on the US national policy. Prisoners were most certainly punched/kicked (and worse) in some places, but that's a crime and many were prosecuted for it because it was against the law. The far more important and difficult question is drawing the actual line: deteriming what is acceptable. That is what the waterboarding debate is about. Bringing up the acknowledged crimes is an unrelated distraction that can only serve to steer the debate away from rationality.

 

[russ_watters]

Where is the line is irrelevant. What is relevant is to be as far as possible from the line, not as close as possible according to the official texts.

That's illogical/fantasy. You're missing the entire point of drawing lines. Besides which, if 'way over there' is what is acceptable, then you've just drawn your own line - way over there!

What's more, it is useless and naive. How can you apply it to real life? Does "as far as possible" mean we need to provide a personal chef and valet to each prisoner, build them each their own personal mansion to live in? Or is that not far enough? Certainly we could go further, so that's not as far as possible, right?

Such uselessness adds nothing to the discussion.

People subject to torture are usually not criminals since they have not even been proven guilty. Your argument indicates that you missed more than my point.

Jumping on a minor problem with wording proves you missed his. Change the word from "criminals" to "prisoners" and consider the question again.

 

[russ_watters]

You had people in Guantananamo who, accoding to the usual rules, were not required to cooporate with interrogations. It was decided that some of the people who did not cooporate would be waterboarded in order to make them so uncomfortable that they would choose to avoid it, which meant they had to decide to cooporate with interrogations.

This alone almost surely implies that waterboarding is torture. If it were not torture, it would not have worked and some other technique would have been applied.

So let's construct a third definition of torture, based on the above:

3. Any coercive interrigation technique.

Anyone else see any problems with such a broad definition?

 

[russ_watters]

Just to clarify here, I don't know if waterboarding is torture or not. The fact of the matter is, I keep going back and forth on the issue. But what I do know for certain is that the way people approach the question is illogical and wrong.

What's more, unless we include the word "illegal" as part of the definition, defining "torture" is only half of the issue. There are things that might be illegal (or legal) even though they would fall outside the definition, for example.

 

[Gokul43201]

He's not smart enough to realize the flaw in his method and those in this thread jumping on this love the irony so much, they also don't see it.

Or so you claim. Here's a counter-example: I loved the irony of it, but I was aware of the flaw.

I find the Mancow story interesting from a purely political point of view. I don't think it sheds any additional light on the debate of whether waterboarding is torture.

 

[russ_watters]

Or so you claim. Here's a counter-example: I loved the irony of it, but I was aware of the flaw.

I don't see your point - did you misread what I said? Heck, I love the irony too. So what?

 

[ExactlySolved]

That's illogical/fantasy. You're missing the entire point of drawing lines. Besides which, if 'way over there' is what is acceptable, then you've just drawn your own line - way over there!

What's more, it is useless and naive. How can you apply it to real life? Does "as far as possible" mean we need to provide a personal chef and valet to each prisoner, build them each their own personal mansion to live in? Or is that not far enough? Certainly we could go further, so that's not as far as possible, right?

Clearly you failed to understand the argument. The point is that we don't know exactly where the line is, but somethings fall clearly into the 'bad treatment' category like vietcong genital electroshock, and other things fall clearly in the "acceptable treatment" category such as the way we treat prisoners who are US citizens. Obviously the line between good and bad treatment exists between these clear cases; your hypothetical about 'personal mansions' is an absurd staw-man argument.

The point is that no information we could possibly gain from detainees by waterboarding, genital slashing, etc, even if it prevented a 9/11 scale attack, could be more valuable then America's honor. The fact that supporters of waterboarding are letting their fear overcome their humanity makes them a disgrace to this country, and ultimately a regressive force in human history.

I think most supporters of torture, conciously or not, think that its easy to tell who the 'bad people' are, and that because they're obviously bad that they don't deserve to be treated like people who might be good. Everyone at gitmo belongs to a culuture that is non-white and non-protestant, so sadly the blowhards like Hannity and Mancow don't have to think for a second about whether the US ever detains people by mistake, it will never be them that is detained, so they support policies that are appropriate for 'enemies' but not for fellow humans.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't see your point - did you misread what I said?

Maybe I misunderstood it. What do you mean by "jumping on this"?

Heck, I love the irony too. So what?

You said that those people here who are jumping on this (does that include you and me?), and who love the irony (that does include you and me) are failing to see the flaw (obviously, does not include you or me). If the answer to the parenthetical question is 'yes', then this recreation of your statement is a contradiction.

 

[Count Iblis]

So let's construct a third definition of torture, based on the above:

3. Any coercive interrigation technique.

Anyone else see any problems with such a broad definition?

The definition has to be a bit less broad. To test if an interrogation technique is torture, we can take test persons who are instructed to not cooporate with interrogations. We take test persons who are phyisically fit, who are paid to undergo the experiment and who will get a significant bonus if they manage to resist the technique.

Then, if the test results are that almost none of the test persons can resist the technique, then the freedom of the people not to cooprate has been taken away due to physical distress.

 

[russ_watters]

Clearly you failed to understand the argument. The point is that we don't know exactly where the line is, but somethings fall clearly into the 'bad treatment' category like vietcong genital electroshock, and other things fall clearly in the "acceptable treatment" category such as the way we treat prisoners who are US citizens. Obviously the line between good and bad treatment exists between these clear cases; your hypothetical about 'personal mansions' is an absurd staw-man argument.

It isn't a strawman, it follows directly from the statement in the post I quoted: "as far as possible". That's where the absurd extreme comes from. I simply gave an example that fits that absurd extreme.

The point is that no information we could possibly gain from detainees by waterboarding, genital slashing, etc, even if it prevented a 9/11 scale attack, could be more valuable then America's honor.

That's a separate question and one I don't tend to agree with. There is a lot of "America's honor" lost on a day like 9/11 and I would have to weigh one against the other.

The fact that supporters of waterboarding are letting their fear overcome their humanity makes them a disgrace to this country, and ultimately a regressive force in human history.

I don't necessarily support it, but you are not giving the supporters of this enough credit. Few people in the US actually live in fear and I doubt it factors much into the equation. Most people want to take action to prevent this type of thing from happening again. Different people simply support different methods for attempting to prevent it.

The difficulty I have with eliminating it is that when you consider it in the context of an attack, it becomes pretty illogical. If someone is in the middle of carrying out an attack, few people would have any qualms about shooting them, yet many people shy away from doing something that causes no bodily harm whatsoever in what can be a very similar circumstance. Again, the criteria under which I might be willing to support it would have to be one of an imminent attack.

I think most supporters of torture, conciously or not, think that its easy to tell who the 'bad people' are, and that because they're obviously bad that they don't deserve to be treated like people who might be good.

You just put a fine point on where I think it might be acceptable, and that is in an extreme and extremely limited case where you know a person has operational knowledge of an impending attack. Ie, if you capture a guy on 9/10 while he's burning his notes and the title at the top of the one piece that didn't burn is 9/11 attack, then you can be pretty sure he has knowledge of an impending attack and the desire to get the information from him is very strong.

I certainly would not do it as a wholesale interrogation tactic. Besides the morality question, it is well known that it doesn't work in such cases. Interrogation in general can be problematic if the people doing it are not properly trained to avoid feeding the answers to the person they are interrogating.

 

[humanino]

How can you apply it to real life?

It's quite easy. Inflicting pain to obtain confession invalidates the possibility to prove the individual guilty in court altogether.

Does "as far as possible" mean we need to provide a personal chef and valet to each prisoner, build them each their own personal mansion to live in? Or is that not far enough? Certainly we could go further, so that's not as far as possible, right?

Certainly by turning my point into ridicule, you prove yourself much more clever, hey !?

Such uselessness adds nothing to the discussion. Jumping on a minor problem with wording proves you missed his. Change the word from "criminals" to "prisoners" and consider the question again.

No it's not useless. By assuming your individual is guilty and you only need to prove it, you can justify any mean to have him speak. By assuming the individual can be innocent, you have to accept that the use of torture is immoral.

 

[russ_watters]

Here's a question that might be tough to consider in the context of this discussion: why is it acceptable to torture our own soldiers as part of their training?

 

[humanino]

why is it acceptable to torture our own soldiers as part of their training?

Because they are likely to be subject to torture, by definition by the bad guys, and it will greatly help them handle the pain if it happens. I don't see what's difficult.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Here's a question that might be tough to consider in the context of this discussion: why is it acceptable to torture our own soldiers as part of their training?

I heard Rush bring this up just yesterday or the day before. I guess someone asked a politician who stated waterboarding is torture "Since you say waterboarding is torture and we use waterboarding on our soldiers as part of their training would you say that it is ok for America to torture its soldiers?"(paraphrased). Unfortunately the politician had no cajones and demured at the question. The answer should have been "Yes", soldiers undergo many procedures that could be defined as torture as part of their training and do so voluntarily. Hell, people voluntarily undergo treatment that could be called torture privately (and even not so privately) for the purpose of sexual gratification, among other reasons. The word "voluntarily" holds a lot of weight legally. Its not so tough a thought to consider.

 

[Phrak]

I remember hearing in the newsback when this first became a big story that some military higher ups had decided to under go waterboarding to determine for themselves what they thought of the practice. Apparently the best time was 12 seconds. I'm sure you can guess how they decided they felt about the procedure.


Different standards of credibility?
Perhaps if they were from Missouri too they would have said "show me" before spending the last year or so discussing the topic from an "uninformed" perspective?

hu-what?

 

[Gokul43201]

Here's a question that might be tough to consider in the context of this discussion: why is it acceptable to torture our own soldiers as part of their training?

For the same reason that it is acceptable for Mancow or Hitchens to submit themselves to waterboarding - they signed up for it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

hu-what?

How long has Mancow been espousing his opinion on waterboarding?
If I spend even a day espousing opinions on economics then read a book on the subject and retract my previous statements does this somehow magically erase the lack of credibility I exhibited the day before?

Edit: Or have I misunderstood whom it was you were referring to?

 

[Phrak]

How long has Mancow been espousing his opinion on waterboarding?
If I spend even a day espousing opinions on economics then read a book on the subject and retract my previous statements does this somehow magically erase the lack of credibility I exhibited the day before?

Edit: Or have I misunderstood whom it was you were referring to?

Sorry to be so obscure. I haven't been very clear in my intent. We seem to agree.

These radio jockeys are the pamphleteers or our time. The Thomas Paines. Talk radio has replaced the political tract. They live and breath, advance their Neilson ratings, and collects their checks on their ability to yank our chains. The ones that survive are the 'cream of the crop'.

To a man, if they can't yank your heart strings any which way they choose, they are failures in the profession of their choosing. They each have their shticks, from the loud mouthed Mancow to whatever works. This is their forte and their profession. No Nielsen ratings, no checkie in the mail. They vanish into obscurity.

So it's not really a matter of the credibility of these guys. They have none that should be recognised. I misspoke. It's more a question of one's immunity to brainwashing. Or put another way, are you as calloused as I?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

We seem to agree.
...
Or put another way, are you as calloused as I?

Ah, I misunderstood. Sorry about that.

I used to allow myself to be brainwashed, primarily on other topics, and when I did some reading and found I had been duped I became far more skeptical. Funny enough it was a determination to avoid what I "ought to" believe that got me brain washed.

 

[Al68]

Here's a question that might be tough to consider in the context of this discussion: why is it acceptable to torture our own soldiers as part of their training?

The same reason many are tear gassed in training. So they will understand the effect to a small degree.

As far as waterboarding being "torturous", of course it is. Why else would it be used? Why else would a religious zealot betray their own cause, and their God, at the expense of their eternal paradise with a bunch of virgins?

 

[ExactlySolved]

As far as waterboarding being "torturous", of course it is. Why else would it be used? Why else would a religious zealot betray their own cause, and their God, at the expense of their eternal paradise with a bunch of virgins?

We agree that waterboarding is torture, so hopefully we agree that saving *it doesn't matter how many* lives at the expense of our humanity and honor is a fool's trade. Anyone who is so afraid of death that they would commit monstrous acts on others is to be condemed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We agree that waterboarding is torture, so hopefully we agree that saving *it doesn't matter how many* lives at the expense of our humanity and honor is a fool's trade. Anyone who is so afraid of death that they would commit monstrous acts on others is to be condemed.

What I find particularly disturbing is that Cheney is using the "ends justify the means" argument and he doesn't see anything wrong with that. In fact he seems to be completely oblivious to it.

 

[mheslep]

I'd love to see that pus-bag Limbaugh waterboarded right alongside the too-snide jerk Cheney and see which one of those creeps broke first. Torture is torture, and the scenery-chewing ravings of these loons does not mitigate that. It would be nice to see them maintain their composure while being tortured though.

In addition to content already prohibited by our global forum guidelines, the following are specifically NOT permitted in Politics & World Affairs:
...
2) Statements of a purely inflammatory nature, regardless of whether it is a personal insult or not.

Does this mean anything anymore?

 

[atyy]

Here's a question that might be tough to consider in the context of this discussion: why is it acceptable to torture our own soldiers as part of their training?

Really? What torture do they go through? I don't know who your "own soldiers" are so could you state the country explicitly?

 

[atyy]

Because they are likely to be subject to torture, by definition by the bad guys, and it will greatly help them handle the pain if it happens. I don't see what's difficult.

I don't see this is necessarily true. Real torture is much presumably much worse than practice torture - to the point where practice may be pointless.

 

[atyy]

We agree that waterboarding is torture, so hopefully we agree that saving *it doesn't matter how many* lives at the expense of our humanity and honor is a fool's trade. Anyone who is so afraid of death that they would commit monstrous acts on others is to be condemed.

Well, if you torture them yourself, and don't get the people you are saving involved, you only sacrifice your humanity for the good of *it doesn't matter how many*. And it's not for your own death, it's for the death of *others*.

How about murder? Would it have been wrong to murder Hitler? Or is murder less monstrous than torture?

 

[humanino]

I don't see this is necessarily true. Real torture is much presumably much worse than practice torture - to the point where practice may be pointless.

Just to clarify, I agree with you. I was just answering "why is it acceptable ?" not "should it be done". They may do it wrong. I may even not find it acceptable myself. If the soldier undergoing torture training thinks it will help him, it's not my business.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, if you torture them yourself, and don't get the people you are saving involved, you only sacrifice your humanity for the good of *it doesn't matter how many*. And it's not for your own death, it's for the death of *others*.

You have betrayed the humanity of those you represent. We are talking about what the law allows here. It is a question of the quality of a nation and what it represents. You are also assuming that torture works, when we know it usually doesn't. You are more likely to get false information that will only delay your cause.

How about murder? Would it have been wrong to murder Hitler? Or is murder less monstrous than torture?

You would kill a man to get information? How does that work? Obviously we are talking about two different situations here.

The question is a bit unrealistic because we have the benefit of hindsight. But even the police can shoot a person who poses a direct and imminent threat to them or someone else. If killing Hitler was the only way to stop him, then it is pretty easy to justify taking him out. But that is not to say that he should be murdered if other options exist, such as arrest and imprisonment.

 

[Cyrus]

Really? What torture do they go through? I don't know who your "own soldiers" are so could you state the country explicitly?

The United States.

 

[phyzmatix]

You are also assuming that torture works, when we know it usually doesn't. You are more likely to get false information that will only delay your cause.

You've just made me think of something else here...why did they torture these people if those so-called "truth drugs" exist? Or are those drugs also unreliable?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You've just made me think of something else here...why did they torture these people if those so-called "truth drugs" exist? Or are those drugs also unreliable?

They're essentially like getting a guy drunk and getting him to talk about how he cheated on his wife. Except they are more powerful than booze. There is no real way to make someone tell the truth, only get them in a state of mind where they are more likely to do so.

 

[atyy]

You have betrayed the humanity of those you represent. We are talking about what the law allows here. It is a question of the quality of a nation and what it represents. You are also assuming that torture works, when we know it usually doesn't. You are more likely to get false information that will only delay your cause.

The argument that torture doesn't work is a separate, practical one. It is so often presented with the moral one, that it appears that those who present the moral one don't believe it sufficiently strong, and need the practical one. If the moral one is not correct, then why not just present the practical one? If the moral one is correct, it should not be weakened by presenting it with an irrelevant (to the moral issue) practical one.

 

[turbo]

The argument that torture doesn't work is a separate, practical one. It is so often presented with the moral one, that it appears that those who present the moral one don't believe it sufficiently strong, and need the practical one. If the moral one is not correct, then why not just present the practical one? If the moral one is correct, it should not be weakened by presenting it with an irrelevant (to the moral issue) practical one.

Good points.

The people who support torture often use another argument - the ends justify the means. The Cheney/Limbaugh crowd like to point to the fact that nobody has flown jetliners into landmark buildings since 9/11 and say that the "War on Terror" including renditions in foreign prisons, torture, etc, have "kept America safe" with NO proof that the information gathered through torture was accurate, meaningful, or related to any significant danger to Americans.

To the contrary, pictures of prisoners being sexually degraded and humiliated, and reports of the US's treatment of prisoners in foreign prisons are the perfect recruiting tools for radical fundamentalist groups. Those reports and images show Americans to be brutal, evil people, and help justify extreme actions against us. Most at-risk are our service-people, who are exposed to asymmetrical attacks, and may be subjected to atrocities if they are captured. I have a nephew who is career-military, as is his wife, and a niece who is a Lt. in the National Guard, and I know many other people in this rural area who have loved ones in the military. It really makes me sick when chicken-hawks who never served root for torture and other abusive treatment of prisoners, when by doing so they are increasing the risks faced by our troops.

Let's add this argument to the "con" side. The US should never torture captives because we don't want our enemies to feel justified in doing the same to our troops.