Journalist learns WB not so much fun.... [Archive]

WillBrink

11-19-09, 11:53

I have no desire to do it. I am interested though to know if you can create a pressure in your nose to postpone water entry. Kind of like you do if you lie face UP in a swimming pool. Create pressure in your nose to keep the water out.

Note I just said postpone...

The person doing it seems to indicate, it sets off involuntary responses similar, I assume, to a gag response (as example only) that the person has very little control over. I'm sure a person can be trained to resist/delay the response, but no doubt, you will have to take that breath be it 5 seconds or 2 minutes, and that does not include the stress response, etc one would experience who didn't have the convenience of a "I don't wanna play no more" thingy to drop.

Still seems a $hit load better then getting your head cut off, but we wont go there...

chadbag

11-19-09, 11:55

The person doing it seems to indicate, it sets off involuntary responses similar, I assume, to a gag response (as example only) that the person has very little control over.

Exactly. He seemed to indicate it started with water in the nose which got me thinking about how to keep the water out of the nose.

But I agree, you might be able to train to postpone it. Not avoid it.

Thanks for the post. It was interesting to watch.

Willie_D

11-19-09, 16:28

There are beter videos on that site by the way.

-Will

6933

11-19-09, 17:33

Are you condemning waterboarding? Just askin'.

Gutshot John

11-19-09, 17:40

A-Bear680

11-20-09, 07:12

FWIW:
I can understand when it's been done to very senior criminal enemy combatants to save civilian lives. We really are better than they are.
And ( not but ) it's not even in the same ballpark with a bunch of perverts using an electric drill on a random 20 year old just for fun.

rickrock305

11-20-09, 07:38

All these journalists, despite their best efforts, are actually proving that it's not torture.

have you personally been waterboarded?

everyone who has seems to disagree with you.

Willie_D

11-20-09, 08:12

have you personally been waterboarded?

everyone who has seems to disagree with you.

I have been "Hazed" pretty 'harshly' - that and I am sure that just a military PT test most journalists would consider TORTURE. Especially when it is a PERSONAL REFLECTION by their limited purile view.

-Will

Gutshot John

11-20-09, 09:45

have you personally been waterboarded?

everyone who has seems to disagree with you.

Then why do we get a slew of journalists who repeatedly volunteer for it?

You don't see many volunteering for thumb screws or the rack do you?

While it may not be pleasant, while it may be scary, it causes no permanent physical or psychological damage as proven by the video.

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

jgalt

11-20-09, 10:12

My understanding is that the purpose is to make the person being water boarded feel as though they are drowning, causing a panic response and eventually a desire to do pretty much anything (ex. giving up info they'd rather not) to get it to stop.

This would not fall under any rational definition of torture, since it doesn't involve actual drowning, i.e. actual death or long-term physical injury, but rather panic due to feeling of drowning, i.e. there is little to no risk of actual death, and death is definitely not the purpose or goal...

Obviously, it would likely be a horrible experience, but there are lots of horrible experiences that cannot be defined as torture.

SWATcop556

11-20-09, 10:24

Nathan_Bell

11-20-09, 10:45

IMO it is torture in the strictest sense of the word, however, I agree that all of the journalist signing up to go through it just shows that the "long-term" damage is non-existent.

I'm all for it when it's use is controlled.

Yeah it would suck and be pretty intense, but as was stated earlier, your head, hands, fingers, etc are still attached.

...your intestines are still in your abdominal cavity, you do not have a glass rod shattered in your urethra, you do not have 16p nails in any major or minor joints. you have no extra holes in your testicles, and you are not crippled through racking.

Byron

11-20-09, 10:45

I am not arguing for or against either side here.

I'm curious, however, if some people in this thread truly think that a few seconds of this procedure (in which the subject has no fear of those carrying out the test) has the same mental effect on a human being as hours of the same treatment in which the subject is questioning whether or not he'll make it.

In my mind, saying that any of these journalists' experience is relevant to mental implications is akin to having a subject take one puff on a cigarette and then claiming that you now have a decent sample to represent smokers.

Again, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I at least think we should look at the differences between a controlled experiment, short in duration, versus a technique that was sometimes used for much longer durations and without the same mental safety net.

Heartland Hawk

11-20-09, 12:03

He should have kept his pie-hole shut beforehand; that way he wouldn't look like such a tool.

Jerm

11-20-09, 12:49

Again, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I at least think we should look at the differences between a controlled experiment, short in duration, versus a technique that was sometimes used for much longer durations and without the same mental safety net.

Maybe something like being dunked under water as a kid until the point of panic and real fear of drowning...Coughing up water...And then being dunked some more?

Definately not pleasant.But torture?

I just thought it was called a weekend.

...Maybe i'm way off in my idea of waterboarding.

cop1211

11-20-09, 22:17

I was waterboarded while I was in the Marine Corps in 1989.

It was during a POW course. We were picked up, stripped, put in orange pj's and blind folded. Got driven to god knows where on Camp Lejeune.

During the day the" instructors" were "Russian", during the night another fresh group of "instructors" were "Arabic".

It was a five day and night course. One night I got snatched up while I was asleep.
I was taken to the interogation tent hung upside down and then waterboarded.

They put a tshirt over my mouth and nose and let the water flow.

It wasnt fun by any means. But I wouldnt call it torture.
Torture would be to have your head cut off with a rusty, dull knife like our enemies do to civilians that they capture and put it on the internet.

It was proven that waterboarding SAVED AMERICAN LIVES, both miltary, and civilian.

That should be the only concern anyone has.

ST911

11-20-09, 22:28

Nevermind.

Leonidas

11-20-09, 22:40

All these journalists, despite their best efforts, are actually proving that it's not torture.

NO ONE volunteers to subject themselves to torture.

Substitute "water boarding" for "electroshock" "cutting" or "caning" or "physical mutiliation" and I'm sure you get lots fewer volunteers...in fact I bet you get none.

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.

WillBrink

11-21-09, 16:37

There are beter videos on that site by the way.

-Will

Such as? :D

rickrock305

11-21-09, 16:54

Then why do we get a slew of journalists who repeatedly volunteer for it?

because its sensational and garners ratings.

While it may not be pleasant, while it may be scary, it causes no permanent physical or psychological damage as proven by the video.

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.

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

i think its quite clear waterboarding falls under this definition.

rickrock305

11-21-09, 16:56

rickrock305

11-21-09, 16:58

It was proven that waterboarding SAVED AMERICAN LIVES, both miltary, and civilian.

That should be the only concern anyone has.

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.

Safetyhit

11-21-09, 17:02

This news just in, waterboarding not a pleasant experience...:rolleyes:

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...:D

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.

Safetyhit

11-21-09, 17:05

because its sensational and garners ratings.

And so having fingernails ripped off would have the same journalist appeal? Maybe being dislocated by the rack, perhaps.

:rolleyes:

Gutshot John

11-21-09, 17:13

because its sensational and garners ratings.

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.

6933

11-21-09, 17:38

All things considered, I'm for it.

rickrock305

11-21-09, 17:49

Exactly. No one would watch if it was really torture anymore than a reporter would undergo 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.

So they just keep waterboarding and waterboarding even if the person is willing to give them information?

apparently so. was it KSM that was waterboarded over 100 times?

WB doesn't really allow for much sadism. It's quick, effective and gets to the point WITHOUT harming them.

if its so quick and effective, why are Gitmo detainees being subjected to it hundreds of times?

Anything unpleasant can be defined as pain.

no, thats not really true. i find plenty of things unpleasant that are not painful.

The pain endured doesn't even come close to torture.

thats interesting. you admit to not having ever been waterboarded, yet you know exactly what its like?

As for being deadly? Who has died? I don't know of anyone, even opponents, who've made that claim.

you really think that pouring water down someone's mouth and nose doesn't have the possibility of being deadly? :confused:

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.

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 what objective standard?

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

That we don't use iron maidens and the like it's pretty clear we adhere to a higher standard.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Where did i say any such thing?

Gutshot John

11-21-09, 18:02

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.

WillBrink

11-21-09, 18:05

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...:D

Everyone talks after a creatine enima.....everyone...:cool:

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.

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...

rickrock305

11-21-09, 18:13

I think we all know where you stand.

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.

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.

i did no such thing.

Moreover there is ample legal justification in the case of an imminent terrorist act.

really? what legal justification do you speak of? anything to back this up?

That it has already saved hundreds if not thousands of American lives demonstrates its value. .

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?

Never bring a knife to a gunfight, as it is we're already demonstrating significant restraint.

i agree. i think our ROE are screwed up. but i believe we as a nation are above torturing people.

Interesting that you didn't mention the second definition. I know some people's marriages that would be considered torture under the first.

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.

Gutshot John

11-21-09, 18:34

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.

K.L. Davis

11-21-09, 18:36

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 :(

Safetyhit

11-21-09, 18:40

The realty is, as someone else said "America is not at war. America is at the mall. The US military is at war."

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.

chadbag

11-21-09, 18:49

apparently so. was it KSM that was waterboarded over 100 times?

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.

rickrock305

11-21-09, 19:11

Funny how you continually lob rhetorical bombs and then back away saying "I never said that."

Sorry but that's getting a bit old.

specifically what are you talking about? vague bullsh*t 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 sh*t.

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.

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?

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?

torture will not make the difference whether this war is won or lost.

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.

and we should keep those high standards. for example, the Geneva Convention (that we were a part of) that outlaws torture.

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.

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.

Safetyhit

11-21-09, 19:14

While senseless drama can always attract a crowd, I wonder if it is the desired kind.

Just a humble thought.

rickrock305

11-21-09, 19:18

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.

fair enough.

And it was very effective with KSM. He gave up lots of verifiably good info that helped them roll up lots of others.

for the third time, where is the proof? what do you have to back this up?

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.

again, torture is defined as

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

if you think college football causes someone anguish or agony, well maybe you should spend some more time with the dictionary.

and everyone who has been waterboarded seems to think its torture. Not just journalists either, I'm talking highly respected military people. I'll take their word for it before i do some people on the internet who have never experienced it themselves.

Gutshot John

11-21-09, 19:27

if you think college football causes someone anguish or agony, well maybe you should spend some more time with the dictionary.

Are you really that dense?

No one is saying a football game is actual torture. Only that the definition you're chosen can be applied to anything unpleasant or causes "mental anguish".

Under such a vague definition anything unpleasant can be defined as torture. Chose a definition that applies and makes actual sense...like the second one. Under that standard, WB doesn't even come close to torture which is why you're so intent on denying it.

You want to have your cake and eat it too. Lob bombs and then say "who? me?".

rickrock305

11-22-09, 11:43

Are you really that dense?

No one is saying a football game is actual torture. Only that the definition you're chosen can be applied to anything unpleasant or causes "mental anguish".

i never said a football game was torture. others have said that for some, watching football could be considered torture. and to that I reply that maybe one should spend a bit more time with the dictionary, looking up terms like "anguish" and "agony".

Under such a vague definition anything unpleasant can be defined as torture.

no, unpleasant is different from anguish.

Chose a definition that applies and makes actual sense...like the second one.

sorry you don't like the first main definition, but you posted it not me.

Under that standard, WB doesn't even come close to torture which is why you're so intent on denying it.

regardless of what the textbook definition says, everyone who has experiences it qualifies it as torture.

You want to have your cake and eat it too. Lob bombs and then say "who? me?".

again i ask, WTF are you talking about? you can't even back up any of your statements.

kwelz

11-22-09, 11:46

I can't say if water boarding is torture. If I had it done to me I would probably say yes. Now ask me if I care! ;)

WillBrink

11-22-09, 14:13

ETA: Thanks Will for the creatine enema image; talk about cruel and unusual :(

When WB does not work, they call me in...everyone talks then....:D

wake.joe

11-22-09, 14:33

I'm much more okay with Water Boarding than I would be with someone strapped down in a warehouse getting little shallow cuts and broken bones.

But some people in this world deserve shallow cuts and broken bones anyway.

William B.

11-22-09, 14:56

All these journalists, despite their best efforts, are actually proving that it's not torture.

NO ONE volunteers to subject themselves to torture.

Substitute "water boarding" for "electroshock" "cutting" or "caning" or "physical mutiliation" and I'm sure you get lots fewer volunteers...in fact I bet you get none.

Ditto. Remember when William Wallace was getting sliced up in Braveheart? That was torture. Or when Islamists sawed through Nick Berg's neck? That was torture, too. The Romans tortured Jesus Christ and noone stood up for Him, but in this day and age we've got people who take up for a rag-headed Islamic terrorist because somebody made him THINK he was drowning.
That was a really cool video, though.

rickrock305

11-22-09, 16:22

but in this day and age we've got people who take up for a rag-headed Islamic terrorist because somebody made him THINK he was drowning.

i just want to clarify...i'm in no way sticking up for or sympathizing with the terrorists. i just believe that we as a country are better than that. that we are above torturing people.

BushmasterFanBoy

11-22-09, 16:42

I've played around with it by having a few friends strap me down and pour water over a towel across my face, nothing close to a professional setting or even a correctly done I'm sure, but what startles me is how impossible it is to defeat. You're going to suffocate and drown, you're absolutely sure of it.

Would I call it torture? Hell no. Not even close. It's unpleasant, but nothing of the stuff that nightmares are made of. If I even toyed with it, that should be a hint.

Do I think our govt. should be trusted to use it? No. I don't want my govt. pushing the envelope with interrogation. It's not what America stands for. We're a country of liberty, and justice is served at the end of a trial. Yes, there are scumbags who deserve much, much more than traditional torture, let alone water boarding, but it has no place in the investigation.

If an attack is imminent, then use whatever means available, and explain later at an investigation what went on. There's no need to give carte blanche to govt. agencies to permit exceptionally rare cases of imminent danger. It might suck to have people have to explain actions that saved lives, but it sucks a lot less than handing over one tool after another for govt. to later abuse as it sees fit.

seb5

11-22-09, 17:17

i just want to clarify...i'm in no way sticking up for or sympathizing with the terrorists. i just believe that we as a country are better than that. that we are above torturing people.

By your statement you have decided that WB is indeed torture. If it is considered torture then I would be of the opinion that NO, we are not better than that. I believe we have come across an age old method of eliciting information that does not require a ball peen hammer, rack, electrical current, or some other pain technique that ends up leaving permanent scarring, disfigurement, or death. I'm all for it and couldn't care less that some ignorant **** that was trying to kill Americans and was fortunate enough to get caught versus killed on the spot is uncomfortable for awhile or even has need of long term counseling. Who cares? Not me.

We as a country have become so aware of being PC (Ft. Hood, not terrorism?), that we will allow our enemies to slowly tear us apart. They only have to plant the seed, which has been done. Then let our own in house apologists do their thing, then the apologist politicians can work their own magic to legislate away our ability to successfully win any war.

The biggest problem, with WB as I see it is that the public and the media even know anything about it. We as as nation do not have a need to know everything, nor the ability to even decide if it's right, wrong, necessary, or not. The average citizen has no business deciding how we should wage war. Why should 99% of the population decide how 1% will be allowed to protect them?

I think that as this type of PC war continues it will become harder and harder for the average line unit to get these types of prisoners. Joe Snuffy knows and will decide that it's not worth his life so the SOB can live pretty good, eat well, be catered to, and then released. I think you will find fewer and fewer prisoners.

Safetyhit

11-22-09, 17:28

Maybe we need to utilize to the old adage "Fight fire with fire" rather than the current one which seems to be "Always set the better example, no matter the civilian death toll".

I mean really, what a fu*king joke we have here. Sick of this stupid debate.

Do what needs to be done to save the innocent always.

Gunfighter.45

11-22-09, 19:07

Would using a blender be considered torture?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5UG7ISJfP0

William B.

11-22-09, 20:33

i just want to clarify...i'm in no way sticking up for or sympathizing with the terrorists. i just believe that we as a country are better than that. that we are above torturing people.

I respectfully disagree. The way I see it we didn't hurt the guy. All they did was make him think he was drowning. Some of our country's military training is harder than that. He didn't leave with any wounds or a limp or anything. Once they stopped water boarding him he was fine. I'm against torturing people, too. I just don't think that was torture.

William B.

11-22-09, 20:34

By your statement you have decided that WB is indeed torture. If it is considered torture then I would be of the opinion that NO, we are not better than that. I believe we have come across an age old method of eliciting information that does not require a ball peen hammer, rack, electrical current, or some other pain technique that ends up leaving permanent scarring, disfigurement, or death. I'm all for it and couldn't care less that some ignorant **** that was trying to kill Americans and was fortunate enough to get caught versus killed on the spot is uncomfortable for awhile or even has need of long term counseling. Who cares? Not me.

We as a country have become so aware of being PC (Ft. Hood, not terrorism?), that we will allow our enemies to slowly tear us apart. They only have to plant the seed, which has been done. Then let our own in house apologists do their thing, then the apologist politicians can work their own magic to legislate away our ability to successfully win any war.

The biggest problem, with WB as I see it is that the public and the media even know anything about it. We as as nation do not have a need to know everything, nor the ability to even decide if it's right, wrong, necessary, or not. The average citizen has no business deciding how we should wage war. Why should 99% of the population decide how 1% will be allowed to protect them?

I think that as this type of PC war continues it will become harder and harder for the average line unit to get these types of prisoners. Joe Snuffy knows and will decide that it's not worth his life so the SOB can live pretty good, eat well, be catered to, and then released. I think you will find fewer and fewer prisoners.

EXACTLY! Here the interrogators are trying to do the right thing by NOT hurting the guy and they were still labeled as the "bad guys."

scottryan

11-22-09, 22:02

Worse things happen in a frat house.

variablebinary

11-22-09, 23:10

Worse things happen in a frat house.

Aint that the truth. My hell week was freaking horrible. No doubt in my mind it was torture

Gutshot John

11-22-09, 23:27

Aint that the truth. My hell week was freaking horrible. No doubt in my mind it was torture

Never mind pledging a frat, boot camp definitely would be considered torture under the loose definitions applied by critics.

Prolonged sleep deprivation, stress positions, physical pain (the occasional beating) all fit the practices of torture described by these cretins.

Like WB however it's not really torture and God help us if we ever become so wussified that we start to view it as such.

We remain better, far better than our enemies. That critics can't or won't distinguish between REAL torture and waterboarding is indicative of the hollowness of their ideas or a persistent bad faith about their criticism of the US.

Belmont31R

11-22-09, 23:31

I may have a skewed view of things but I don't think its possible to torture someone involved in the murder of over 3k people. I count the people who died following 9/11 from breathing in toxic dust (for example) in that, too.

We got lots of information from the ****ers. I will leave it up to the CIA to decide how to obtain that information not some muslim appeaser and apologist who happens to be our president.

kwelz

11-22-09, 23:37

Prolonged sleep deprivation, stress positions, physical pain (the occasional beating) all fit the practices of torture described by these cretins.

Hell that sounds like double sessions in football. :P

rickrock305

11-23-09, 06:14

We got lots of information from the ****ers.

for the fourth time, what? i see people keep repeating this, yet noone can back it up with anything.

rickrock305

11-23-09, 06:27

bottom line, regardless of your personal opinions the general consensus and prevailing opinion of experts is that waterboarding is torture.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/

Torture includes such practices as searing with hot irons, burning at the stake, electric shock treatment to the genitals, cutting out parts of the body, e.g. tongue, entrails or genitals, severe beatings, suspending by the legs with arms tied behind back, applying thumbscrews, inserting a needle under the fingernails, drilling through an unanesthetized tooth, making a person crouch for hours in the ‘Z’ position, waterboarding (submersion in water or dousing to produce the sensation of drowning), and denying food, water or sleep for days or weeks on end.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/19/AR2007081901513.html

On August 19, 2007, the American Psychological Association (APA) voted to bar participation, to intervene to stop, and to report involvement in a wide variety of interrogation techniques as torture, including "using mock executions, simulated drowning, sexual and religious humiliation, stress positions or sleep deprivation"

and we as a country signed both the UN Convention Against Torture as well as the Geneva Conventions, both saying we do not torture.

and the effectiveness of torture, or lack thereof, is summarized in the 2006 Intelligence Science Board report "EDUCING INFORMATION, Interrogation: Science and Art, Foundations for the Future".

http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf

in summary, it doesn't produce reliable info. and we signed multiple treaties saying we do not engage in such practices.

Safetyhit

11-23-09, 07:52

Did somebody just say something?

Nah, must be the wind again...

Safetyhit

11-23-09, 07:55

Hell that sounds like double sessions in football. :P

You mean like when your calves are too sore to walk you to the practice field, but 5 minutes later you are somehow running full speed on them anyway?

Great memories indeed.

scottryan

11-23-09, 10:01

You mean like when your calves are too sore to walk you to the practice field, but 5 minutes later you are somehow running full speed on them anyway?

Great memories indeed.

This thread is full of beta males that were never in a fraternity, played football, or went to boot camp.

WillBrink

11-23-09, 10:57

This thread is full of beta males that were never in a fraternity.

Alpha males have to have been in a frat? :eek::rolleyes::eek:

kwelz

11-23-09, 11:07

You mean like when your calves are too sore to walk you to the practice field, but 5 minutes later you are somehow running full speed on them anyway?

Great memories indeed.

Haha More like your whole body felt like it was about to break and you somehow still managed to run up and down Bleachers for another 10 minutes. I don't know how scary active Drill Instructors are, but if they are half as bad as my old coach I am sorry for all your guys in the service. My old coach had been a DI in his day, I think that is why he took such pleasure in our suffering.

bkb0000

11-23-09, 15:50

all it takes is 2 people, a rag, some water, a slight incline and rope... everyone's debating this practice like it's some elite mystical art "buncha people who've never experienced it." you can ALL experience it tonight if you wanted.

i haven't been waterboarded, but i've been dunked. i've also been tased- one barb on my shoulder blade and the other over the opposite kidney.. got a 5-second-ride. the "perfect tase." it was ****ing awful... i volunteered for that, and i'd volunteer for waterboarding if it got me some kind of certification or at least a prize or something. yes these things suck- but the moment they stop, you're no different than you were before it started.

is it torture? who gives a shit what we call it? i do not. and as far as "we're a nation of laws" and are somehow obligated to follow "internatonal law," you can suck a dick with that crap. there's nothing that supercedes United States of American sovereignty- Geneva/UN/NATO/whatever can all kiss our assholes, when it comes to utilizing tactics that work.

furthermore... if waterboarding doesnt provide us with verifiable lifesaving information, why the hell do we use it and are fighting to retain the abiliy to use it? sadistic pleasure? do you really think you're so smart, and our military intelligence men are so stupid that they'd waste all this time and effort and resources on something that doesnt work? if it didn't work, we'd be using car batteries and pliers and knives. duh.

Belmont31R

11-23-09, 17:01

for the fourth time, what? i see people keep repeating this, yet noone can back it up with anything.

Do you really think they are going to release exactly what was gained from water boarding? I will take the word of the people in the know that life saving information was gained.

Gutshot John

11-23-09, 17:07

Do you really think they are going to release exactly what was gained from water boarding? I will take the word of the people in the know that life saving information was gained.

More significantly I don't think you can find a single critic of WB, who knows what they're talking about, who's said it hasn't produced valuable intelligence.

They just dispute whether it could have been produced by other "unspecified" means.

scottryan

11-23-09, 17:12

Alpha males have to have been in a frat? :eek::rolleyes::eek:

Did you read my post and see the word or in it?

chadbag

11-23-09, 17:46

bottom line, regardless of your personal opinions the general consensus and prevailing opinion of experts is that waterboarding is torture.

a bunch of post-modern revisionist "experts" can redefine torture however they want. Still does not make it torture.

(sorry for being MIA over most of the weekend -- was on the computer very little watching the kids while the wife did some 12hour shifts in the ICU)

Bob-USMC

11-23-09, 21:12

hmm... where can I go to water board a journalist? :D

rickrock305

11-24-09, 10:58

Do you really think they are going to release exactly what was gained from water boarding? I will take the word of the people in the know that life saving information was gained.

Who has said this? Dick Cheney, the bastion of all things honest? :rolleyes:

Please, back up your statement with ANYTHING.

More significantly I don't think you can find a single critic of WB, who knows what they're talking about, who's said it hasn't produced valuable intelligence.

They just dispute whether it could have been produced by other "unspecified" means.

are you serious? so on one hand, we'll never know what was gained from waterboarding, yet all these experts seem to know that valuable intelligence was produced? how do they know that? do you have anything to back that up? talk about having your cake and eating it too...can't have it both ways.

no sources=talking out your a$$

rickrock305

11-24-09, 11:03

The United States has a historical record of regarding waterboarding as a crime, and has prosecuted individuals for the use of the practice in the past. In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II. Yukio Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor. The charges of Violation of the Laws and Customs of War against Asano also included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward."

In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognized "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record, and critics of waterboarding draw parallels between the two techniques, citing the similar usage of water on the subject. On September 6, 2006, the U.S. Department of Defense released a revised Army Field Manual entitled Human Intelligence Collector Operations that prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel. The department adopted the manual amid widespread criticism of U.S. handling of prisoners in the War on Terrorism, and prohibits other practices in addition to waterboarding. The revised manual applies only to U.S. military personnel, and as such does not apply to the practices of the CIA. However, under international law, violators of the laws of war are criminally liable under the command responsibility, and could still be prosecuted for war crimes.

rickrock305

11-24-09, 11:04

a bunch of post-modern revisionist "experts" can redefine torture however they want. Still does not make it torture.

(sorry for being MIA over most of the weekend -- was on the computer very little watching the kids while the wife did some 12hour shifts in the ICU)

the only ones redefining torture here are the ones who say waterboarding is not torture. the dictionary definition, experts in the field, people who have had the technique done on them, AND historical record ALL say its torture.

Gutshot John

11-24-09, 11:07

chadbag

11-24-09, 11:08

The United States has a historical record of regarding waterboarding as a crime, and has prosecuted individuals for the use of the practice in the past. In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II. Yukio Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor. The charges of Violation of the Laws and Customs of War against Asano also included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward."

where was this WB you said occurred? I see things universally recognized as torture -- beatings, burnings. Head downward for long periods of time is also dangerous and can cause real damage.

In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognized "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record,

Again, where was the WB?

and critics of waterboarding draw parallels between the two techniques, citing the similar usage of water on the subject. On September 6, 2006, the U.S. Department of Defense released a revised Army Field Manual entitled Human Intelligence Collector Operations that prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel. The department adopted the manual amid widespread criticism of U.S. handling of prisoners in the War on Terrorism, and prohibits other practices in addition to waterboarding. The revised manual applies only to U.S. military personnel, and as such does not apply to the practices of the CIA. However, under international law, violators of the laws of war are criminally liable under the command responsibility, and could still be prosecuted for war crimes.

DoD can adopt a policy. Still does not make WB torture under any reasonable technical definition except by those post modern leftists who think we should put up prisoners at 5 star hotels. DoD was responding to criticism from said leftists most likely and the DoD is a bastion of PC behavior from all signs (see Hasan).

chadbag

11-24-09, 11:11

the only ones redefining torture here are the ones who say waterboarding is not torture. the dictionary definition, experts in the field, people who have had the technique done on them, AND historical record ALL say its torture.

The dictionary does not. The "experts" in the field are those post-modern critics who did the redefining, and you have yet to show any historical record from the past that considers WB torture.

Gutshot John

11-24-09, 11:16

are you serious? so on one hand, we'll never know what was gained from waterboarding, yet all these experts seem to know that valuable intelligence was produced? how do they know that? do you have anything to back that up? talk about having your cake and eating it too...can't have it both ways.

no sources=talking out your a$$

Unfortunately you've yet to apply that standard to yourself. You do realize that the burden of proof is on you?

Since the claim I made was negative, please provide evidence of someone who denies that WB KSM did NOT produce valuable intel? In fact he apparently gave white board presentations on AQ.

Where are your sources other than some Psychiatric "mommy didn't love me enough" stupidity? How about someone who was actually involved in what KSM did or did not say? I've yet to hear a single credible person, who was in a position to know, who denies that KSM gave any valuable intelligence as a result of waterboarding.

All you have to do is name one and you'll at least have a leg to stand on even if your subsequent conclusions are still flawed.