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

The above clause appeared in the "contract of indemnification" that Hitchens signed before he submitted to the experience. I watched the video which appears on the vanityfair.com site and it didn't appear to be as awful as I had imagined, but the article in VF written by Hitchens describes it very thoroughly. It was frightening and terrifying according to him.

After viewing the video in your opinion does water boarding constitute torture? Why or why not?

http://www.vanityfair.com/

After viewing the video in your opinion does water boarding constitute torture? Why or why not?

Hard to say... I think waterboarding is torture regardless.... but the video....

I mean this guy didn't last ten seconds. I'm not saying I am superman... but the ways the guys were talking "15 minutes on.. 15 minutes off..." I am guessing the human body has greater endurance then what he let on.

So no the video actually is just going to show him as a bit of a pansy... to be honest I want to get waterboarded now just long enough to beat his record.. And I would!!

And with proper motivation.. .like a million dollars (after taxes) I think I could will my self for ten minutes...

This man didn't scream or yell or struggle... he just threw the damn metal rod down after 4 or 5 splashes.... I drink that much water, when I swallow my spit...

I didn't watch the Hitchens video. I have seen videos of waterboarding before. I am not going to pass judgment on a man because he didn't hold up to what some other, more "macho" individual might have withstood. We're not meant to breathe water.

It should not be relegated to the status of a fraternity hazing as some commentators have said. To them I would say, YOU try it and then make up your mind.

I wonder how long Rush Limbaugh or any of the others who are so dismissive of the practice would tolerate it under the same circumstances, but I'm afraid that Limbaugh in particular would end up having a heart attack or stroking out. With any luck, someone will listen to Christopher Hitchens in a way that s/he would not listen to a "liberal" who says it is torture.

It is torture, and it is wrong for representatives of the United States to impose it.

After viewing the video in your opinion does water boarding constitute torture? Why or why not?

That video doesn't show torture. I'm sorry, but from the amount of water left in the gallon jug, it looks like they splashed about 16 ounces of water on him, through a towel and a ski mask. The process took a few short seconds.

I am fully aware of Hitchens' description of what he felt, but that doesn't seem to rise to the level of torture.

The UN Convention against Torture uses this definition:



Severe pain or suffering includes being able to walk away? It includes the ability to talk about his experience?

The Istanbul Protocol, which specifically mentions asphyxiation, makes no mention of water boarding or other simulated acts.

Of course the waiver signed by Hitchens included the fact that he might suffer injuries. I'm sure it's the standard "Waterboarding waiver" . Actually, they were legally doing the CYA maneuver. If he did get hurt (such as by his own thrashing about, which interesting, never happened) they needed a cover.

Now, doing this repeatedly could possibly constitute torture, since mental of psychological damage could occur. This does not inflict real physical harm, so only until the mental definition is met would this be torture.

I like to think I watched that video with an open mind, but I have to say that was a total joke. I'm sure the sensation was uncomfortable, but I could probably measure how much water came out of that jug in tablespoons.

I honestly don't understand why people get so emotional about waterboarding when we send people to prison to be sodomized, shanked, and even executed. Heck, people put themselves through more torture by cutting themselves, drinking themselves into oblivion, and watching Michael Moore "documentaries".

That being said, I don't think that video was a very accurate depiction of what really goes on in waterboarding. I'm sure it's much worse and oppose the idea of such tactics, I just don't see why this issue is so much more vile than all the other things that go on within our borders.

I don't see how it is. You, Amlord, a host of conservatives (social or otherwise) and freshly minted 9/11 liberal hawks guffaw at the concept of waterboarding as torture plenty. Mrs. P recently started a thread about world opinion concerning torture. Results from an international poll show empathy is overrated. Guys like Hitchens and Hudgens are whiney bitches. Soon any frat boy/girl who refuses to take a dunk will be considered a bitch, too.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. We need to pardon, posthumously if necessary, soldiers, foreign and domestic, who've used water torture against (suspected) enemy combatants in previous wars and apologize for presuming this "enhanced interrogation technique" qualified as torture. Our bad, Pol Pot. And not to worry, conservatives. You can keep your anti-Communist credentials. There is still plenty to hate about regimes like the Khmer Rouge. You simply have to skip aspects of the Toul Sleng Genocide Museum when pillorying the left as apologists for despots.

Times are a-changing. There's no need to keep the pretense that we're different, better. If nothing else becoming comfortable with waterboarding will dissolve the image of America as the home of freedom, human rights and democracy faster than Hitchens can finish a bottle of rum. There is our silver lining.

I see your point, albeit sarcastic at times. My point is, you can bring up so many other much more violent acts that are sanctioned in this country, but the mere mentioning of splashing water on someone's face through a mask and towel and you'll see foam start to accumulate in the corners of people's mouths.

It's like having three problems in your neighborhood:

1. A drug dealer next door that brings all sorts of shady people near your house and your car has been vandalized and broken into repeatedly.

2. Some 21 year old kid just bought a house across the street and has parties every night with music blaring so loud that you can hear it even with the windows closed.

3. The neighbor's dog poops on your lawn.

I'm just saying that if you want to make a difference, spend more time and energy on the problems that have the most devastating effects. Waterboarding, while not cool at all in my book, just isn't as big of an issue as others make it out to be.

As for the "whiney bitches", can you honestly watch that video and tell me that the two tablespoons of water had enough time to soak through a folded towel and a mask before he threw the metal bar like a girl?

The point isn't violence in the country, it's violence sanctioned by the country. Imagine, for example, that the dog pooping on your lawn was given the authority to do so by a higher court. Let us say, that not only was the pooping maliciously premeditated, but also intended as a weapon to be used against your neighbors. Even further, let's say that your household granted the right to poop on the property of others, to dogs all over the neighborhood, crippling your family's reputation as an upstanding establishment.

The problem, Ataal , lies not in action but in intent.

So, the United States doesn't sanction execution? The United States doesn't sanction locking up the mentally ill for life and throwing away the key? The United States doesn't sanction locking people up in prison knowing full well they will be sodomized and shanked? The United States even sanctions(by not stopping him) Sheriff Joe Arpaio allowing his deputies and correctional officers to taser a four-point-restrained man on the genitals. The guy later died because the guards left a rag in his mouth and he suffocated. They were investigated by Arpaio and were found to have done nothing wrong.

Are we speaking apples to apples now?

What America does to its own criminals has no effect on the world at large. Syria does not care what we do to Johnny the Petty Thief, or Joe, the Arsonist. France could care less about how we lock up the mentally ill.

What the european countries are worried about, however, is the United States breaching a universal treaty, directly endangering foreign nationals who come under suspicion of terrorism. Our standing with the other nations is crumbling.

And before you dismiss that, allow me to remind you; as of the past few years, europe (and its Union) is not only larger, but richer than we are. (Well, from an economical standpoint, they are, at the very least undergoing more growth.) Peeing them off is not going to help us.

One man's torture is another man's interrogation technique.

I believe we should be doing everything we possibly can to protect our interests and the troops who are putting their lives on the line. If a couple gallons of water is what it takes to gain the intel we need, then pour away.

Waterboarding is certainly frightening and this may be why it is so effective. I have seen no proof that there is permanent damage of any kind – a criteria used by some to justify this type of interrogation - and to define "torture"

The bottom line imo is how badly is the information gained by “enhanced” techniques wanted or needed. And more important – what are the consequences to not having same.

If something “works” – should it be used to obtain verifiable intel from key combatants?

A tough question. Especially since the consequences of not getting key Intel could be tens or hundreds of thousands of dead civilians – not “soldiers” – men women and children.

Er...right. "...and the bald eagle shall spread his mighty wings across the sky, in a sight beautiful, yet terrible to behold..."

American Gospel, verse 34, chapter 9, the Book of Blind Patriotism. Of course, I needn't tell you this, since you are apparently, well-acquainted with the concept.

Pour away? Allow me to ask this cordially, holdingtheline; how insignificant are a "couple gallons of water---when they are blocking your respiratory cavities?

We agreed to certain restrictions in regards to torture, years ago. The decision to do so was made by a consortium of several hundred people, all of them smarter than myself, and perhaps smarter than you as well. And now, through the machinations of just a few brainless policymakers (and congress, which, let's be frank, has about one brain, all in all) we are shattering this agreement, in front of the world.

Larry the Cable Guy has done enough damage to our image abroad without this. Half of Europe sees us as ignorant, lethargic lumbering sloths, who cannot even muster the strength of will necessary to curb the blatant excesses of our governors. How long before our constant international embarrassments make us the laughingstock of the world?

A certain amount of relativism is necessary in this world. But you've single-handedly endorsed the treatment of every American POW in history. Because unless you endorse the torturing of Americans held captive, your statement here becomes less than meaningless. Just think, if you were, say, shot down by the NVA, taken captive for 5 years, and tortured into making propaganda broadcasts for the North Vietnamese, there'd be some conservative, convenience-relativist guy back home saying it was all ok, since the VC were "protecting their interests and the troops."

I know it might seem radical to you and other supporters of regimes that torture prisoners of war, but I don't think relativism ought to be used to defend certain practices, including torture. If we decide that torture is ok, I fully expect those defending it here to defend it when it is used against American POWs unequivocally.

In fact, holdingtheline, I'd like you to denounce this lawsuit:

(source)

I'll be waiting avidly for your response!

15 minutes?! Really? At what point did they say "minutes"?

First he had a hood on, second, they pressed a towel over his face. They didn't just lie it there, they pressed it down. Now, you might be able to breathe through a towel with your nose being pressed down... you'd have to breathe through your mouth and someone is pouring water over that area of the towel, so you are inhaling bits of water.

And it wasn't 16 ounces, Amlord, they poured almost a quarter of that gallon jug on his face.

I do think that they made it too easy to end the entire demonstration. If it was too much, I think they should've given him a break and done it again. The video makes it too easy for people to dismiss its validity.

You're right...

They could have been talking seconds.. in fact it seems more likely....

You're right....

It was 16 ounces...

You're right...

He simply looks like a pansy and now he's made a torture technique seem trivial and comical...


Ted



But ted have you seen any proof that it has produced any information worthy of even near torture??

I'll grant you that there are many things that go on, within these American borders and elsewhere, that are worse than Christopher Hitchens' waterboarding experience and possibly the experiences of others who have been waterboarded and didn't die because of it.

As far as treatment of the mentally ill, just last week there surfaced a video of a person waiting for a bed in a mental health facility in King's Country, New York, dying in the waiting room, and no one bothered to see what was wrong or help her. Sometimes pure neglect can kill a person just as surely as anything else. And it was completely unnecessary.

However, Hitchens' waterboarding experience is the subject of this thread, not sodomy, shanking, etc. When a teaspoon or so of water in the wrong place in the body has been known to induce drowning, I do not dismiss his fear of dying. And remember, his limbs were restrained. Did anybody expect him to rip out of his restraints like the Incredible Hulk?

So to the brave souls who would hold out longer with more water in their "non-torture" experience and not whine about it I say, Sign the waiver and have at it, pilgrims! Maybe it'll become an attraction at amusement parks.

(Edited out unnecessary comment)

Yes.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=3978231&page=1

“Hayden, who prohibited the practice of waterboarding by CIA agents in 2006, confirmed that his agency waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim Nashiri, in efforts to compel the men to talk. He told senators the agency believed at the time “that additional catastrophic attacks were imminent.” The men told CIA interrogators things that “led to reliable information,” Hayden told reporters after the hearing.
The CIA chief asserted to reporters later that Mohammed and Zubaydah had provided roughly 25 percent of the information the CIA had on al Qaeda from human sources.”
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/20537/america-tortures

The argument I've heard here is that, in the video, it didn't look like all that much was happening to the guy and he gave up too quickly, therefore it's not torture and he's just a wimp.

The whole point of torture isn't to look bad, it's to feel horrible, so as to force people give up and give in, which is precisely what happened in this video. To get much the same result, we could have, for example, just beaten him within an inch of his life, instead. But an inch isn't a lot of wiggle room, and it's too easy to just plain kill someone that way. For a technique to be successful as torture, you need to cause minimum damage compared to the pain and -- especially -- distress, so that you can keep it up until they break, instead of having your fun interrupted by their inconveniently-timed demise.

Partial drowning is perfect for this because it naturally triggers a panic response. Talk to any lifeguard, and they'll tell you that much of their training is concerned not with swimming well but with knowing how to subdue a swimmer so that they can be towed to safety. A big part of what they learn and are tested for is the ability to, essentially, use CQC grappling techniques underwater. They need to, because a drowning swimmer is in a blind panic and will flail out and pull down anyone trying to help them. Now apply this to what I said about the goal of torture.

In short, the fact that it looked like no harm was done and he gave in almost immediately is itself compelling evidence that partial drowning is a highly effective form of torture. It also has plausible deniability because it doesn't leave any obvious marks, at least not physically. Sure, people have died on occasion due to the lung damage, and the psychological harm is lifelong, but that's not what matters, is it? All we care about is that they (usually) stay alive long enough to do what we order them to, or at least to pretend to share intelligence so that we'll stop hurting them so much.

See, the problem is that even highly effective torture is only highly effective at getting people to say what you want them to, no to reveal the secrets they know. It also helps if you torture people who actually know something. This is why our torture efforts are not merely inhumane, illegal and monstrous, but are made all that much the worse by being useless. We swore off torture years ago, but GWB is nothing if not a traditionalist.

TC

P.S.
I hadn't seen the video since it first came out, so I wanted to refresh my memory. One thing that I should have mentioned is that his experience was, in psychological terms, quite mild in comparison to the real thing. He had volunteered for this treatment and he had two distinct ways to indicate that it was to stop. He knew he could end it anytime. And, rather than being bound against his will, struggling to free himself and being subdued, he went to the slaughter like a clueless lamb, avoiding all that stress.

As for how long he lasted, I tried a simple experiment: the moment they started pouring, and without preparing by hyperventilating or even taking a deep breath, I held mine. Around the time he gave up was when I started feeling an intense need to exhale. I'm certainly in better shape than him, particularly since my liver isn't brined, so I would think he'd have to have been breathing in some water for a few seconds near the end. Until then, he had water on his face constantly and knew he'd start choking in earnest once he gave in to the need to breath.

I can imagine that, in a real case of torture by partial drowning, the victim would be willing to say almost anything to make it stop. Of course, that doesn't mean they'd tell the truth, just whatever was demanded. If anything, a lie might be more effective.

In hindsight, I should have reviewed the video before my initial response.

the people who were waterbaarded actually did know things and the CIA said as much as 45% of “actionable” info received was from these few men. It certainly is not as simple as “telling us what we want to hear”. If the info is bad the person can be sure to face the interrogation again.


We could have not used the technique and lived with the casualties but we choose not to.

My policy is to believe claims only to the extent that they have been substantiated. In my experience, people are at their least honest when they're convinced nobody can call their bluff, and under these circumstances, I would hardly expect the CIA to say that their torture efforts have been fruitless.

For that matter, even if I were to somehow will myself to believe them by an act of pure faith, this says nothing about how much information would have been obtained by other methods, which are less adversarial but more effective. Gaining their confidence, bribing them with "privileges" and so on are tried and true techniques of manipulation, and the CIA is skilled in their use. I have to wonder if we'd have obtained more information and less noise without being barbaric.

In any case, at least you're not pretending that waterboarding is anything but torture, so I sincerely congratulate you on that bit of honesty.

TC

Well then we have little to discuss since you can always just say “they lie” with not one scrap of backup – as you are doing here. And you expect me to believe that a secret like this (no info garnered) could be kept from the press ---



Its possible buy you do know that the other techniques were tried first - don't you?

As for “torture” this method was viewed by 4 people from the Congress (who could have stopped its use) along with other methods. They had no comment and one even asked “is there more we can do” – to get info.

The issue is not settled.

Has the "info garnered" been kept from the press? It seems to me that it would be just as easy to keep the secret of "no information garnered" as it is to keep the secret of what information may have been garnered.

It's very easy for the government to say that they've gathered actionable intelligence as a result of this technique, because they don't have to prove that they have. So, it essentially comes down to taking the government's word on it. Considering this administration's history with lying, I, for one, am not so willing to do that.

So you believe lots of people in CIA as well as it head could lie and the NYT would never hear a word about it?

We can’t even keep critical damn info out of the press mush less something like this that would hurt Bush. I am sure every source was beaten to death to find a contradiction to this statement.

Yes, and the only solution is for them to actually support their claim. It's in their hands, not mine, since I have no burden of proof here.


I read an interview in which a CIA interrogator explained that he was making some headway in building a rapport with a Gitmo POW, but this was completely derailed by waterboarding and other forms of torture. Clearly, we at least started to try other techniques, but we quickly became impatient and went for the easy, nasty solution.


I'm sorry, but how does this make it any less a form of torture? For that matter, I believe it's now clear that waterboarding looks a lot less serious from the outside than from the POV of the victim, so what exactly were they expecting to see? "No hot coals, no rack: I guess it's not torture after all!"


The issue is long settled, but torture deniers persist, somehow. I think the only sensible way to correct them is with torture. Uhm, I mean, with educational demonstrations of the techniques in question upon them. Want to see if you're tougher than some pansy, left-leaning, alcoholic British journalist? I think we all do. And, no, I have no idea how the Crazy Glue got onto those metal rods...

TC

P.S.
Try as I might, I can't put my mind around the notion that the CIA might be able to lie, much less successfully. They're not known for that sort of thing, are they?

Well its classified but they DO report to the Senate Intelligence Committee (Repubs and Dems) – so tell me again what the heck you mean – and then back it up please.




Because it was their job to tell CIA it was torture and could not be used if they felt it was – Pelosi was one on the 4 by the way.




Hey no problem – lets give em steaks and big screen TV – but don’t come back later when thousands of Americans are dead and moan in Congress at the intel folks about Not getting the critical warning.

Just sit back and watch the captives high five each other as they head for dinner.

I think I was pretty clear, but I'll repeat myself if I must. The issue isn't whether we've ever gotten useful intelligence. It's whether any of it was obtained by torture, and of that, whether it would have been obtained otherwise.


Pardon me, but I don't remember when politicians became experts on what constiutes torture. And if your point is that the Democrats in Congress are spineless, you're not saying anything we don't already know.

The question remains: How does this make it any less a form of torture?


I value results over schadenfreude. If wining and dining them is what it takes to get the information, I'm fine with that.

The entirely unsupported premise of your argument, however, is that torture got these results faster and therefore saved lives. This is the usual pro-torture fantasy, but that's all it is.


They're POW's, not captives. And we're in violation of the Geneva Convention because we tortured them.

Speaking of which, are you willing to take the Hitchens test?

TC

So let me say it AGAIN. The CIA says the people water boarded provided vital intel.

“Water-boarding worked wonders in the case of one al-Qaeda leader, according to a former CIA agent who has made the rounds of some television news interviews as CIA director Mike Hayden prepares to testify before a congressional committee today about his agency’s destruction of videotapes of interrogations.

“The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told in to cooperate,’’ Kiriakou told ABC News World News in interview aired last night. “From that day on, he answered every question. The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.’’
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics..._wonders_e.html



Their job was “oversight” and damn well should have known. Apparently they saw it and were not concerned. And if it is torture it does not change that .



As above this is not what the experts say (see above). This nonsense that it does not work is silly. Why would experts use something that provides no information?