[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That means that the interrogator can limit his activities to waterboarding that DOESN'T do these things.

And I'm sure that these interrogators are all medically trained.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Here:

From
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No doubt about it, says Allen Keller, an associate professor of medicine at New York University School of Medicine (who, it should be noted, testified that waterboarding is a form of torture before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 2007). During waterboarding, some of this water can flow through the nostrils and into the lungs, Keller explains. Water in the lungs, especially if it's dirty, can cause potentially deadly pneumonia or pleuritis, an inflammation of the lung lining. Waterboarding could also cause hypoxia, a condition in which the body is not getting enough oxygen, either because the victim is holding his or her breath or inhaling water -- and inadequate oxygen supplies can lead to deadly organ failure, Keller adds. But don't underestimate how tightly intertwined the physical and psychological experiences of waterboarding are, Keller notes. Since it mimics the terrifying sensation of drowning, it triggers the release of stress hormones called catecholamines that can cause heart rate and blood pressure to soar, potentially setting the stage for heart attack in a person with underlying heart disease, he says.

From
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"There is no doubt that waterboarding is illegal under the plain language of each of these four statutes. When it is practiced in other countries, the State Department characterizes waterboarding as “torture.”[46] Waterboarding inflicts “severe pain and suffering” on its victims, both physically and mentally, and therefore it is torture within the meaning of the Torture Act and the War Crimes Act.[47] It inflicts “serious pain and suffering” upon its victims, and it qualifies as “serious physical abuse,” therefore it is “cruel or inhuman treatment” within the meaning of the War Crimes Act.[48] Finally, American courts have ruled that when prisoners in the United States are subjected to waterboarding, it is a violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore it would be a violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000dd and 2000dd-0 prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.[49]"

[themuzicman]

Again, there is a difference between practices that must inflict severe pain and suffering (such as what we normally think of as torture, i.e. the rack or limb stretching), and practices for which it is possible for these thing to result, but are not required for the interrogation method to be effective.

ANY form of coercive interrogation, if taken too far or done incorrectly, can cause harm. The question isn't whether harm is possible, but whether that harm is the means by which the interrogation is done.

Asking a doctor about methods of interrogation is like asking an etymologist about how to write a novel. Yeah, they're related field... sort of... But you'd be better off actually interview interrogators about both their methods, and their means of protecting those being interrogated. That I have not seen yet.

(FYI, waterboarding is most often done by putting a towel or plastic wrap over the face to prevent water from getting into the breathing passages, so the quote from the doctor seems a bit uniformred.)

And to say that increased stress levels are a basis for calling something "torture" means that we really need to eliminate all final examinations in High Schools and Colleges. Clearly we are torturing some of these kids.

I mean, how can we really take this guy seriously when he says that the stress from a waterboarding event can cause a heart attack? Do they think interrogators are so stupid that they haven't considered the physical health of an individual person interrogated before engaging particular methods?

I find the WULR article to be a bit contrived, doing their best to portray waterboarding as "cruel, inhumane, and degrading", but never really connecting the dots. Even in the quote you provide, the state department doesn't directly connect waterboarding to torture:

[46]mie Mayerfeld, Playing by Our Own Rules: How U.S. Marginalization of International Human Rights Law Led to Torture, 20 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 89 (2007). The author states: The government insists that it does not torture, yet it uses methods that it calls torture when practiced by other governments. In Jordan, for example, the State Department observes that “the most frequently alleged methods of torture are sleep deprivation, beatings, and extended solitary confinement.” In State Department reports on other countries, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, forced standing, hypothermia, blindfolding, and deprivation of food and water are specifically referred to as torture.

They try to conclude that because these things are called torture, and these things are included in another list (that doesn't mention torture) along with waterboarding, that it must be torture, too.

Contrived and invalid.

Sorry, but I don't find either article terribly convincing.

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Asking a doctor about methods of interrogation is like asking an etymologist about how to write a novel. Yeah, they're related field... sort of... But you'd be better off actually interview interrogators about both their methods, and their means of protecting those being interrogated. That I have not seen yet.

When the question of mental or physical harm during waterboarding is being addressed, I would say a medical doctor is a pretty damned relevant person to consult.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	(FYI, waterboarding is most often done by putting a towel or plastic wrap over the face to prevent water from getting into the breathing passages, so the quote from the doctor seems a bit uniformred.)

Sweet! Let`s try an experiment. Put a plastic bag over your head and go swimming! It`s much safer that way.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And to say that increased stress levels are a basis for calling something "torture" means that we really need to eliminate all final examinations in High Schools and Colleges. Clearly we are torturing some of these kids.

Yeesh. Obviously there is a massive disparity in the magnitude of stress. You may want to read up on the long-term effects of severe stress. Ever hear of PTSD...

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I mean, how can we really take this guy seriously when he says that the stress from a waterboarding event can cause a heart attack?

*Facepalm*

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do they think interrogators are so stupid that they haven't considered the physical health of an individual person interrogated before engaging particular methods?

Yes.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I find the WULR article to be a bit contrived, doing their best to portray waterboarding as "cruel, inhumane, and degrading", but never really connecting the dots. Even in the quote you provide, the state department doesn't directly connect waterboarding to torture

Except that it does...

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sorry, but I don't find either article terribly convincing.

That usually happens when you accept a position so dogmatically that absolutely nothing resembling logic or reason can get through...

[Angelos]

If they are able, they can. I can respect the behaviour if it is efficient as I will despise them should they not use it, lest they are claiming moral superiority when it would be a bit counterproductive.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	When the question of mental or physical harm during waterboarding is being addressed, I would say a medical doctor is a pretty damned relevant person to consult.

Not if he doesn't know what waterboarding actually is. Most of his real concerns are about water getting into the lungs. if there is a towel or cellophane over the face, then no water gets into the lungs.

*Poof* there goes most of his argument.

	Sweet! Let`s try an experiment. Put a plastic bag over your head and go swimming! It`s much safer that way.

I'll let the stupidity of this statement stand as its own rebuttal of you.

	Yeesh. Obviously there is a massive disparity in the magnitude of stress. You may want to read up on the long-term effects of severe stress. Ever hear of PTSD...

LOL... You really think that waterboarding is going to cause PTSD? Even your own sources don't cite that as a potential issue.

	*Facepalm*

Glad you see how stupid his statement is.

	Yes.

Then heart attack isn't an issue.

	Except that it does...

I've already explained how it doesn't. If all you have is "no it's not", then don't bother responding.

	That usually happens when you accept a position so dogmatically that absolutely nothing resembling logic or reason can get through...

You need to stop projecting your own circumstance upon others.

[BobG]

As at least one other person has noted, there's already precedence that the US has historically considered waterboarding to be torture. (
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)

Considering the lawyers Bush hired told him it wasn't a crime, it is theoretically possible that the US has miscategorized waterboarding in the past and it was the Bush regime that finally put waterboarding in its proper light when it comes to interrogations... in which case it's now perfectly legal for other countries to waterboard US troops.

Well, at least it would be if Bush's legal interpretation carried any weight outside the US. Ironically, the US could still try our enemies for war crimes under international law.

By the way, it is still illegal for US military to use waterboarding. It's only civilian personnel, not strictly covered by Geneva conventions or military law, that can use waterboarding.

In other words, only people that are not legal combatants can use torture even in the United States.

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not if he doesn't know what waterboarding actually is. Most of his real concerns are about water getting into the lungs. if there is a towel or cellophane over the face, then no water gets into the lungs.

Restriction of breathing tends to cause damage to the lungs and brain... which are concerns raised by the sources I've cited. Wrapping a person's head in cellophane tends to have these effects...

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	LOL... You really think that waterboarding is going to cause PTSD? Even your own sources don't cite that as a potential issue.

LOL... I didn't say that waterboarding causes PTSD, but thanks for the straw-man. I was giving an example of high-magnitude stress leading to very negative outcomes.

Comparing the stress generated from waterboarding to that generated from exams and tests is ridiculous. Clearly there is a difference in magnitude. That was the point I was making. Instead of fighting the strawman... fight the point I was making.


Actually, let's go down the PTSD path just for fun... Here's a copy of the statement delivered by the director of Bellvue's program for survivors of torture to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Hearing on U.S. Interrogation Policy in 2007. He clearly cites PTSD as a valid outcome of waterboarding.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've already explained how it doesn't. If all you have is "no it's not", then don't bother responding.

It was clearly stated in the source I gave you. What else do you want me to say?... It's right there.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You need to stop projecting your own circumstance upon others.

It's much less an instance of projection when one can provide multiple sources of information to back up an idea.

Do you have any sources to back up your position?

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Restriction of breathing tends to cause damage to the lungs and brain... which are concerns raised by the sources I've cited. Wrapping a person's head in cellophane tends to have these effects...

Gee... who said anything about wrapping a person's head?

	LOL... I didn't say that waterboarding causes PTSD, but thanks for the straw-man. I was giving an example of high-magnitude stress leading to very negative outcomes.

Oh, so you mentioned PTSD in response to stress caused by water boarding because you wanted to refer to actual torture?

Yeah. OK.

	Comparing the stress generated from waterboarding to that generated from exams and tests is ridiculous. Clearly there is a difference in magnitude. That was the point I was making. Instead of fighting the strawman... fight the point I was making.

I was fighting the point you were making. Ridicule is an effective tool, and worked effectively here, as you've now deviated from your point because you can't win it.

Actually, let's go down the PTSD path just for fun... Here's a copy of the statement delivered by the director of Bellvue's program for survivors of torture to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Hearing on U.S. Interrogation Policy in 2007. He clearly cites PTSD as a valid outcome of waterboarding. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Once again, you're making claims from a document that doesn't say what you think it says. This is a document about MANY forms of torture and other interrogation techniques, including water boarding, and no real evidence is provide that water boarding is torture other than the anecdotal and emotionally charged statement that an apparent (although unsubstantiated and unnamed) victim of several forms of torture made the highly scientific statement that they'd been tortured, and knew what torture was... thus making them an expert on what is and isn't torture.

Sure. Yeah. Right.

And then there's that pesky problem word again: "CAN." This report only states that the interrogation techniques mentioned can cause one or more of the symptoms listed. Again, no evidence that waterboarding causes any or all of them.

So, your link falls short again.

	It was clearly stated in the source I gave you. What else do you want me to say?... It's right there.

Actually, I already showed you how your link doesn't say what you claim it says, and you have yet to deal with what I wrote.

	Do you have any sources to back up your position?

Actually, you're the one making the claim so the onus is on you to come up with a valid source. So far, your sources haven't lived up to your claims about them.

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Gee... who said anything about wrapping a person's head?

You said face, true. Face is located on the head... It still constricts breathing when you occlude the mouth and nose, right? That still causes harm, right?

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh, so you mentioned PTSD in response to stress caused by water boarding because you wanted to refer to actual torture?

Waterboarding being actual torture...

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I was fighting the point you were making. Ridicule is an effective tool, and worked effectively here, as you've now deviated from your point because you can't win it.

No you weren't. Do I really have to explain this again? I restated my point to you. Address the point already. But, if you want to declare yourself the "winner" of the argument by beating down a strawman (which you seem to enjoy doing), go nuts.

Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Once again, you're making claims from a document that doesn't say what you think it says. This is a document about MANY forms of torture and other interrogation techniques, including water boarding, and no real evidence is provide that water boarding is torture other than the anecdotal and emotionally charged statement that an apparent (although unsubstantiated and unnamed) victim of several forms of torture made the highly scientific statement that they'd been tortured, and knew what torture was... thus making them an expert on what is and isn't torture.

The statement was made by a qualified psychiatrist (who does happen to be an expert on the psychological effects of torture) who cited a case where a patient who experienced waterboarding had long lasting negative effects. Of course he can't provide his patient's name or give any info that would identify him/her.

It's pretty clear, TMM.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And then there's that pesky problem word again: "CAN." This report only states that the interrogation techniques mentioned can cause one or more of the symptoms listed. Again, no evidence that waterboarding causes any or all of them.

When professionals, such as Keller who is an expert on the psychiatric outcomes of torture use the word "can", it is usually substantiated by a "has". This report outlines a case where waterboarding "has" caused long-term harm.

Do you discount doctors when they say smoking "can" cause cancer?

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Actually, I already showed you how your link doesn't say what you claim it says, and you have yet to deal with what I wrote.

What did I claim about it!? I quoted a section of it.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Actually, you're the one making the claim so the onus is on you to come up with a valid source.

Our little discussion started because I was responding to your claim that waterboarding doesn't cause any harm.

Sources?

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You said face, true. Face is located on the head... It still constricts breathing when you occlude the mouth and nose, right? That still causes harm, right?

The human body can go for 5 minutes or so without breathing without any harmful effects.

	Waterboarding being actual torture...

Undemonstrated to this point.

	No you weren't. Do I really have to explain this again? I restated my point to you. Address the point already. But, if you want to declare yourself the "winner" of the argument by beating down a strawman (which you seem to enjoy doing), go nuts.

You restated the point I already refuted.

	The statement was made by a qualified psychiatrist (who does happen to be an expert on the psychological effects of torture) who cited a case where a patient who experienced waterboarding had long lasting negative effects. Of course he can't provide his patient's name or give any info that would identify him/her.

The point is that the definition of whether something is "torture" isn't best given by someone who has experienced other forms of torture.

	When professionals, such as Keller who is an expert on the psychiatric outcomes of torture use the word "can", it is usually substantiated by a "has". This report outlines a case where waterboarding "has" caused long-term harm.

And as far as I can see, he doesn't address whether waterboarding causes any specific effects, nor does he address whether particular methods or techniques will increase or decrease the long term effects. He doesn't study the techniques, he studies the outcome of those who have been harmed in some way by them.

	Do you discount doctors when they say smoking "can" cause cancer?

If the person quoting him that every person who smokes even one cigarette is going to get cancer, yes.

This is the problem. We're talking as though being waterboarded for 2 minutes is going to cause long term harm. It's not. Would being waterboarded for 8 minutes a session 15 times a day cause long term harm? Yes. The same kind of psychologists that you cite also work with the CIA to both protect the health of those being interrogated by defining limits on what may be done, and help the interrogators get the information they want with the least amount of coercion.

Nothing you've posted addresses this at all.

	what did I claim about it!? I quoted a section of it.

Yes, and you claimed that it demonstrated that the State department called waterboarding torture. However, the footnote (if you'd bother to read it) says that the State Department names several techniques that are torture but doesn't include waterboarding in that list, and attempts to make the link by showing that the list of items that were considered torture were included in another list not claiming that these things were torture but did include waterboarding.

It's like me saying that Lemons, apples and oranges are fruit, and then saying that Lemons, apples, oranges and cauliflower are good for you and then concluding that cauliflower is fruit. It's not a valid argument.

	Our little discussion started because I was responding to your claim that waterboarding doesn't cause any harm.

Didn't say that. I said it didn't cause severe harm or suffering, as per the definition of torture, which you claimed that it was. So, you have to show us that it fits the actual definition of torture. So far the links you've provided are trying to do so in invalid ways.,

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The human body can go for 5 minutes or so without breathing without any harmful effects.

Source?

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You restated the point I already refuted.

No, I restated the point that you replaced with a strawman.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The point is that the definition of whether something is "torture" isn't best given by someone who has experienced other forms of torture.

How about an expert on torture? Like the guy who wrote the statement.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	He doesn't study the techniques, he studies the outcome of those who have been harmed in some way by them.

Exactly.

The outcome of a technique is what determines if something is torture.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If they say that every person who smokes even one cigarette is going to get cancer, yes.

Applied to waterboarding, I never said it was a 1:1 ratio.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	We're talking as though being waterboarded for 2 minutes is going to cause long term harm. It's not.

Sources?

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The same kind of psychologists that you cite also work with the CIA to both protect the health of those being interrogated by defining limits on what may be done, and help the interrogators get the information they want with the least amount of coercion.

Really?

Sources?

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, and you claimed that it demonstrated that the State department called waterboarding torture.

No, the source I provided argues that waterboarding does fit the definition of torture. It fits the definition very well. Having the state dept. include it on the list (or not) was not the point. I apologize if that was not clear.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Didn't say that. I said it didn't cause severe harm or suffering, as per the definition of torture, which you claimed that it was.

Sorry I didn't include "severe" in there.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Yes, you made the initial claim. Back it up.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Source?

Wow.. I'm shocked that this isn't common knowledge.

	How about an expert on torture? Like the guy who wrote the statement.

Except that he isn't an expert on torture, but on treating those with long term effects of torture.

	The outcome of a technique is what determines if something is torture.

Well, with waterboarding, it's a bit more complicated, as the actual harm isn't what coerces the subject, but rather reaction of the mind to it. With most forms of torture, the very thing that is coercing is the harm being caused. Not so with waterboarding. Harm with waterboarding is only a potential side effect.

So, in this case one could waterboard an individual effectively without rising to the level of torture.

	Applied to waterboarding, I never said it was a 1:1 ratio.

Thank you for your admission that waterboarding isn't automatically torture.

	Sources?

Again, I'm surprised that I have to demonstrate that being without oxygen for two minutes isn't harmful.

	Really? Sources?

The CIA hires psychologists to advise them on interrogations:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

Yes, I realize that the piece is critical of the practice. But they did seek that advice.

	No, the source I provided argues that waterboarding does fit the definition of torture. It fits the definition very well. Having the state dept. include it on the list (or not) was not the point. I apologize if that was not clear.

Wiki? Really?

	Sorry I didn't include "severe" in there. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It makes a difference.

	Yes, you made the initial claim. Back it up.

Um.. you made the claim that waterboarding is torture, which is defined by severe harm or suffering. I simply stated that there isn't evidence to demonstrate that, and all you have is wikipedia... hardly worth the time to read, much less laugh at.

So, when you come up with a credible source that describes how waterboarding fits the definition of torture, we can continue.

[Dru]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The human body can go for 5 minutes or so without breathing without any harmful effects.

hold your breath for five minutes and get back to us on that.

better yet, find someone who will kidnap you, blindfold you, take you somewhere unfamiliar, and prevent you from breathing for a full five minutes, and then get back to us on whether or not that may have been a little traumatic or harmful to you in any way.

Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If the person quoting him that every person who smokes even one cigarette is going to get cancer, yes. This is the problem. We're talking as though being waterboarded for 2 minutes is going to cause long term harm. It's not. Would being waterboarded for 8 minutes a session 15 times a day cause long term harm? Yes. The same kind of psychologists that you cite also work with the CIA to both protect the health of those being interrogated by defining limits on what may be done, and help the interrogators get the information they want with the least amount of coercion.

if you will recall, the OP asked if it was ethical for the so-called "enemy" to waterboard when we do it too. torture, by definition, is not ethical -- and while we may believe that our government limits what can be done in an interrogation to get the information they want or need, you nor i, nor nemesis, has any reason to believe that the so-called "enemy" would place such restrictions on themselves. you're arguing definitions, which given the real issue being discussed are totally fucking arbitrary. do you really think a person who is willingly part of a group that commits suicide-murders is going to care whether they're doing damage? really? you're quite the optimist.

stop arguing the damn semantics and make a valid point, please.

---------- Post added 11-12-2010 at 05:07 PM ----------

	Brain cells are extremely sensitive to oxygen deprivation. Some brain cells actually start dying less than 5 minutes after their oxygen supply disappears. As a result, brain hypoxia can rapidlycause death or severe brain damage

from
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


so, according to your blasé statement, you should be perfectly fine. there's only a moderate chance that you might start breathing again before your brain starts dying. that's good enough, right? it's every mother's dream for their child's brain to have a "good enough" chance not to be damaged.

ah... right, sorry. i guess this article is invalidated because they included a disclaimer that it only "can" happen.

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Wow.. I'm shocked that this isn't common knowledge.

Sources?

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Except that he isn't an expert on torture, but on treating those with long term effects of torture.

Which makes him a good source for discussing the effects of torture...which we were...

Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well, with waterboarding, it's a bit more complicated, as the actual harm isn't what coerces the subject, but rather reaction of the mind to it. With most forms of torture, the very thing that is coercing is the harm being caused. Not so with waterboarding. Harm with waterboarding is only a potential side effect. So, in this case one could waterboard an individual effectively without rising to the level of torture.

Tell me where you think that line is drawn.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Thank you for your admission that waterboarding isn't automatically torture.

Neither is a couple seconds in an electric chair...

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Again, I'm surprised that I have to demonstrate that being without oxygen for two minutes isn't harmful.

I'm not surprised that you still haven't done so.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The CIA hires psychologists to advise them on interrogations: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . Yes, I realize that the piece is critical of the practice. But they did seek that advice.

Good source! Keep 'em coming.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Wiki? Really?

The source you and I were discussing was the commentary by the Washington Law Review Journal.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It makes a difference.

You knew exactly what I meant.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Um.. you made the claim that waterboarding is torture...

Yes... after you had already claimed that it wasn't.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	and all you have is wikipedia... hardly worth the time to read, much less laugh at.

I've provided you with several other sources, TMM.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So, when you come up with a credible source that describes how waterboarding fits the definition of torture, we can continue.

You mean, like a law review journal, a medical doctor's expert opinion, or a prominant psychiatrist's statement about the long-term effects of waterboarding?

[Dru]

from
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
:

Waterboarding is a form of torture... causing the captive to experience the sensations of drowning... waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex... It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage and, if uninterrupted, death. In 2007 it was reported that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the U.S. intelligence service, was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners and that the Department of Justice had authorized the procedure, even though the United States hanged Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American prisoners of war in World War II.

so you're really going to cite the same government that executed soldiers for waterboarding americans, because they claim that when they do it it's "different"? riiiight.

from
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
:

	according to medical experts on the effect of torture, waterboarding results in both short and long-term negative consequences for mental and physical health

from one such medical expert:

	As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia, rapid heart beat and gasping for breath. There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water.

from
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
:

	All people with PTSD have lived through a traumatic event that caused them to fear for their lives, see horrible things, and feel helpless

which brings us back to:

	Waterboarding is a form of torture... causing the captive to experience the sensations of drowning...

your turn.

[JTG]

Torture is torture, and torture is wrong. We can torture our enemies, just as they can torture our people if captured. Nobody should resort to torture though, under any circumstances. Not only is it dehumanizing (for the people conducting the torture) and highly damaging (for all involved), but it leaves a lot of scars and hostilities when people find out it's being done.

Can one side or the other torture in secret? Sure. If that's the case, as terrible as it may sound, i think it doesn't really do any harm in the grand scheme of things. If we capture somebody who is then listed "dead" by their side, and we torture them, extract information, then kill and dispose of them, then who's to know? Same applies if they capture one of ours, of course.

The problem with that is you can't always trust information that is extracted under extreme duress. I'm sure if you hang me upside down and run water over my face long enough, i'll admit to disparaging you, your family, your country, and your entire race. I'll admit to the Columbine shootings and the Holocaust too, while we're at it. Praise Allah! (or God bless America! depending) Yeah, there's an offensive coming. When? I dunno, today or tomorrow or next week sometime, but the president's going to be there too (or Osama), so you better be sure to get them. I'll tell you whatever you want ot hear, and maybe even some things you didn't even care to know.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The human body can go for 5 minutes or so without breathing without any harmful effects.

This is true, more or less. Any CPR class can tell you that between 5 and 6 minutes without air is when brain damage starts happening. I've personally held my breath for just over 3 minutes before.

The thing that makes waterboarding torture isn't the physical harm that can happen; it's the psychological harm that does happen. It's torture because of the anguish and suffering it causes. There's more to anguish and suffering than just physical impairment and death. Physical scars are arguably less painful to bear than psychological scars

[Arkeph]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But you haven't reached the standard of the convention. There is this word in there: severe. If you look at the history and practice of torture, it inflicts (or makes a real threat to inflict) real, most often long term harm to its victims.

I think you're taking the liberty of substituting your own standard and saying that it's the one intended by the GC. Even so, waterboarding violates your standard because it makes a real threat to inflict long term harm: death by drowning.

Otherwise, one would have to somehow argue that a "real threat" is only manifested when the torturer intends to cause long-term harm (aka evidence of torture) to his victims, begging the question of how the victim is supposed to know what the abuser intends and why it matters at all that the abuser doesn't intend to cause long-term injury. It also makes escaping a torture conviction easy, since it's based so narrowly on the intent.

The long-term harm standard is also inconsistently applied, since no definition is supplied for "long-term harm". However, it's implied that not only must the long-term harm be present, it must be severe, impairing one in serious and irreversible ways. That leaves one with a legal definition of torture that makes it very difficult to convict those who are guilty of torture.

[Booko]

	Originally Posted by Night Runner To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Just expanding on the chain of thought that you introduced. You did say that if the enemy waterboarded your husband, you'd be "a bit relieved" because "it sure beats decapitation." Ergo, it's logical to conclude that any torture is okay as long as he is not killed. If it's not okay, at what kind of torture would you draw the line, and why would waterboarding make the cut?

Using the term "ergo" does not make something logical.

Clearly the enemy "can" waterboard, since they do that and worse. And if my husband were in theater and I had to choose between waterboarding and decapitation, I'd choose waterboarding too.

Which would mean zip about whether I thought it should be legal for the enemy to waterboard anyway.

Unless, of course, your version of logic comes straight out of Psychic Friends Network.

---------- Post added 11-12-2010 at 07:07 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Care to show us where waterboarding is mentioned in there?

That Japanese waterboarded our guys in WW2 and we convicted them of war crimes for doing so. We don't get to conveniently claim it's ok and not torture just because we're the ones who want to do it now.

Well, we do get to conveniently claim that.

And the rest of the world can think we're cravenly hypocritical.

---------- Post added 11-12-2010 at 07:09 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hmmm... Waterboarding isn't severe pain or suffering, certainly not physically, nor mentally. Doesn't look like it fits, here. Care to try again?

Funny how we completely changed our mind since WW2 on this subject, ain't it?

Have you been waterboarded, MM?

This guy has:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Talk to him about it.

I know ex-military guys who have been also, as part of their training. To a man they say it's torture too. So excuse me if I don't take the words of armchair torturees over those who've endured it.

[BobG]

Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So, to compare the Taliban or Al Qaeda to the US government is an invalid comparison. The latter is a state government. The former is the equivalent of an individual or a private organization, whether a business or a club. So, in this specific case, the real question is whether I'd support individuals or organizations not representing a sovereign state government performing waterboarding on anyone, the answer there is "no." I would not support a terrorist organization doing waterboarding any more than I would support your quilting club engaging in waterboarding. So, once again, clarification of the question is necessary.

I'm curious if you've read the Geneva Convention, or the Convention Relative to Treatment of Prisoners of War, or
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

Your reasoning that it would be acceptable for a state government to perform waterboarding but unacceptable for a terrorist organization doesn't even come close to the reasoning used to justify waterboarding. In fact, your reasoning wouldn't have a chance of passing international law.

Even Yoo's memo is filled with hedging such as "We acknowledge, however, that the binding nature of the ICC treaty on non-parties is a complicated issue and do not attempt to definitively answer it here" and "We cannot guarantee, however, that the ICC would decline to investigate and prosecute interrogations of al Qaeda members".

It's a memo that gives the administration the answer it wants while attempting to avoid personal risk.

[Dodeca]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So, maybe you should be clearer about your actual question.

Q: Is it ethical to torture an evil person to save lives?

If you think it is ethical then there are some things you must consider.

What makes a person evil?

I think it is the fact that the people we term evil are really ourselves saying we are good/righteous and that makes us worthy of torturing those we deem evil. We see others as evil and not ourselves. If you realize you have both good and evil inside of you then you will not project it on others. No one is worthy of torturing anther person. Those that think they do are mentally ill. No one is completely good and no one is justified in saying they are.

[Dru]

	Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

and that's in a controlled environment where the participant knew what was happening and had the power to stop it himself.

*twiddles thumbs, awaits reply*

[JTG]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hmmm... Waterboarding isn't severe pain or suffering, certainly not physically, nor mentally.

Whoa now... let's slow down a minute. Waterboarding isn't severely mentally painful?

Brace for lame
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A mock execution is a method of psychological torture, whereby the subject is made to believe that he is being led to his execution. This usually involves blindfolding the subject, making the subject recount last wishes, or making him dig his own grave, and sometimes it can go as far as forcing the victim to watch a single or multiple real executions taking place under the same circumstances to make the victim believe to be next. Discharging a firearm near (but not at) the victim, or firing blanks, might end the mock execution.

If holding an empty gun to a prisoner's head and pulling the trigger is torture, then how exactly does giving them the sensation of drowning not count as torture as well? Waterboarding goes way beyond the physical discomfort or pain it inflicts. It's effective because it is used to instill panic in the subject, to the point that they feel they're in danger of dying.

I'd rather be whipped or paraded around naked, and those are outlawed as well, if i understand correctly

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is true, more or less. Any CPR class can tell you that between 5 and 6 minutes without air is when brain damage starts happening. I've personally held my breath for just over 3 minutes before.

Hmm, I will concede this point. This seems to be correct (which I should have known very well). The sources I'm looking at vary between 2 min and min as the marker for brain damage. Likely a lot of individual variation involved.

The only caveat I see in that is waterboarding causes gagging and gasping. This likely causes a more rapid loss of oxygen than holding your breath.

[Night Runner]

	Originally Posted by Dodeca To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Q: Is it ethical to torture an evil person to save lives?

Hmm... That's not quite the question I had in mind when I started this thread. The ticking bomb scenario was already discussed before, in other threads. This particular thread amounts to this question: If we as a nation publicly admit that we're a-okay with waterboarding prisoners of war, would it be okay if other countries/terrorist groups used it as a precedent and tortured our troops?

It seems to me that your typical supporter of waterboarding would think twice if, say, rogue Afghans captured an all-American G.I.Jane and started waterboarding her while making her read excerpts from G.W.Bush's autobiography, in which he says waterboarding is okay because a lawyer told him so.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Booko]

	Originally Posted by Dru To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	and that's in a controlled environment where the participant knew what was happening and had the power to stop it himself. *twiddles thumbs, awaits reply*

*twiddles thumbs, awaiting you to talk to some of our vets who didn't have the option to stop it*

Let me know when you have a salient point.