Thread: "Absolutely torture."

It's not resistance to torture, it's him not really being affected.

Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]

resistance to torture

=

Originally Posted by [SomeGuy

not really being affected.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

=

Almost got me there! But if it's not affecting him, then it must not be torture.

Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]

Almost got me there! But if it's not affecting him, then it must not be torture.

The act would still be torture, because of the intent. Even if the guy didn't feel a thing, you'd be torturing him with the intent of making him feel it. It would be an act that the average person would react to, so the fact that you're trying to do it to this guy, and he's not reacting, doesn't make you innocent of using a torture technique. When you've got a track record of torturing people with the technique - who did react to it - the intent to torture the guy is what matters, in that particular case.

Even though that individual case hasn't much relevancy on the overall issue. I'm sure you're well aware that people don't react to stimulus in the same way. A thin (arguably less than 1%) minority of those who seemed unaffected by water boarding doesn't really say anything about the alleged ineffectiveness of the technique.

Water boarding can cause death. Yes you can drown during water boarding if they are not careful. What kind of injury is more permanent than death? Its torture.

Originally Posted by Alric

Water boarding can cause death. Yes you can drown during water boarding if they are not careful. What kind of injury is more permanent than death? Its torture.

In that case, it would be worse than torture. It would be murder.

It looks like this issue involves a substantial degree of subjectivity. Somewhere between a raised voice and a cutting off of legs lies the boundary of "torture". Is waterboarding past that line? I don't think so. It is still a really bad thing to have to experience.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Somewhere between a paper cut and a cutting off of legs lies the boundary of "torture".

Not really. Paper cuts still qualify as torture - if used over a period of time, to extract information or seek some sort of compliance from someone.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Not really. Paper cuts still qualify as torture - if used over a period of time, to extract information or seek some sort of compliance from someone.

Damn, what happened? I thought you or somebody else might say that, so I edited my post right away to "a raised voice". You replied to my original post.

So...I have a question for those who say water boarding isn't torture.

It seems to be said that WB isn't torture because "the victim feels just some fear and slight physical discomfort." The fear aspect, though, has to do with the direct fear of death, whether or not death by water boarding is actually possible.

Well how about repeated rape? Physiologically, sex is not only usually 'slight physical discomfort', but it actually feels good. What the victim is feeling is that fear of being violated and possibly being left for dead

The question is, would you not consider a woman who'd been locked in a basement and raped repeatedly (even if there was no physical pain involved) a woman who had been tortured?

Since the argument against WB being labeled a form of torture seems to hinge on technicality - if you do figure this scenario as that of a tortured woman - why do you feel it's so much worse than the water boarding scenario?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

So...I have a question for those who say water boarding isn't torture.

It seems to be said that WB isn't torture because "the victim feels just some fear and slight physical discomfort." The fear aspect, though, has to do with the direct fear of death, whether or not death by water boarding is actually possible.

Well how about repeated rape? Physiologically, sex is not only usually 'slight physical discomfort', but it actually feels good. What the victim is feeling is that fear of being violated and possibly being left for dead

The question is, would you not consider a woman who'd been locked in a basement and raped repeatedly (even if there was no physical pain involved) a woman who had been tortured?

Since the argument against WB being labeled a form of torture seems to hinge on technicality - if you do figure this scenario as that of a tortured woman - why do you feel it's so much worse than the water boarding scenario?

I don't think waterboarding makes the person feel "just some fear". I think it causes panic, but it is nothing like the panic attack caused by rape. It is also not something that, if performed correctly, will cause severe emotional disturbance that lasts the rest of a person's life like rape often does.

Like I suggested, there is a spectrum. Somewhere between a raised voice and a cutting off of legs are waterboarding, the threshold of torture, a paper cut, and rape (not necessarily in that order). Where that torture threshold is exactly is starting to look pretty subjective.

If you think giving somebody a papercut is torture, do you think tasering somebody is torture? What about tackling somebody resisting arrest?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is also not something that, if performed correctly, will cause severe emotional disturbance that lasts the rest of a person's life like rape often does.

How would waterboarding be done correctly in this instance?

Please bear in mind that being held in captivity with men who have malicious intentions can cause psychological distress.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't think waterboarding makes the person feel "just some fear". I think it causes panic, but it is nothing like the panic attack caused by rape. It is also not something that, if performed correctly, will cause severe emotional disturbance that lasts the rest of a person's life like rape often does.

That isn't true at all however. Water boarding, when done correctly causes severe emotional disturbance that lasts the rest of a persons life. It is just as horrible as rape, especially if done multiple times.

Anything that causes permanent physical or psychological damage should be considered torture. As water boarding causes both, by damaging the lungs and leaving deep emotional scars on the person, I would say its torture.

Originally Posted by Invader

How would waterboarding be done correctly in this instance?

The way that doesn't result in brain damage and so forth.

Originally Posted by Invader

Please bear in mind that being held in captivity with men who have malicious intentions can cause psychological distress.

Do you want to ban prisons?

Originally Posted by Alric

Water boarding, when done correctly causes severe emotional disturbance that lasts the rest of a persons life. It is just as horrible as rape, especially if done multiple times.

Says who? Khallid Sheik Muhammed?

US soldiers have been water boarded in the past and they have came back saying stuff like that. The fact is, water boarding was designed to be as horrible as possible to break a persons will.

Water boarding is a horrible crime that is done in secret. The idea that people water board with the utmost care for the person being tortured is silly. People die and suffer permanent injury from it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The way that doesn't result in brain damage and so forth.

Right, and I'm asking you how. How would one do this?

Do you want to ban prisons?

I think they can be refined, the same way I believe information gathering can be refined.

water boarding is torture because it simulates the feeling of drowning, the feeling of dying (and drowning is one of the worst ways to go). if you were water boarded you would know this for sure. it's like someone killing you over and over again. those guys had doctors that made sure that they would live to feel it again (tens and hundreds of times, or as they say '3 sessions')

we can compare examples, or we can go read established definitions that were written in blood themselves, the geneva convention.

It is not torture. You know they aren't drowning you. You know they would never let you die.

I don't see how slight physical discomfort and a little bit of water up the nose qualifies as "severe pain and suffering", as the official description of torture says it should be.

If you think waterboarding is not torture, please explain the above.

(Nice to see UM is here )

[SomeGuy]

Since you can't read my former paragraph, I try again with three.

In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex. The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage. 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 or, if uninterrupted, death. Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.

In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex. The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage. 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 or, if uninterrupted, death. Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.

In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex. The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage. 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 or, if uninterrupted, death. Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.

A doctor's statement:

"Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, has treated "a number of people" who had been subjected to forms of near-asphyxiation, including waterboarding. An interview for The New Yorker states, "[He] argued that it was indeed torture, 'Some victims were still traumatized years later', he said. "


Since you quoted the UN as an authority you have to acknowledge UN's view on Waterboarding, UN's view on waterboarding is very clear!!!!

"The United Nations' Report of the Committee Against Torture: Thirty-fifth Session of November 2006" says it's torture.

Almost all nations in the world have signed and ratified "United Nations Convention Against Torture" including USA.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 5 states: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights says it's torture.

Senior Medical Consultant to the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims and former member of the United Nations Committee Against Torture has said:

"It's a clear-cut case: Waterboarding can without any reservation be labeled as torture. It fulfils all of the four central criteria that according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) defines an act of torture. First, when water is forced into your lungs in this fashion, in addition to the pain you are likely to experience an immediate and extreme fear of death. You may even suffer a heart attack from the stress or damage to the lungs and brain from inhalation of water and oxygen deprivation. In other words there is no doubt that waterboarding causes severe physical and/or mental suffering – one central element in the UNCAT's definition of torture. In addition the CIA's waterboarding clearly fulfills the three additional definition criteria stated in the Convention for a deed to be labeled torture, since it is 1) done intentionally, 2) for a specific purpose and 3) by a representative of a state – in this case the US"

It is also a violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

And I could go on forever.

If you are still to biased and emotional to see it objectively then I can do no more, maybe the resilient Oneironaut will keep this going for pages and pages, but there is no point.

In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex.

Because of water up the nose? I don't gag when that happens.

The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage. 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 or, if uninterrupted, death.

Extreme pain...water up the nose BURNS. That's all. Damage to lungs...breathing cigarette smoke causes that, much worse than Waterboarding. Is being around a smoker considered torture? I'm sure they don't do it long enough to cause brain damage. And broken bones against restraints? That's the prisoner's fault. And besides, do you realize how hard you would have to fight the restraints to break bones? Psychological damage? How does that disturb your mind enough to cause psychological damage? They must have really weak mids if it does cause that. And by the way, it is interrupted. So, they are careful with it. If uninterrupted, eating can cause death, swimming can cause death, running, cooking, typing, showering, walking, breathing into a bag, breathing helium, etc.

Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.

How do they manifest after months? That makes no sense. It doesn't take months for a bone to break or for brain damage to occur.

As for the psychological effects, it's not like they got raped. They don't sit in corners staring straight ahead with no words because they got water in the face.

Originally Posted by Invader

Right, and I'm asking you how. How would one do this?

I don't know the details, but I do know waterboarding can be performed in a way that it doesn't damage the lungs, make the brain suffocate, or result in years of psychological disturbance. However it is being performed on U.S. special forces is the right way. They are not having those problems. Are any of the three terrorist leaders we have performed waterboarding on so far having any of those problems?

Originally Posted by Invader

I think they can be refined, the same way I believe information gathering can be refined.

You want prisoners to stop coming in contact with other prisoners? That is what it would take to make them not be around people with malicious intentions.

I don't really see how this could possibly cause severe emotional disturbance.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

[If you are still to biased and emotional to see it objectively then I can do no more, maybe the resilient Oneironaut will keep this going for pages and pages, but there is no point.

Instead of making empty jackass comments like that, try countering the points I have been making. I have made very specific points and used very specific analogies. All you have done is dodge those, make points about what waterboarding can do when performed in the worst possible ways, and appealed to the supposed authority of weasel snakes in the U.N. If you are going to appeal to U.N. supposed authority, you might as well be telling me what Hamas thinks. I don't care. Counter my points.

Don't be such an idiot SomeGuy. You just had someone explains how it works and you said its not true. Water boarding isn't painful because you get water up your nose. Its painful because the water goes into your lungs.

Have you ever eaten or drink something and it goes down the wrong tube towards your lung instead of your stomach? That would be more like it. If you have you know you start coughing right away and its not at all pleasant. And that is only one thing. Not prolonged exposes for minutes.

What happens if you either actually sucks water into your lungs, which causes extreme pain and cuts off oxygen to your body, even after it is stopped(The waters still in there). Or your air way spasms shuts and cuts off your breathing all together. In this case, you can die or suffer brain damage even after they stop as you can no longer breath.

The lungs can filter smoke to a point, it can not filter water. Your not a fish, people don't have gills. Water is not suppose to go into the lungs. If it does, it cause SERIOUS problems.

As you said, how hard would a person have to struggle to cause broken bones? Very very hard. Which means they must have been in extreme pain to have had struggled that hard. Yet you discount the pain as if it was nothing.

Physical effects can happen much later. Especially if the lungs were damaged during it, it may not be clear right away. And yes it is just like rape. Some people may act just like that, especially after prolonged and constant torture. Some of them never go near water again.

Originally Posted by Alric

What happens if you either actually sucks water into your lungs, which causes extreme pain and cuts off oxygen to your body, even after it is stopped(The waters still in there). Or your air way spasms shuts and cuts off your breathing all together. In this case, you can die or suffer brain damage even after they stop as you can no longer breath.

1. Is that what is happening to our special forces when they get waterboarded?

2. If so, what percentage of them are permanently harmed by it?

3. Did that happen to the three terrorist leaders the U.S. has waterboarded?