Hitchens' voluntary waterboarding

P

pitz96

New member
Christopher Hitchens, who has always supported the Bush administration's "war on terror" in all its forms, recently underwent voluntary waterboarding. He wrote of his experience and thoughts in Vanity Fair, and has reached the conclusion: "Believe me, it's torture." All in all, it's a pretty balanced article.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808

there is also a link on this site to a video of the Hitchens' waterboarding sesion.
 
What is this SERE school that you mention? Who goes to this school, where is it located and what is in the cirriculum?
 
SERE is Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape School. It is a military school for military members who run a higher risk of being captured. Waterboarding is sometimes used there on those members who have done something that would probably have gotten them killed under real conditions.
 
Waterboarding is sometimes used there on those members who have done something that would probably have gotten them killed under real conditions.
Click to expand...

You're saying we use waterboarding on our own troops as punishment?
 
You're saying we use waterboarding on our own troops as punishment?
Click to expand...

No, it is used as a training tool to teach them to resist these techniques. Your average guy at SERE school (I couldn't comment on your Special Operations non-average guys though) doesn't see waterboarding unless he has done something stupid that would have caused his captors to shoot him in the real situation. Since they frown on shooting SERE students, waterboarding is one of several techniques that some students may get to see.

They also hit people, do sleep deprivation, stress positions and many of the other methods that "human rights" groups have complained about there. Personally, I thought the Hitchens piece was great commentary on the subject. Far above the normal hysteria and handwringing.
 
Correct me if I am wrong but at no time MUST those people go through water boarding. They may elect to, possibly be told it is a requirement for what the job they want but you could not mandate that a person HAD to go through with it, they could always refuse (and accept the consequences of not following the path they wanted.)

Doing it on a prisoner, especially one who is being held in seclusion with no charges and no known path to plea his case, is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.
 
Doing it on a prisoner, especially one who is being held in seclusion with no charges and no known path to plea his case, is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.
Click to expand...

Of course it different. But why in the world does it matter. It doesn't injure the person and its incredibly effective.
 
Why do people keep acknowledging the leftist's "torture" ploy that's clearly nothing more than deliberate political sabotage? Why even validate the issue?
 
I have gone back and forth on this issue but in the end it is this,

We have to stand for something.

There is a name for those who use terror to gain their desires from someone else. You may not like the name but it fits.

I do not really blame the guys on the sharp end who advocate this. They are in the unenviable position of having to see every day as one of survival and those they are fighting would gladly skip past water boarding straight to hacking pieces off to gain what they want.

As stated in the article though, where do you draw the line? When is it no longer acceptable to drown someone? Should prisoners of American forces have to fear for their lives every time a US soldier approaches their cell? Should they constantly worry about the treatment they will receive and torture which may await them?

Sorry but no. If you want to drug them for information to save lives fine but resorting to the tactics of pain and fear are NOT what America is about. Our actions in this matter have caused the entire world to question what this nation stands for, and with good reason. If we are going to assume the role of global crusader, righter or wrongs, then we damn well better not be committing the types of actions we would deplore being done by others.

Ask this question, would the US gov't ever state it acceptable for a foreign gov't to water board American citizens should that gov't believe it necessary? Especially American citizens who might have been taken on American soil?

If that does not make the point clear I don't know what will.
 
Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee (Tom Cruise): I think I'm entitled to them.
Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth!
Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.

We use words like "honor," "code," "loyalty..." we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!
 
We use words like "honor," "code," "loyalty..." we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something.
Click to expand...

So were does terror and torture fit into "honor," "code," and "loyalty"?
 
Much of this has been discussed in this thread.

SERE training (aka POW school) and such was discussed starting at post #185 page 8.


What is this SERE school that you mention? Who goes to this school, where is it located and what is in the cirriculum?
Click to expand...
This link will answer most of that........
 
The whole waterboarding debate is pretty funny to me. People act like this is something that just started happening in the past two or three years. We have been using this technique for decades, and yes, we even use it on our own troops. I don't know if anyone here has heard of "The Rogue Warrior", Richard Marcinko - but he was a Navy SEAL that was assigned to go around kidnapping base Navy commanders during training exercises in order to expose vulnerabilities at Naval facilities. He had a movie out in '94 with footage of himself using this technique - not in combat, but during what the kidnapped victims thought was going to be a routine training exercise.

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1804319670/details

Torture or not torture, it's not like our people can or will unlearn the technique. Whether anyone likes it or not, waterboarding is here to stay.
 
It is my understanding that, for the most part, the methods and techniques taught in the class are considered classified.

Is this true?

Is it true as well that upon completion of the course, participants sign a document acknowledging and asserting that they will not disclose information about the course?
 
Correct me if I am wrong but at no time MUST those people go through water boarding. They may elect to, possibly be told it is a requirement for what the job they want but you could not mandate that a person HAD to go through with it, they could always refuse (and accept the consequences of not following the path they wanted.)
Click to expand...
At no time MUST terrorists go through water boarding. They may elect to by choosing to become terrorists, or by choosing not to provide the information we need. They can avoid waterboarding by either not becoming terrorists or by providing the information we need.

A military member whose training requires waterboarding suffers a negative impact by electing to avoid it. He will not get the duty that he wants and his chances of advancement will probably be nil, and both outcomes will negatively impact him personally and possibly his family, if he is married. However, a terrorist who avoids waterboarding will not suffer such negative impacts.
 
Last edited:
I have gone back and forth on this issue but in the end it is this,

We have to stand for something.
Click to expand...

We do. We stand for freedom, liberty and all the rest. We don't attack people because of their religious views or kill innocents and justify it because of some bogus cause.

Your logic makes the same mistake as people who say "killing is wrong". Killing is simply an action. It is neither wrong or right. If I kill someone to take their wallet that is wrong. If I kill someone because they are going to shoot me, thats not wrong. Its the motivation, not the action that is important.


As stated in the article though, where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

You draw the line at torture. Again, this technique doesn't kill people, doesn't drown people, doesn't cause any permanent or even temporary injury. Messing with someone's head isn't torture.

When is it no longer acceptable to drown someone?
Click to expand...

I suggest you read up on waterboarding because it doesn't involve drowning at all.


Should prisoners of American forces have to fear for their lives every time a US soldier approaches their cell? Should they constantly worry about the treatment they will receive and torture which may await them?
Click to expand...

You mean that guys who plant IED's that kill our soldiers or the guys who kidnap innocent people and murder them? Are you really going to make the argument that we need to create an environment where terrorists are not afraid?

Sorry but no. If you want to drug them for information to save lives fine but resorting to the tactics of pain and fear are NOT what America is about.
Click to expand...

And ironically, drugging someone for information (which isn't as reliable) is far more physically dangerous to the suspect than waterboarding.


Our actions in this matter have caused the entire world to question what this nation stands for, and with good reason. If we are going to assume the role of global crusader, righter or wrongs, then we damn well better not be committing the types of actions we would deplore being done by others.
Click to expand...

Well I don't know what you deplore, but I certianly don't like decapitations, explosions, RPG's or being shot. Seems that on the moral comparator we have the high ground.


Ask this question, would the US gov't ever state it acceptable for a foreign gov't to water board American citizens should that gov't believe it necessary? Especially American citizens who might have been taken on American soil?
Click to expand...

Well lets see. If we had an american citizen that was engaged in acts of terror against a foreign nation as part of a larger organization that had resulted in thousands of deaths within that nation, then I don't see a single problem with it.

Again your logic fails here. You seem to think that because we waterboard people will hate us and retaliate. Well I've got news for you these subhuman pieces of trash were blowing people up and sawing heads off BEFORE anyone knew we were waterboarding. Its also patently clear that they aren't going to stop killing us if we stop waterboarding. So the choice we have is to get useful information via a proven technique or not.

If that does not make the point clear I don't know what will.
Click to expand...

Quite.
 
Coming for a MI and Criminal Investigator Background, I agree with most Military Interogators in the view that torture is an unreliable method of getting information.
The best method is long term building of total control over an prisoners life, and the building of a "relationship" with the subject. Of the confessions I have recieved in the criminal justice system they all came from my development of a relationship of trust and cooperation. Heck some of the guys would even thank me afterward for getting whatever they did off thier chest.
I would have felt slimey and dirty except for the fact that my buddy buddy behavior with them helped make the criminal case against them that much stronger.

A prime example was that nasty little cockroach who was in Thailand and admitted to killing Jon Benet Ramsey in Colorado (the child beauty pagent girl)
There was complaints about him having a glass of champagne with the police officers on the flight back. Hell if it would make the guy feel at ease with me I would have done the exact same thing. (Granted later on it was proven that his confession was totally bogus, but that is not the point here)

I tend to agree that torture to gain info is a bad idea, and to do so lowers us as a nation. The main argument for it is the old "ticking time bomb, and this guy knows where it is" scenario. I have never run into a situation like that so I have no clue how I would procceed, but I am guessing, they would be pretty rare and if you knew for a fact that the guy knew, well that would imply that you had other avenues to explore, besides just interviewing him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top