Hitchens' voluntary waterboarding
- Thread starter pitz96
- Start date
True, but the essential element that causes the harm is the same as what you postulated: extreme mental distress. You have said that extreme mental distress is what makes waterboarding torture. To me, something is not torture simply because it involves extreme mental distress. To me, you need more than that.
If extreme mental distress by itself can make an action torture, then you must have torture in the following example:
Adult man sexually molests his 9-year-old daughter. Wife finds out, takes the child, and goes somewhere safe. Police arrive, arrest the man, and isolate him for a police interview. Man realizes he can go to prison, wants to talk to his wife and child so he can convince them to lie and cover up his misdeeds. Police won't allow him to do that; they keep him isolated; the only person he can talk to is his lawyer. Man is under extreme mental distress. Is he thus being tortured?
I would say, no.
This scenario happens in various ways just about every day.
It does. Water boarding not only causes extreme mental distress, but it also over powers the gag reflex. This is not an insignificant thing. This is why water boarding is so effective and so very distressing. It is overpowering a basic natural survival reflex. It is also known to cause permanent mental damage.
The only direct reference to waterboarding for that incident that I have read comes from a Politico article that itself never directly links waterboarding and Roosevelt's decision.
According to that article, "The court-martial cleared the general of the charges, found only that he had behaved with excessive zeal and 'admonished' him against repetition." Assuming the only charge against the general was waterboarding, what you have is a clear difference between what a court-martial board found to be torture, and what one person named Teddy Roosevelt found to be torture. Hardly a consensus. But we can't even go that far, because the article says only:
"Roosevelt responded by disregarding the verdict of the court-martial and ordering the general’s dismissal from the Army. Morris wrote that Roosevelt’s decision “won universal praise” from Democrats, who congratulated him for acknowledging cruelty in the Philippine campaign, and from Republicans, who said that he had “upheld the national honor.”"
It is unclear whether waterboarding was the only act involved, or whether there were other acts as well. The article doesn't address that issue.The only US military person I am familiar with who was court-martialed and found guilty for acts that included torture was Major Edwin Glenn in 1901. His acts included the burning of villages, and I am not familiar with a legit source that addressed whether he was court-martialed for waterboarding, other acts that were considered torture, the burning of the villages, or all or a combo of things. Again, without specifics on what was decided, you can't tell what drove the final decision.
Last edited:
I could say exactly the same thing about being forced to watch the "Sex In The City" movie.
So, you are saying that any time one overpowers "a basic natural survival reflex," you have an act of torture? Careful now, because the child molester in my example would be under extreme mental distress and wanting to flee, a "basic natural survival reflex."
Give me a break. There is nothing "technical" here. Terrorists aren't pows by any stretch of any imagination.
Lets stop pretending that they are or playing any other lame association games involving the treatement that american citizens or uniformed soldiers recieve.
The two are simply not analogous.
Your right. Let us stop playing this game. These terrorists in custody are at our mercy. They live or die at our pleasure. Why should we care whether they live or die?
How can we not be morally bankrupt if we as a nation condone torture? How can we not consider water boarding torture?
Unregistered
Moderator
I am not sure I really understand why it would be OK to waterboard and torture a non-uniformed fighter, but not a uniformed soldier.
There were many non-uniformed fighters in our American Revolution. Would it have been morally acceptable to you to waterboard and torture them?
There were many non-uniformed fighters in our American Revolution. Would it have been morally acceptable to you to waterboard and torture them?
Unregistered
Moderator
I'd say Bruxley is unlikely to change his mind, if he is really OK with his children being waterboarded. I like that kind of commitment.
Well you should be sure that your prepared for the consequences of threatening a nations security before you go threatening it don't ya think? Waterboarding isn't going to leave them harmed like torture would.
Wouldn't it be cool if countries we had issues with like Iran or China outlawed harsh interrogation. I bet we would have a lot more people willing to risk covert intelligence or other clandestine activities there. Wouldn't be long before we had their whole loaf of bread huh. SWEEEET
Wouldn't it be cool if countries we had issues with like Iran or China outlawed harsh interrogation. I bet we would have a lot more people willing to risk covert intelligence or other clandestine activities there. Wouldn't be long before we had their whole loaf of bread huh. SWEEEET
Very simple. Waterboarding doesn't meet the traditional/commonly held definition of torture. Sure its not fun. Sure people don't like it. Thats kind of the point. Clearly its not "life altering" or anything near it from a psychological standpoint since we have all sorts of people who volunteered for it, experienced it, and are going about their daily lives no worse for the wear.
As far as being morally bankrupt, let me respond to your question with a question. How can we not be morally bankrupt if we as a nation condone killing? The answer for both questions is the same. We kill to defend ourselves. We kill those who attack us. We extract information to defend ourselves. We waterboard those who attack us.
Since some of you enjoy hypothetical situations, here's one. Say one of us had their wife or kids abducted. And lets also say by some dumb luck that we were able to find one of the kidnappers and had him "detained" in our garage. Now lets say that via the use of a tire iron or a drill or whatever instrument you'd like to imagine, we managed to get him to spill where our loved ones were and managed to save them.
How many of you after reading this story on the news would start a post here outraged at the conduct of the man trying to save his loved ones? How many of you would rant on about the "rights" of the criminal. My guess is not many if any.
Again, its the motivation and not the action that deserves judgement. Waterboarding a murderer to prevent future murders is very much justified.
That's a complete mischaracterization of Bruxley's position. It's like saying, "My son/daughter is in the military. They could be killed in combat. I'm okay with that." Understanding the risks and consequences of one's decisions and actions is not the same as holding a cavalier attitude about them.
Bruxley, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you recognize and understand the potential consequences of your children's decisions. If they join the military, a potential consequence is that they might be killed in combat - it is the MILITARY after all. If they are engaged in intellegece or terrorist activities in another country, a potential consequence is that they might be harshly interrogated - they are engaging in intelligence or TERRORIST activities after all.
Given the kind of treatment or executions that are often meted out to our people, I'd rather my children be waterboarded by the enemy than have their fingernails ripped out or their heads sawn off. Given those choices, I'd pray to God that the enemy waterboarded them instead. I'll choose waterboarding for myself or my children over fingernails ripped out or heads sawn off each and every time.
On the other hand, Unregistered needn't bother to make such a choice since in his view it's all the same. And if they're all the same, he'd see no difference between having his children waterboarded versus having their fingernails ripped out or their heads sawn off.
Last edited: