You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Hitchens' voluntary waterboarding
- Thread starter pitz96
- Start date
...............except that we're not talking about asphyxiation.
Looks like that behavior is unavoidable........
Of course if what has taken place were different then what has taken place you'd have a point.
It seems that it takes a strained definition of torture, an exploded view of what the scope of the subject is (asphyxiation, for example), or the use of a fascist state scenario to try to keep a hold of the hash interrogation=torture sophistry.
Looks like that behavior is unavoidable........
Of course if what has taken place were different then what has taken place you'd have a point.
The contention that we should not care what is done to them because they are terrorists is asinine. They are "terrorists" because the people intent on incarcerating and interrogating them indefinitely say they are. What type of "due process" in even a rudimentary form exists?
No, they are terrorists because they have been captured on the battlefield. Either way, this doesn't really have anything to do with waterboarding as the guilt of the 3 individuals that were waterboarded is beyond question.
What keeps them from labeling you a terrorists or me? Who would we plead our case to?
Nothing I suppose. However it is irrelevant what they lable me because I have a right to have my day in court. This is exactly what Padilla was all about. This situation has been resolved.
Asphyxiation is indeed excruciating. Respiratory acidosis, which is the blood turning acidic because of the build up of carbon dioxide, is acutely painful and systemic.
Except, as bruxley pointed out, waterboarding is not the same as asphyxiation.
Unregistered
Moderator
Padilla was incarcerated for a long time without the benefit of a lawyer. He finally got his day in court and justice was served, but if you think the system worked as it should have, I am speechless.
Waterboarding simulates drowning, which is almost identically physiologically to asphyxiation. Come on, if it wasnt extremely painful, why do you think people would crack in less than a minute! To think it is otherwise is simply absurd. It works because no one can stand it.
Waterboarding simulates drowning, which is almost identically physiologically to asphyxiation. Come on, if it wasnt extremely painful, why do you think people would crack in less than a minute! To think it is otherwise is simply absurd. It works because no one can stand it.
Padilla was incarcerated for a long time without the benefit of a lawyer. He finally got his day in court and justice was served, but if you think the system worked as it should have, I am speechless.
Sorry, but thats incorrect. Padillas attorneys tried this argument and scotus completely invalidated it. From the case...
There is no indication that there was any attempt to manipulate behind Padilla's transfer--he was taken to the same facility where other al Qaeda members were already being held, and the Government did not attempt to hide from Padilla's lawyer where it had taken him. Infra, at 20-21 and n. 17; post, at 5 (Kennedy, J., concurring). His detention is thus not unique in any way that would provide arguable basis for a departure from the immediate custodian rule.
Two weeks after his arrest, Padilla's case was in the system. Hardly what I'd call locking him up and throwing away the key.
Waterboarding simulates drowning, which is almost identically physiologically to asphyxiation. Come on, if it wasnt extremely painful, why do you think people would crack in less than a minute! To think it is otherwise is simply absurd. It works because no one can stand it.
Almost doesn't cut it. This is done in a controlled environment with medical personnel present. Further, it does not go on nearly long enough to pose the problems you are suggesting.
As far as people cracking in less than a minute, I have no doubt it is because they think they are going to drown. If you hold my head underwater, I'm going to freak out, not because its painful, but because I can't breath and that is going to illicit a survival response from my body.
You see, this one of the reasons waterboarding works so well. Its not based on pain. Pain is something that the body can cope with. Lack of air isn't.
...............except that we're not talking about asphyxiation.
Except, as bruxley pointed out, waterboarding is not the same as asphyxiation.
So by those statements, your contention is that water boarding is simply overpowering the gag reflex...and nothing else?
No, it's the inability to overcome the gag reflex (for very long) that tricks the brain into thinking it is drowning.So by those statements, your contention is that water boarding is simply overpowering the gag reflex...and nothing else?
Three people......less then 3 minutes total.........valuble information that saved unknown numbers of American lives from terrorist attaks.......not one asphyxiation.
If, however, something other then what did take place was what took place then it would be something different then what it is and that would be another thing. Good point.
Unregistered
Moderator
No matter how you twist words and try to rationalize, there is something fundamentally wrong with a person who would waterboard someone, or condone waterboarding someone. God won't forgive us for doing this, and we will cease to be a great nation and the shining light of the world because of things like this. It is yet another sign of our own moral decay.
Creature, as stated, I (twice) and others on this forum have actually been waterborded. That real life experience is discounted as it wasn't by an enemy. But what made it very realistic is what Unregestered eluded to. You start to wonder what kind of person would be so quick to do this to thier own.
Truth be told there is alot of sohestrey of the topic here because that is what is REQUIRED to put waterboarding in the torture category. I've summed it up SEVEALR times but all the seemingly infinate ability to play make believe to justify an on it's face reality inluding having it CONTRIDICT training given by those held as experts in iterrogation and intellegence gathering.
Forget using your heads guys, your emotions have ya' seized up. You can't stomach the reality of it so don't pretend to understand the topic so enough dancing around from one example or another of a strained definition of torture, an exploded view of what the scope of the subject is (asphyxiation, for example), or the use of a fascist state scenario to try to keep a hold of the hash interrogation=torture sophistry.
Defining something that leaves you whole, uninjured, and as well 20 minutes after as were before (esentially frightening them into spilling their guts about he details) requires a very strained definition of torture and facing it for threatening ANY nations national security or for killing their innocent civilians for the purpose of causing terror is hardly unreasonable let alone immoral.
Stretch, cloud, muddle, hyperbolize, or fain knoledgablity as much as you like it simple doesn't fit.
Odd don't you think that applying Occums Razor or noting that regaurdless of the above statment having stood for pges without rebuttal, both evidence that without flat out denial of critical thinking and even evidence the waterboarding=torture sophestrey can't remain.
So go on guys. Spin up a new strained definition, misrepresentation of the scope, or facist state scenario. It's hard to face being incorrect but far more damaging to one's self the walk in denial.
Truth be told there is alot of sohestrey of the topic here because that is what is REQUIRED to put waterboarding in the torture category. I've summed it up SEVEALR times but all the seemingly infinate ability to play make believe to justify an on it's face reality inluding having it CONTRIDICT training given by those held as experts in iterrogation and intellegence gathering.
Forget using your heads guys, your emotions have ya' seized up. You can't stomach the reality of it so don't pretend to understand the topic so enough dancing around from one example or another of a strained definition of torture, an exploded view of what the scope of the subject is (asphyxiation, for example), or the use of a fascist state scenario to try to keep a hold of the hash interrogation=torture sophistry.
Defining something that leaves you whole, uninjured, and as well 20 minutes after as were before (esentially frightening them into spilling their guts about he details) requires a very strained definition of torture and facing it for threatening ANY nations national security or for killing their innocent civilians for the purpose of causing terror is hardly unreasonable let alone immoral.
Stretch, cloud, muddle, hyperbolize, or fain knoledgablity as much as you like it simple doesn't fit.
Odd don't you think that applying Occums Razor or noting that regaurdless of the above statment having stood for pges without rebuttal, both evidence that without flat out denial of critical thinking and even evidence the waterboarding=torture sophestrey can't remain.
So go on guys. Spin up a new strained definition, misrepresentation of the scope, or facist state scenario. It's hard to face being incorrect but far more damaging to one's self the walk in denial.
Here's a 'scenario' for you guys....
Sept. 15th, 2001 (AP) REUTERS:
The White House today announced that a 20th hijacker, Mohammad al-Qahtani, had been in the custody of US Intellegence for 2 weeks and had threatened that there would be an attack in New York as revenge for US forign policy but that interrogation had failed to yeild enough details to prevent it. "Other less reliable hints were present that became more substanative in light of his threats but we were not able to get the information needed to prevent this attack from Qahtani. Harsh interrogation such as waterboarding was suggested but the Administration took the position that even though waterboarding leaves you whole, uninjured, and as well 20 minutes after as were before that it wasn't justifiable." said Condeleeza Rice, a top Presidential Advisor. "Even in light of this event, waterboarding still would not be used to prevent such an attack. America enjoys a standing as a moral authority in the world and nothing warrents jepordizing that." President Bush announced in a press conference later that day.
Democrat minority leadership responded..................
Sept. 15th, 2001 (AP) REUTERS:
The White House today announced that a 20th hijacker, Mohammad al-Qahtani, had been in the custody of US Intellegence for 2 weeks and had threatened that there would be an attack in New York as revenge for US forign policy but that interrogation had failed to yeild enough details to prevent it. "Other less reliable hints were present that became more substanative in light of his threats but we were not able to get the information needed to prevent this attack from Qahtani. Harsh interrogation such as waterboarding was suggested but the Administration took the position that even though waterboarding leaves you whole, uninjured, and as well 20 minutes after as were before that it wasn't justifiable." said Condeleeza Rice, a top Presidential Advisor. "Even in light of this event, waterboarding still would not be used to prevent such an attack. America enjoys a standing as a moral authority in the world and nothing warrents jepordizing that." President Bush announced in a press conference later that day.
Democrat minority leadership responded..................
Still disagree?Defining something that leaves you whole, uninjured, and as well 20 minutes after as were before (esentially frightening them into spilling their guts about he details) requires a very strained definition of torture and facing it for threatening ANY nations national security or for killing their innocent civilians for the purpose of causing terror is hardly unreasonable let alone immoral.
No matter how you twist words and try to rationalize, there is something fundamentally wrong with a person who would waterboard someone, or condone waterboarding someone. God won't forgive us for doing this, and we will cease to be a great nation and the shining light of the world because of things like this. It is yet another sign of our own moral decay.
No matter how you twist words and try to rationalize, there is something fundamentally wrong with a person who would kill someone someone, or condone killing someone.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement.
As far as god goes, adultery used to be punishable by stoning. From what I've read that one of the most painful ways to die. So with that in mind, are you really going to tell me that God would look down on us for waterboarding murderers when he (depending on your religion) approved of a death sentence for cheating on your wife, and a gruesome one at that?
Unregistered
Moderator
---
Unregistered
Moderator
No matter how you twist words and try to rationalize, there is something fundamentally wrong with a person who would kill someone someone, or condone killing someone.
Killing someone to save your own life can be morally justifiable.
Torturing them to get questionable information that might save your life is not.
I think this thread will get closed if you try and turn this into a discussion on religion. I apoligize for my reference to god earlier, and think we better not discuss that here.
Killing someone to save your own life is humane. There is nothing cruel or unusual about that.
Torturing them to get questionable information that might save your life is not.
What about killing someone who commits treason? Most people think thats perfectly fine. Several have stated so in this thread. Once in custody there is no further danger, so what is the point of killing them.
Seems very hypocritical to me to agree with killing a spy, but not agree to waterboarding a terrorist.
Unregistered
Moderator
No I am against the death penalty, even for those convicted of murder.
I think it is justifiable to kill someone only when they are about to kill you and you have no other choices.
I think it is justifiable to kill someone only when they are about to kill you and you have no other choices.