Conservative radio hosts gets waterboarded

[magellan01]

@Merijeek

Ooh! Ooh! I know! Mr. Kotter, pick meeeee!

Take a right-wing jackass who says it isn’t torture, perform the “enhanced interrogation technique” on him for six seconds, and then ask him.

I bet that’ll do it.

-Joe

You might want to reread my initial post.:rolleyes:

[Captain_Carrot]

@magellan01

Tons. Don’t you ever watch* “24”*?:dubious:

I might be getting whooshed here, and I sincerely hope I am, but you’re not seriously suggesting that we should be making major policy decisions based on fiction? I mean, George Bush didn’t invade Iraq assuming he’d have the support of the elves of Lothlorien.

[magellan01]

@Captain_Carrot

I might be getting whooshed here, and I sincerely hope I am, but you’re not seriously suggesting that we should be making major policy decisions based on fiction? I mean, George Bush didn’t invade Iraq assuming he’d have the support of the elves of Lothlorien.

You know, here’s a suggestion: rather than test your twitch reflexes looking for something to jump on, how about digesting the substance of my questions and offering an opinion. Lobohan and others were able to do so. I’m sure you can, too. It’s just a matter of desire and focus.

[Merijeek]

@magellan01

You might want to reread my initial post.:rolleyes:

You want to know how we can know. I told you. Problem?

-Joe

[magellan01]

@Merijeek

You want to know how we can know. I told you. Problem?

-Joe

Yes. It doesn’t answer the question, i.e., what, specifically, are the criteria he used? Or you would use. Again, if you’re interested enough to answer, I suggest you read my initial post.

[elucidator]

@magellan01

Thank you for your contribution of usual merit.

And in case it escapes you, it’s not a compliment. Godspeed.

Oh, hell no. Minnesota is the post-modernist irony capital of the Great Plains. And clumsy sarcasm is irony’s ugly sister.

[magellan01]

@elucidator

Oh, hell no. Minnesota is the post-modernist irony capital of the Great Plains. And clumsy sarcasm is irony’s ugly sister.

Thank you for your contribution of usual merit.

And in case it escapes you, it’s not a compliment. Godspeed.

[MovieMogul]

@magellan01

Nothing. But that doesn’t answer the questions I have. What is it, specifically, that makes X torture?

I’ve always found this a pretty helpful explanation:

Some want to define “actual” torture in ways that mean that freezing someone to near-death, or forcing them into weeks of sleeplessness, or stringing them up in excruciating ways until they break, or isolating them indefinitely from any sensory perception, is somehow an “humane alternative” or “not-torture”. What they miss - or rather what they refuse to address - is that torture cannot be defined by specific techniques and legally isn’t.

Almost any coercive act sustained long enough against a person in captivity can become torture. Think of how we understand the drip-drip-drip of the “Chinese water torture” to be torture. It’s not even, as the former vice-president would say, a splash of water on the face. It’s a mere drip. But even a drip, sustained long and relentlessly enough, can break a human being. The test for torture is not whether it leaves brutal physical marks or not (that was the Gestapo standard). The test for torture is whether it is of sufficient immediate or cumulative force to rob the capacity of a human being to say voluntarily what he or she knows to be true. It is the imposition of sufficient coercion to destroy an individual’s ability to resist giving some kind of answer, true or false, or some unknowable, random blend of the two.

The point of this can therefore never be to get truly reliable information. The purpose is to get answers the victim imagines the torturers want to hear. This might be the truth; or it might be a desperate untruth. The point is that the tortured is brought to the point when such distinctions are less meaningful than simply ending the ordeal.

I think, naturally, some procedures are more likely to hasten this psychological state than others, which is why–while some methods may only be considered torture circumstantially–water-boarding counts as torture always. The panic of such a near-death experience (a panic which, physically, one can never simply acclimate to), and the knowledge that this might very well happen day after day, week after week, indefinitely, makes such a “technique” unequivocally torturous no matter what the situation or excuse.

And yes, “enhanced interrogation” is a euphamism for torture. I would argue that no genuine interrogator, who has the acquiring of truth as his ultimate goal, would ever use such a term. It’s merely legal cover double-speak.

[you_with_the_face]

@magellan01

At what point does an “enhanced interrogation technique” become "torture?

How about when wearing a sweater in hell seems an preferable option to the situation you’re in?

[magellan01]

@ArchiveGuy

I’ve always found this a pretty helpful explanation:I think, naturally, some procedures are more likely to hasten this psychological state than others, which is why–while some methods may only be considered torture circumstantially–water-boarding counts as torture always. The panic of such a near-death experience (a panic which, physically, one can never simply acclimate to), and the knowledge that this might very well happen day after day, week after week, indefinitely, makes such a “technique” unequivocally torturous no matter what the situation or excuse.

Great post. Thanks. I’m with him on the first half of it, but after that, it doesn’t make much sense to me. The point of any coercion is to get the person to talk, to share info he isn’t willing to share. We dial up the pain side of the equation all the time, as to might happen to him if he doesn’t cooperate. Here’s a question: is it okay to lie to the person being interrogated? Can you paint a picture of prison, or a particular prison he might be sent to, that is much worse than it actually is. If that is okay, how bad a picture can you paint? How horrific a picture can you paint of what awaits him? Are there limits? From what I understand, it’s okay to lie to these people, and I assume it’s done all the time. Is it okay? Is there a limit. Isn’t the point to make the idea of not cooperating less desirable than cooperating?

[ElvisL1ves]

@magellan01

what is torture?

Easy. The relevant UN treaty, to which the US is a signatory and which therefore constitutes US law:

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

A supplementary US law passed back in the ancient mists of 1994:

As used in this chapter -
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under
the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical
or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering
incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his
custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged
mental harm caused by or resulting from -
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of
severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened
administration or application, of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be
subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the
administration or application of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
personality; and

    (3) "United States" includes all areas under the jurisdiction
  of the United States including any of the places described in
  sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501(2) of title 49.

Clear? Now, where did you get the idea that, after the last century full of war, there was no accepted definition?

What is the difference between “torture” and “enhanced interrogation techniques”?

Cheney et al. use the later term as a weaseling way to avoid admitting they authorized torture. The same US law:

Section 2340A. Torture

  (a) Offense. - Whoever outside the United States commits or
attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to
any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be
punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
  (b) Jurisdiction. - There is jurisdiction over the activity
prohibited in subsection (a) if - 
    (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
    (2) the alleged offender is present in the United States,
  irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged
  offender.

  (c) Conspiracy. - A person who conspires to commit an offense
under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other
than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the
offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

Leaving aside whether waterboarding is torture or not for now, and assuming it falls short of that and is “merely” an enhanced interrogation technique

Might as well assume the ocean is orange. Waterboarding is torture. We even convicted people for it in the WW2 war crimes trials (Link)

It seems to simply create panic in the brain for a few seconds, and then it’s over.

Looks like we have another curious volunteer.

So, how would you—on both sides—address the specific questions I’ve asked?

First, by dropping the pretense that they haven’t been answered already.

[magellan01]

@you_with_the_face

How about when wearing a sweater in hell seems an preferable option to the situation you’re in?

I like it. That’s pretty good. The question then becomes, is wearing a sweater in hell more desirable than sharing the information sought.

[Captain_Carrot]

@magellan01

You know, here’s a suggestion: rather than test your twitch reflexes looking for something to jump on, how about digesting the substance of my questions and offering an opinion…

Actually, I was.

Here’s the thing: as flippant as I was, I was making a point. The show 24 is fiction. The things that happen on that show are not real; Jack Bauer will never actually have to testify before anyone as to why he did what he did. The writers on that show can make up a ticking bomb scenario, but that doesn’t mean that scenario will or even can happen. Basing policy on things that are made up versus things we have observed is a bad idea.

[Captain_Carrot]

@magellan01

I like it. That’s pretty good. The question then becomes, is wearing a sweater in hell more desirable than sharing the information sought.

And if you don’t actually know the information sought, or used to know it but that knowledge is out of date? The torturer won’t believe you, and he’ll keep going until he gets what he wants. Unfortunately, what he gets won’t actually be actionable intelligence, though he and his superiors probably won’t know that. We act on it anyway, and something gets fucked up.

[sailor]

@magellan01

Nothing. But that doesn’t answer the questions I have. What is it, specifically, that makes X torture?

Well, American authorities did not have any doubts when they considered it torture. You might want to ask them.

[Robot_Arm]

@magellan01

I think this makes sense. But just so I understand, someone can torture—without restriction—IF it later proves to have been necessary and successful. Is that right? I think that goes further than what I’d be comfortable with.

I’m not exactly comfortable with the idea either, but that’s how justice is done in this country.

People use the ticking time bomb scenario to force an admission so they can say “so, sometimes torture is justified.” My answer says it’s still a very serious crime. A torturer has to face the justice system. But there are humans in that loop for a reason.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Captain_Carrot

The show 24 is fiction.

You and I may know that, but not everyone does:

During a panel discussion about terrorism, torture and the law, a Canadian judge remarked, “Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra ‘What would Jack Bauer do?’ ”

Justice Scalia responded with a defense of Agent Bauer, arguing that law enforcement officials deserve latitude in times of great crisis. “Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles . . . . He saved hundreds of thousands of lives,” Judge Scalia reportedly said. “Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?” He then posed a series of questions to his fellow judges: “Say that criminal law is against him? ‘You have the right to a jury trial?’ Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer?”

[Early_Out]

Why, oh why, is Souter retiring, instead of Scalia?

[carnivorousplant]

@Early_Out

Why, oh why, is Souter retiring, instead of Scalia?

Because G-d hates me. I’m very sorry to drag the rest of you into this, but She is really, really pissed.

[tomndebb]

elucidator and magellan01, if you each have a desperate need to keep pissing on each other’s shoes, take it to the Pit.
[ /Modding ]