I waterboard!

[Hostile_Dialect]

For the love of God, El Jay, we have a [ quote ] tag. Please use it.

@cedman

You contradict yourself in post #80 when you quote the dictionary where it specifically states, “to die” and then you say that death is not even implied.

That’s not contradiction; the word has several different meanings that can apply to the same situation.

@cedman

If they stay that way or not doesn’t change the fact that they are dead at the time they stop breathing.

I thought it was blatantly obvious that my point was about whether or not a person stayed dead, not about whether or not they flatlined for a period of time and met the technical definition of death. I’m not arguing the definition of death; I’m arguing that “technical” death is irrelevant: in non-ironic real-life use of the English language, when someone says “X died last week”, they mean that X is dead right now. If they wanted to say that X was technically dead and is now alive, they would say, “X had a near-death experience last week”.

[Defensive_Indifference]

@argexpat

Since suddenly we can’t agree on what constitutes torture, how about this for a definition: It’s not torture if [a journalist/SD member /Fear Factor contestant] is willing to undergo it just to see what it’s like.

With so many people trying waterboarding, it’s become the radical new extreme sport of 2007!

I don’t see anyone trying bamboo splinters under the fingernails, or having ex-Nazis give them root canals without anesthesia. And Scylla says he would sooner have his “fingers smashed one at a time by a sledgehammer” than try waterboarding again. Um, OK. I look forward to that post, which I suppose he’ll have to type with his nose.

The difference is that no one is claiming that bamboo-under-the-nails is anything other than torture. No one needs to try it, because it is obviously torture. Not even Dick Cheney would call it “an aggressive manicure”. The seductive thing about waterboarding is that it’s hard to imagine what it is, really. Now that he’s experienced it, Scylla seems in no hurry to try it again. So, someone’s uninformed* willingness to try something doesn’t tell us much about the thing itself.
*Not meant to be a criticism of you, Scylla. Not sure how else to say it.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@elucidator

I’m with you, Dan’l, but the obvious objection is, as you might well have expected, semantic. The word is “punishment”, presumably after a determination of guilt has been made by the standard legal procedures.

I see what you’re saying, but I think that’s an activist reading. Punishment is simply the inflicting of an aversive in response to an undesired behavior. There are definitions that slightly vary this formula, but the basic idea remains the same; a determination of guilt by standard legal procedures is not part and parcel of the word “punishment,” and reading that into the penumbra ought to shock even Scalia’s conscience.

If the founders had intended that, they could have used a word like “sentence.”

Daniel

[John_Mace]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I disagree.

This is the passive voice, so it’s a bit unclear who the agent is who is prohibited from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments. The strictest possible reading is that it’s the universal agent: it violates the constitution for anyone or anything to inflict cruel and unusual punishment. Given that the document covers the actions of the US federal government, however, it seems pretty clear and not overly activist to interpret the feds as the agent of that passive construction.

Nowhere is the direct object of that passive construction limited to US citizens, not that I can tell. The first time anything is limited to citizenry in the constitution, near as I can tell, is in the fourteenth amendment, which doesn’t so much limit things to citizens as it makes it clear that all citizens are covered.

As I see it, it’s not remotely activist to interpret the eighth amendment as prohibiting any employee of the federal government from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments on anyone.

Is there any precedent that “punishment” has be interpreted as anything other than a sentence given to someone convicted of a crime?

And if you’re going to interpret the 8th amendment as applying to non-citizens outside the US, then why not the 4th also? Frankly, the idea that the BoR applies to foreigners, on foreign soil, during armed conflict is simply beyond the pale. (I’m assuming here we’re talking about what happened as a result of our invasion of Afghanistan.)

An alternate case, of course, is that the constitution requires the government to uphold treaties to which the US is a signatory, and human rights treaties which we’ve signed prohibit such treatment of prisoners, according to those cases that have been able to make it to the SC.

Well, I would say that is the case-- nothing alternative about it-- although I would rely more on statutory law rather than the more vague, high level language of something like the GCs. Besides, US citizens are subject to punishment for violating US law, not treaties. Unless the treaty has been translated into some statute, I don’t know how you would prosecute someone for a violation.

As for the GCs, the 4th is the one applicable to folks such as KSM, and it’s unclear that he would be covered by same. There are plenty of exemptions:

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.

Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

Although there is one sentence (the first in this continuation of Art. 5) that he could hang his hope on, but it’s pretty vague:

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

n.b.: I am not arguing that we should use torture, but the fact is, the GCs are written so as not to automatically apply to people operating on their own-- ie, not as part of state in active conflict, or which is not a signatory to that treaty.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@John Mace

Is there any precedent that “punishment” has be interpreted as anything other than a sentence given to someone convicted of a crime?

See my above post: the definition of punish, unlike the definition of sentence, does not include a reference to a conviction or indeed to any legal procedure.

And if you’re going to interpret the 8th amendment as applying to non-citizens outside the US, then why not the 4th also? Frankly, the idea that the BoR applies to foreigners, on foreign soil, during armed conflict is simply beyond the pale. (I’m assuming here we’re talking about what happened as a result of our invasion of Afghanistan.)

The question is whether it applies to captives taken, not whether it applies in the heat of battle. In such a circumstance, would you mind explaining why it should not apply to such captives in precisely the same measure that it applies to foreigners captured on US soil?

Well, I would say that is the case-- nothing alternative about it-- although I would rely more on statutory law rather than the more vague, high level language of something like the GCs. Besides, US citizens are subject to punishment for violating US law, not treaties. Unless the treaty has been translated into some statute, I don’t know how you would prosecute someone for a violation.

Someone who is sworn to uphold the US constitution is presumably sworn to uphold treaty agreements by proxy; deliberately violating treaties while acting in an official role is surely a crime, is it not?

As for the GCs, the 4th is the one applicable to folks such as KSM, and it’s unclear that he would be covered by same. There are plenty of exemptions:

As I understand it, the Supreme Court covered this one a couple of years ago, and decided that people captured during a military operation, regardless of whether they were part of an armed, uniformed force, were covered by one section or another of the GC. The administration’s claims that they fell into a new category that was neither military nor civilian was deemed specious.

Daniel

[Der_Trihs]

@Bayard

The difference is that no one is claiming that bamboo-under-the-nails is anything other than torture. No one needs to try it, because it is obviously torture. Not even Dick Cheney would call it “an aggressive manicure”.

He wouldn’t use those words, but he might well refuse to call it torture, as long as we were the ones doing it. The Administration did try to get torture defined only as that which caused “organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or death”; which would let bamboo-under-the-nails off the hook.

[Defensive_Indifference]

@Der Trihs

He wouldn’t use those words, but he might well refuse to call it torture, as long as we were the ones doing it. The Administration did try to get torture defined only as that which caused “organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or death”; which would let bamboo-under-the-nails off the hook.

Point taken. I had forgotten about the lovely “organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or death” test, which leaves out lots of things that decent humans would call torture.

[Nars_Glinley]

@Der Trihs

He wouldn’t use those words, but he might well refuse to call it torture, as long as we were the ones doing it. The Administration did try to get torture defined only as that which caused “organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or death”; which would let bamboo-under-the-nails off the hook.

Not exactly, the pain inflicted had to be at that level.

In the view expressed by the Justice Department memo, which differs from the view of the Army, physical torture “must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.” For a cruel or inhuman psychological technique to rise to the level of mental torture, the Justice Department argued, the psychological harm must last “months or even years.”

From here. Bamboo under my fingernails would impair many of my bodily functions and cause quite a few others.

[pravnik]

Scylla, I in no way condone the techniques you underwent (and am glad you’re okay), but were you at least able to extract the information you required from yourself?

[redman]

Boing boing brought me, all I can say is wow, Scylla, time for a new hobby. Although, it appears we’ve made a convert exposing the Bush administration for the buffoons they are.

For those that think waterboarding at any cost provided it gets results, I refer you to perhaps the wisest founding father statesman, Benjamin Franklin:
“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”

I encourage those of you opposed to this method of interrogation to contact your elected representatives, a voice silent is not a voice.

[ElvisL1ves]

Just to cauterize the definition-of-torture weaseling, here is the definition the US has ratified:

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
…
For the purposes of this Convention, the term “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.

Does waterboarding somehow escape that definition? Well, perhaps according to Gonzalez’ memo declaring it to be legal, an assertion Bush continues today with his “We do not torture” lie.
I trust it’s still okay to accuse public figures of lying, as long as they don’t post here?

[appleciders]

@argexpat

Since suddenly we can’t agree on what constitutes torture, how about this for a definition: It’s not torture if [a journalist/SD member /Fear Factor contestant] is willing to undergo it just to see what it’s like.

With so many people trying waterboarding, it’s become the radical new extreme sport of 2007!

I don’t see anyone trying bamboo splinters under the fingernails, or having ex-Nazis give them root canals without anesthesia. And Scylla says he would sooner have his “fingers smashed one at a time by a sledgehammer” than try waterboarding again. Um, OK. I look forward to that post, which I suppose he’ll have to type with his nose.

Besides the points that Bayard makes, I think it’s worth noting that your definition doesn’t work because fear is experienced differently by different people. I think we can all agree that choking someone to the point of unconsciousness or beating them until they bruise or whipping them until blood is drawn would constitute torture, but some people do these things as foreplay.

[What_Exit]

@Tsar Chasm

Boing boing brought me, all I can say is wow, Scylla, time for a new hobby. Although, it appears we’ve made a convert exposing the Bush administration for the buffoons they are.

For those that think waterboarding at any cost provided it gets results, I refer you to perhaps the wisest founding father statesman, Benjamin Franklin:
“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”

I encourage those of you opposed to this method of interrogation to contact your elected representatives, a voice silent is not a voice.

Welcome to the Straight Dope Tsar Chasm, you have a clever user name.

Benjamin is my favorite founding father and that is one of my favorite and that is one of my most cherished quotes. However, I recently found out that Franklin, possibly did not originate the saying.

From Wikiquote:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of “s”: “Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deſerve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard’s Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: “Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.”

*Many paraphrased variants derived from this saying have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin: *
“They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
“Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.”
“He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.”
“He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”
“People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”
“If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.”
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
“He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.”
“Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.”

[Cervaise]

@argexpat

With so many people trying waterboarding, it’s become the radical new extreme sport of 2007!

You are welcome to get on the board.

[Lemur866]

Yeah, the strange thing is seeing the waterboard proponents on the one hand claiming that waterboarding isn’t so bad, it’s not torture, it’s just uncomfortable. And on the other hand, it will make hardened terrorists start babbling their secrets in seconds.

You can’t have it both ways, it seems to me. Why would waterboarding convince terrorists to start talking if it’s just a mildly unpleasant experience? For it to work, doesn’t it HAVE to be torture? Otherwise, why would it work? If it’s not torture, then it wouldn’t work, and therefore why would we want to keep using a method that doesn’t work?

The real problem is not whether a particular instance of torture works or doesn’t work. It seems to me that sometimes torture can be used to gain information that can’t be gained through other methods, the safe combination scenario seems pretty likely to be successful. And of course, it’s hard to argue that terrorists don’t deserve to be tortured.

The trouble is that how do you determine whether someone deserves to be tortured or not? How do you reach that conclusion? What methods do you use? It’s like declaring that criminals don’t deserve a trial. Well, maybe they don’t…but how do you determine whether someone is a criminal who doesn’t deserve a fair trial, and an innocent person who does? Wouldn’t you need some impartial method of determining whether someone is a criminal or innocent before you bother holding a trial? And once you’d held that hearing on whether the person deserves a fair trial or not, why would you bother holding a trial for someone you determined was an innocent person who deserved a trial, since you’ve already decided that they are innocent?

So the “terrorists deserve to be tortured” argument is therefore exposed. It isn’t an argument that we should torture terrorists to obtain intelligence, it’s an argument that terrorists should be punished by torturing them. But how can you determine who’s a terrorist who should be punished by torture, and who’s an innocent bystander? Should CIA agents be granted the authority to seize people off the streets and torture them to death simply on the CIA’s word that the person deserves to be tortured to death? Or should they only have the authority to torture foreigners to death? But if there’s no oversight over the CIA, if they can run secret torture centers where the secretly torture terrorists (who deserve it) to death, how do we know that they’re torturing the right people to death?

Maybe, just maybe, it would be simpler to ban torture completely and absolutely. And since we know some people will be tempted to torture for reasons that seem good to them, we institute laws that call for heavy punishment for torture…lengthy prison terms, for instance. And if anyone comes across a situation where the only way to stop a nuclear bomb from going off in New York City is to torture a terrorist suspect, well, they can go ahead and torture that terrorist. If they aren’t willing to risk going to jail for 20 years to save New York City, well, I guess saving New York City wasn’t that important after all. If they’re the kind of person who would gladly torture that terrorist, but only if they had a guarantee that they would never suffer any personal repercussions from that torture, then perhaps they’re not the sort of person who can be trusted with the power to arbitrarily torture other people, are they?

And that’s the point. No person can be trusted with the power to torture, and anyone granted that power is guaranteed to abuse that power. I can’t be trusted with that power, you can’t be trusted with that power, George Bush can’t be trusted with that power, Hillary Clinton can’t be trusted with that power, Mother Teresa can’t be trusted with that power. The only person would could be trusted with that power would be a person would would never use it…and so why bother granting them that power?

[Ralpho]

@Lemur866

And if anyone comes across a situation where the only way to stop a nuclear bomb from going off in New York City is to torture a terrorist suspect, well, they can go ahead and torture that terrorist. If they aren’t willing to risk going to jail for 20 years to save New York City, well, I guess saving New York City wasn’t that important after all.

Lemur is talking sense. Further, if, against enormous odds, someone really does manage to save New York by means of torture, there are built-in ways for the legal system to avoid crushing our hero with lengthy incarceration: prosecutorial discretion, judical prerogatives over sentencing and, as a last resort, an Executive’s power to pardon, designed expressly for use in such special circumstances.

Does anyone here really believe our legal system was designed so poorly, and by such simpletons, that we must hastily discard all its constraints the instant we face a threat?

[elucidator]

Uh, just want to say something to you noobs? This isn’t the kind of thing Dopers do, you know, the Board isn’t a cross of Mensa and Jackass, The Movie. Look, we were as surprised as you! Just don’t want you getting the wrong idea, or anything. 'Cause its not like that. Usually.

[Ralpho]

@elucidator

Uh, just want to say something to you noobs? This isn’t the kind of thing Dopers do, you know, the Board isn’t a cross of Mensa and Jackass, The Movie. Look, we were as surprised as you! Just don’t want you getting the wrong idea, or anything. 'Cause its not like that. Usually.

Sorry, I’m not sure I understand. Is your point that most Dopers don’t subject themselves to such unusual procedures as self-waterboarding?

I doubt anyone thinks this was a typical post. I can’t even imagine anyplace on the net where such a post could be called usual.

But I think it’s an extraordinarily important post, something the world needs to know. Until Scylla described his experiment here, there was no way to find out in such gritty detail how waterboarding is performed, and what the experience is like from a purely physical, raw human reflex point of view.

Scylla’s report is lucid and ruthlessly complete. I believe we have here the privilege of seeing the internet at its very best and most useful.

[Mad_Max]

Um, yeah.

So I’m waiting now for you to “simulate” having your wife, two children, and every one you care about that lives in your city murdered by a nuke set off by Islamofascists. How do you feel? Tell us.

Questions about appropriate interrogation techniques in a 9/12 world are complicated, and anyone who oversimplifies them for the sake of puffing themselves up as morally superior (I’m not necessarily referring to you, but certainly to the majority of posters whose comments I read) is…well…exceedingly stupid and self-obsessed come to mind.

[Chouan]

We can debate this topic endlessly, i.e. is waterboarding torture and is torture effective as an interrogation technique?

But the truth of the matter is, we’re fighting against an enemy who isn’t bothered by the niceties of theoretical and ethical debates. Do you think the Islamists ever gave Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg the kind of moral consideration that we give to them? No!

Sometimes, you have to fight fire with fire. And in the case of Al-Qaida, that means suspending our usual code of ethics in order to save our civilization. When you’re interrogating somebody like Khalid Sheik Mohammed–who cut off Daniel Pearl’s head with a knife and videotaped it–you need to be able to use every kind of persuasion possible to get something out of him.

If we used waterboarding on KSM, I’m fine with that. Hell, I wouldn’t care if we used thumbscrews or the strappado on that guy, or any of his ilk. We’re not talking about torturing innocent people. We’re talking about people who we know are fighting a jihad against Western Civilization–whose professed aim is the destruction of our life and our way of life–and these are people who WILL talk if presented with persuasive tools of interrogation.

I know people gave Alan Dershowitz a lot of heat for recently pointing out that members of the French Resistance broke under Nazi interrogation… but they were missing his point, which was that “enhanced” interrogation (call it what you like) on high-value suspects WILL get you answers. Plus, a well-trained interrogator will know how to separate the wheat from the chaff, in terms of misleading or false answers.

If we use methods that might be considered torture, does this make us like the Nazis? I’ll let you guys debate that. For now, I’m happy to know that no terrorist attacks have happened on US soil since 9/11–and that’s due in no small part to actionable intelligence gathered from interrogation rooms.