Kaj Larson over on current’s done something similar, but gone so far as to provide video footage:
http://current.com/items/86417301_kaj_larsen_goes_waterboarding
This is why people in power need to be constantly beset by constraints, and occasionally kicked in the nuts just to keep them from getting too full of themselves.
Bush hasn’t had enough such treatment, it would seem.
That explains why political leaders behave the way to do when their egos are allowed to run unchecked.
Perhaps we should have a lottery where random members of (say) Democratic Underground are given access to Bush’s wardrobe and the contents of a joke shop (itching powder, invisible ink that turns visible at body temperature, that sort of thing; nothing actually dangerous). That would provide a salutary ego check, like the guy at a Roman triumph who sat next to the honoree whispering in his ear “Remember, thou art mortal”.
Of course, we must make sure to do the same to Democrats. It would only be fair, after all.
Not only fair, but wise. All leaders need frequent reminding that they’re mortal and fallible.
Wow! I learned of this fascinating post from PZ Myers at Pharyngula. My hat is off to you, Scylla, for being sufficiently curious, motivated, brave, and crazy to undertake this experiment and sufficiently self-aware and articulate to describe your experience so well that the rest of us can better understand what waterboarding is all about. Thank you.
Apart from the question whether this technique is deemed torture, I’m curious about the ethical question of whether torture is ever justified. In discussing the ticking-bomb hypothetical, Sam Harris wondered whether restraint in use of torture in such a case can be reconciled with our willingness to engage in war in the first place and thus accept the “collateral damage” that inevitably results. His query is if we’re willing to act in a way that guarantees the death and misery of many innocents, why spare the rod with suspected terrorists? With the bomb ticking, if there is even a small chance that torture would elicit information enabling us to prevent the death and misery of hundreds or thousands or more innocents, would it be immoral to employ torture? Would it be immoral not to?
Sure, there are concerns about the slippery slope and the possibility of mistakes–which inhere in nearly any human institution or practice–but, those concerns aside, would any set of circumstances justify torture?
Of course, all it takes is a bit of imagination to put together a scenario where it might be justified. The logical failure is not that such a scenario may exist, it is in pretending that if there were ever any justifiable use of torture, that this somehow reflects legitimacy on the practice as a whole. It is represhensible to gun someone down, yet few of us would deny that there have been situations when it is entirely appropriate. But those situations are exceedingly rare.
Fishing for intelligence is not one of those. And it has several negative consequences above and beyond the obvious fact that it sucks. First off, it gives carte blanche for such practices to be visited upon our own. Extra special not good. Second, it puts our enemies in a better light. A war against terror is primarily a battle for hearts and minds, the bullets are secondary. If we were scrupulous about collateral damage on the battlefield, if we firmly and transparently stick to a code of decent behavior, we enhance the possibility that people will give us the info we need because they want to.
I would seek to bribe our way, to be frank. I would let it be widely known that the right bit of info would get you a set of visas for your entire family, a hundred grand or so, and a lap dance from J Lo. You get tired of being a religious fanatic, you could be sinning yer ass off in Vegas next week.
If torture can be justified in some circumstances, the question then becomes one of drawing the line. Different people would, I suppose, draw the line in different places. Most would, I think, consider it justified, if ever, only in extreme, rare circumstances and certainly not for routine fishing for information.
We could undertake to draw the line in two ways. One would be to try to define circumstances appropriate for torture and devise ways to limit its use to those circumstances. Another way would be to outlaw torture in all circumstances and leave it to individuals (Jack Bauer sorts) to choose to disregard that law in extreme circumstances, seek mercy (e.g., jury nullification) in our judicial system, and stand prepared to accept the consequences.
Just to make sure I understand what you’re saying here, are you really claiming that every attack that Al Qaeda has made against U.S. targets has been self-defense or direct retaliation?
Because I firmly believe that the vast majority of Americans do not believe in killing of noncombatants for the purpose of inducing terror, and that the vast majority of terrorists (by definition) do.
So you’re saying that every single person now residing in or visiting the U.S. who might conceivably be killed by a terrorist bomb (including yourself) deserves death because they have used torturers to enforce their will? Or are you saying that every single person now residing in or visiting the U.S. (again, including yourself) supports every single action that the Bush administration (not to mention rogue military agents) has ever taken? C’mon, Trihs. Even you have to admit that innocent people died on 9/11, and that every attack on a non-military target has the potential to kill innocent people.
As written, I disagree wholeheartedly, and I feel that using the word to apply to all Muslims is highly bigoted, intolerant, and even ignorant (the overwhelming majority of people who subscribe to the beliefs of Islam would find fascism abhorrent). If, however, you meant to insert the word “some” or “a few” in front of “Islamists,” then it’s probably true. But in that case it would be true if you changed it to refer to “Catholifascists” or “Atheistiofascists” or “Stampcollectorofascists.”
After reading every post in this thread, I fail to see how anyone could draw that conclusion.
There’s a big difference between ignorance and irrationality. When one is as thoroughly indoctrinated as these suicide bombers are, their actions are (within the context of their ignorance) perfectly rational.
You are aware that Islamist =/= Muslim. Right?
You’re not calling someone’s claim bigoted, intolerant and ignorant of facts based on you not knowing what the word they used meant. Are you?
Are you sure you want to compare it to certain things? Is there, for instance, a sometimes-violent always absolutist dogma that wants to convert nations to stamp collecting?
No, I’m saying that most of the people we are fighting are neither Al Qaeda nor terrorists.
No, Americans are fine with killing civilians to spread terror, as long as it’s the American military that does it.
Anyone who supported Bush or the war. As for the rest, they are simply more victims of the torturers and conquerors, albeit indirect ones.
You’re an American, right? 
Aren’t syllogisms grand?
I just jumped on to say that, in terms of experiments to assist the fight against ignorance, we have come a long way since the days of pan-frying semen.
Technically. But hardly a normal one.
We finally agree.
I will re-ask the question. Do you believe this is true for all Americans, or only for some Americans?
If the former, how do you account for someone like me, who is not okay with killing civilians to spread terror? I think Clinton should have been impeached, not for lying during a deposition, but for lobbing a couple of missiles into the streets of Baghdad early in his presidency and dismissing the deaths of the eight civilians killed through this act. I am and have always been vehemently opposed to military action that does not take the greatest scruple to value civilian safety above the safety of the military, especially above the safety of a volunteer military.
If the latter, how do you propose that the enemies of the United States attack the US such that they exclude those Americans who are not okay with killing civilians? Or do you think that it’s copacetic for them to kill all Americans, since God will know his own?
Daniel
With this thread pointed out to me by a friend I felt I should at least sign on as a guest just to respond to this:
That we, the USA use waterboarding is obscene, but that we continue debate over its essence or nature this long is what really gets to this observer. It’s beyond obscene. The obsfucation of it within the office of our Department of Justice is beyond obscene.
Bearing in mind that facts should be the bones of all arguments, let me pull the skeleton of history out of the closet in hope to help re-aquaint readers here and find their own moral compass’ bearings.
Japanese soldiers convicted of practicing waterboarding on our prisoners during WWII were hanged.
We did not torture them back. We HANGED them.
I hear youngsters agast when learning about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How could we have ever come to that point, treating their civilians like rabid dogs.
It ended the war.
We are not a nation of sadists. Extenuating a war is just that. The dubious nature of whom is heading our nation regarding this gives me extremely queasy pause when a lot of people will justify that he’s a “well meaning jerk, but a decent man.”
He is not. He will never live this down. His Presidential Library will include a wing in the basement for people to “try waterboarding for themselves” in the long debate…which should end, by damn!
War should fought to a certain end, quickly.
Put up a Mission Accomplished sign and by God, we ought to go home.
No more torture! Waterboarding or any other.
Best as I can find, no, we didn’t. We hanged some Japanese officers for thier utterly wretched and savage treatment of American POW’s, but not specificly for water-boarding. And the intention was markedly different, they weren’t torturing to obain information, but to terrify others into compliance.
A quibble.
I’d like to pose a question here (an honest one, not an argumentative one) for those who believe waterboarding is not torture- what is torture?
If you definition is “a process that causes physical pain”, then electric shocks aren’t torture. Ever been electrocuted? It’s a funny experience that your body has an extremely negative visceral reaction to, but isn’t painful in the slightest. Yet I think most people on both sides of this debate would agree that subjecting someone to electric shocks is a form of torture.