It may not have been vindictive as such. Seems more likely they genuinely believed that they had a major kingpin (well, he confessed, didn’t he?..) and were blind to the possibility that he had already told them what he knew, and probably quite a lot he didn’t. So they kept after him to get the information they believed he had since they flat couldn’t accept that they might have been wrong.
If waterboarding is merely unpleasant, then WHY do it ? It’s like saying our major interrogation techniques are giving prisoners wedgies and making them watch reruns of Small Wonder.
You can’t have it both ways. If waterboarding is so traumatic that it will force even a hardened terrorist to spill the beans, how is that not torture? And if it’s not particularly traumatic, then what purpose is served by doing it?
If you believe that America should be torturing its enemies, fine, argue for that. I think that that’s disgusting and a complete violation of everything this country stands for, but at least it’s intellectually honest.
Oh, never mind, you don’t actually know what waterboarding is.
Thanks to the uproar we are now using the army field manual techniques to interrogate prisoners. No insults…not even good cop/bad cop techniques. Personally I think this is a horrible idea that weakens our security.
Also, I don’t care when the manual was written or who was president at the time. This is not a conservative vs liberal debate IMO. The liberals have merely used this to their political advantage. Where was the outrage during the Clinton administration for the use of rendition. We can be fairly certain that those captives were really tortured.
He tortured his own people! That’s what’s so awful. His own people! Just imagine!
While Americans torture Iraqis who are not Americans and are barely human anyway.
Talk about squaring the circle.
I don’t suppose you’d like to prove this?
No, and I apologise for not being more clear. Some people stepped over the line but this was not the official policy of the US. These people should be prosecuted for their crimes.
The other point I was trying to make is that reasonable people can disagree about whether official US interrogation techniques constitute torture. The memos released show that thought went into how long a certain procedure could be performed, etc.
Again, this does not equal torture. It sounds like something your big brother would do to you as a kid. Can it scare the hell out of you and make you extremely uncomfortable? Absolutely! But does it constitute torture? No way.
The definition of torture is vague. It is obvious that the techniques used by many countries are torture (cutting off limbs, rape, killing your family, medical experimentation etc.). The definition of torture leaves a huge gray area where reasonable people may disagree. This is just the nature of using such a vague definition…extreme and severe are words that do not exactly have clear definitions.
Prove what? That we are using the army field manual?
I’ve already provided a link about insults.
You know that he was only waterboarded about 5 times. The 183 number refers to the number of times water hit his face.
I do see the good cop/bad cop technique is being debated in the media. I retract that statement since it is unclear at this point
Maniac Man, you’re tremendously uninformed about waterboarding. Please, check this out.
It’s the video of Christopher Hitchens, a fan of the Iraq war, being waterboarded. In a safe non-threatening environment, full of fail-safes and controls, he still breaks in seconds. Seriously, watch it. It’s not dribbling water on someone to the point of annoyance. It’s the activation of a primitive, deep seated panic reflex at the core of the brain.
Every person who has ever drowned while conscious has felt it, the utter reptilian panic of a terrified animal.
If you don’t think waterboarding is torture, you’re ignorant. <– sassy link.
What you say makes sense…
I heard that special forces trainees undergo waterboarding though. I know they “know” they won’t die during the process, and that “bad” guys don’t have that luxury. But since our soldiers are subjected to this, and use that “training” to help resist the scary kinds of torture that they may be subjected to by our enemies made me think that waterboarding ain’t so bad. However, they say that anything can be used as torture, and that means WBing is too I supppose, but only if done with dog-piss and dirty underwear for hours and hours on end. Shit…tickling has been used as torture from what I have heard…guess we can’t even tickle our enemies…
“You getting that morally reprehensible feeling? Can’t look at yourself in the mirror, but don’t want to quit shaving? Then you need our new! improved! Torture Lite. From CheneyCo, a wholly owned subsidiary of Moloch Industries, so you know its got to be good! Thoroughly vetted by our crack team of lawyers, Torture Lite is 100% legal and ethical!* Its like a shot of Novocaine straight to the conscience. you’ll be as happy and carefree as Pinocchio when he found out that crickets make good bait!..”
*not valid in civilized world, may result in contempt, derision, shock, horror and dismay.
Here is your disconnect.
Simple as that really. If tickling someone repeatedly for hours can do the above then it is torture literally by definition.
Maybe you enjoy drinking beer. Bet if I poured beer down your throat endlessly however you’d find that good thing has become tortuous.
Your reasoning continues to make no sense. If waterboarding was not so bad, how would familiarising our soldiers with its effects do jack to help them resist torture?
Here’s a simple guideline: if you are doing something because it would make the prisoner uncomfortable, it is bad.
By that definition life in prison could be considered torture. Hell, even a few years can cause anguish of the mind.
Why, that’s true! And if you cram Girl Scout Cookies down somebody’s throat, why, that could be torture! So, I guess we have to make Girl Scout Cookies illegal! And maybe waterboarding would be OK if we didn’t use ordinary dog pee but Evian water, from like France! Then it would be ok, huh? Boy, you guys sure make some dumb arguments!
In the associated Vanity Fair article, most of the content is echoed elsewhere from sources like Scylla’s topic, but this line was striking.
My argument is that the definition of torture is vague. This is unfortunate but it is impossible to quantify. So while some things may upset your delicate sensibilities and you may call it torture, to others it may well just be a way of life. I, for one, would be in severe anguish if I were homeless but the bank that foreclosed on me would not be torturing me.
The fact waterboarding was used 183 times on KSM, seems either indicative of a highly inefficient torture method, or very incompetent torturers. I wonder if they were getting paid by the number of waterboardings, or by the hour?