Video: Current TV demonstrates waterboarding; Update: KP says bring it on
posted at 12:08 pm on October 23, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Sent to me by KP, who wonders how the test subject here lasted five minutes when Khaled Sheikh Mohammed shocked investigators by lasting for two and change. I think with KSM they were pouring water continuously for that time; here the guy gets intermittent reprieves.
If you missed it last month, watch Brian Ross explain to O’Reilly how waterboarding KSM helped foil a 9/11-type plot targeting the Library Tower in L.A. It’s rude of me to introduce irrelevant details like that into the debate, I know, but I do love to shock.
Update: Having failed to alienate every last leftist in America, KP redoubles her efforts.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
angler,
I disagreed with Sydney about whether Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki can honestly be considered needless based on historical context, and I disagreed with him on the definition of torture. I believe that taking extreme measures to shorten/minimize hostilities can be measured to save lives, and therefore not be considered evil.
But I disagree with your position, and more strongly so. Threatening a third party with bodily harm to extract information IS torture, and is wrong in everybody’s book. There is a line which we ought not cross, because we ARE more humane than they are.
That point becomes moot, however, considering that we have this wonderful technique, waterboarding, that is both effective and demonstrably harmless. We needn’t threaten anybody’s loved one, either in truth or in theatrics, to extract information.
Also, I agree with KP that we wouldn’t likely be waterboarding proper POWs in a conflict among signatories to the Geneva Conventions.
But our current enemies are stateless thugs whose motivation is world domination via terrorism. They should be accorded ZERO legal protections. Our only valid reason for treating them as well as we do should be to guarantee reciprocal treatment of our combatants taken prisoner. Since we already know what treatment our servicemen/women can expect, the kid gloves are off. Short of extreme abuses that properly define torture, how they are treated is the military’s business (with executive oversight).
Oh, and waterboarding isn’t torture.
Freelancer on October 23, 2006 at 7:28 PM
Sydney “Best of Times, Worst of Times” C.-
A few words disappeared from the previous post somehow… that left ultimate the meaning of the “philsophical exercise” vague. It should have ended:
“…corrupt maniacal parent, would you shoot the child?”
Put simply:
Is it ever acceptable to sacrifice one innocent life to save thousands of innocent lives?
profitsbeard on October 23, 2006 at 7:28 PM
Kirsten can waterboard me any day.
ConstantSorrow on October 23, 2006 at 8:02 PM
That’s not what I imagine when I think of torture. I imagine it does cause a ‘gag reflex’ but, come on. A bikini wax would have been harsher than that.
thedecider on October 23, 2006 at 8:45 PM
Ted Kennedy is the resident expert in water boarding. Except his victim didn’t walk away, unharmed.
shermacman on October 23, 2006 at 10:51 PM
Thirteen28, you made me laugh before I even read your post. Thanks for your suggestion.
Coronagold on October 23, 2006 at 11:34 PM
Bush should demonstrate himself resisting 5 minutes of continuous waterboarding. That’d end the debate pretty quickly.
And what’s with the half-assed waterboarding going on here? Seems pretty tame to me.
This would make one awesome game at a carnival. You have to be waterboarded for 5 minutes, and if you make it, you get a stuffed animal. You have to hold a depressed button the whole time. If you let go, you lose. Beats shooting basketballs into undersized hoops.
Mark Jaquith on October 24, 2006 at 12:28 AM
Waterboarding isn’t torture. It doesn’t even leave a mark, let alone lasting physical damage. Yes, it’s coercion, as somebody already said, but no, not torture. As far as the subject fearing for his life, well, to borrow a phrase from the Boss, boo freaking hoo. (That’s a lot nicer than I’d put it myself.) If Mr. Terrorist wanted to die in bed, he should have stayed home and gone into the used camel business.
As you’ve probably guessed by now, I’m another ditto with Puritan1648. I applaud the desire to maintain the moral high ground while going toe-to-toe with terrorist savages, I really do. It’s very noble. But if anyone thinks that you can win a war against a totally ruthless enemy without getting your hands dirty, well, just be glad that there are people who are willing to get down in the mud and the blood and do what it takes. Because you can’t enjoy the moral high ground if you’re dead.
ReubenJCogburn on October 24, 2006 at 1:19 AM
They didn’t do it correctly. The effect is much greater if the prisoner is stripped and doused with ice cold water first. Imagine the icepick feeling as you suck in your breath when hit with the cold blast. This contracts the lungs, adding to the feeling of drowning and lack of oxygen. No breaks after only a few seconds either. You need 30 seconds at a pop for best effect.
rotorhead on October 24, 2006 at 3:48 AM
Freelancer,
I agree with you that waterboarding isn’t torture.
You state that threatening a third person with bodily harm would constitute torture and a line that should not be crossed. I don’t necessarily agree, but that is not what I was advocating in my example.
In my example, the third person (i.e. the terrorist’s wife) would not actually be threatened with bodily harm. But the terrorist would be made to believe that to be the case, through deception and illusion. I just don’t think that playing extreme mind games with a terrorist to extract information is “torture.”
angler on October 24, 2006 at 9:56 AM
‘We’re better than that’ isn’t an ethos…it’s an epitaph.
We follow the Law of Armed Conflict because of the expectation that our opponents will do the same. That’s all fine and dandy until one of the parties stops following the rules.
What is supposed to happen then is that the other side is released from the obligation to follow the rules, and the original violator both reaps what he sows AND shoulders the blame. Civilian men, women, children, religious structures, hospitals, places of cultural or historical significance, you name it…it’s now a legitimate target. The fear of it happening to your side is what is supposed to keep you from doing it to theirs, and vice versa.
But…
If, as a matter of national policy we disavow ever reciprocating when it is done to us, where is the other side’s fear that keeps them from doing it to us? The big clue here is that they’ve violated the rules many times already, and we’re still mucking around trying to win a ‘compassionate’ war, limit collateral damage, etc. Has our forbearance stopped them from targeting noncombatants in terror attacks? Has our pathetic hand-wringing over waterboarding kept anyone’s head attached to their body? No, because the perpetrators are emboldened by our lack of response. They have the freedom to do anything they want because they know that we’ll be ‘better than that’ all the way to our graves.
James on October 24, 2006 at 11:12 AM
Lots of interesting posts on this subject. If cutting off someone’s head or blowing up innocent children doesn’t cause irrepairable harm to these Jihadists state of grace, then waterboarding won’t do much to their fragile pysches. They need to fear that they are going to drown and ultimately die. Otherwise, what’s the point? Order them Micky D’s and a malt and have Dr. Phil sit down with them????
Our country is doomed. Doomed I tell you.
robblefarian on October 24, 2006 at 11:41 AM
Two words, Bikini Wax.
Although already mentioned, I believe it bears repeating. And yes, my two brothers and myself did worse to each other just for fun as ordinary young american boys.
I could suggest some things to the DoD if they need help in interogation techniques.
They might take some ideas from the youth of the country for updating their techniques, IMHO.
tormod on October 24, 2006 at 11:48 AM
Hammer. Nail. Head.
thirteen28 on October 24, 2006 at 12:08 PM
angler,
I understand your intended point clearly. However, the U.S., U.N., and Geneva Conventions all speak to the real OR PERCEIVED threat to third party harm and disallow it.
That is the crux of terrorism, isn’t it? Do what I want or “they” die. Nope, crosses the line.
Freelancer on October 24, 2006 at 12:09 PM
Freelancer,
I reject your attempt at moral equivalence. The use of harsh interrogation techniques is not “the crux of terrorism.” Making a terrorist falsely believe his wife will be harmed if he doesn’t talk is not the same as “convert to Islam or I will cut off the head of your wife.” In the former, no harm will come to the wife. In the latter, she’s toast.
When you say that “our current enemies are stateless thugs whose motivation is world domination via terrorism” and that those enemies “should be accorded ZERO legal protections,” I wholeheartedly agree, which is why I can’t understand why you think making a terrorist falsely believe a third party may be harmed if he doesn’t talk “crosses the line.”
angler on October 24, 2006 at 12:27 PM
There is another technique that the mossad has used in the field and it was demonstrated on me by a friend from Israel…let me tell you.. you will break.
They bind your extremities and put you on a back board. They then rotate the board with your head at a 45 degree down angle and pour 7-up in your nostrils.
After about 20 seconds, the pain is so excruciating you will do or say anything for it to stop.
You can try this at home but do not blame me for the experience.
ScottyDog on October 24, 2006 at 12:36 PM
Moral equivalence. Well, I must say that’s the first time I’ve ever had that accusation leveled against me.
I never said that the crux of terrorism was the use of harsh interrogation techniques. Stick to the quote. I also didn’t say it was “tell me what I want to know, or else…” I said that the concept of “Do what I want, or someone you love gets hurt” is the crux of terrorism. And the use of the word terrorism here is distinct from the barbaric radical Islam against whom we are fighting.
Besides, you aren’t arguing with me, but with established norms of allowed and disallowed behavior. I can’t imagine I’ll have anything further of value to include, so if you want to play Constantine’s game you can have the next word and claim victory.
Freelancer on October 24, 2006 at 12:42 PM
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe, according to the Geneva conventions, we are allowed to execute captured armed combatants out of uniform on the battlefield. Captured terrorists fit that description. Do they not? So technically we have a situation where we are allowed to shoot them in the head but we are not allowed to put a wet towel in their mouths and make them feel like they are drowning in order to get info out of them that will save lives. Huh?
Zetterson on October 24, 2006 at 1:03 PM
And my goodness! If you even think about bringing out those panties! Oh thats a gun. Ok thats fine. But NO PANTIES!
Zetterson on October 24, 2006 at 1:06 PM
Two great quotes:
…too true. If you didn’t want to get stung, you wouldn’t've poked that broomstick into that beehive…and…
Puritan1648 on October 24, 2006 at 1:27 PM
I think I’ve figured out why the libs got so bent out of shape about the whole panty on the head fiasco. I think its because they are afraid we are going to take their pink panties away from them and use them as a weapon against the terrorists. They really have nothing to worry about though because we only have a use for panties that fit snugly on the heads of detainees.
Zetterson on October 24, 2006 at 2:06 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2