House passes bill to ban waterboarding

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I guess the point is, water in your lungs doesn't hurt that bad. Don't forget, as a baby in the womb, your lungs are filled with fluid, and there is no pain.

When you are sick and you have postnasal drip, etc, you cough to get the fluid out. Let's not exaggerate the pain associated with fluid in the lungs. It's not that bad. We've all had it and never complained about the pain, just the nuisance of the gag reflex or having to cough it up. Excruciating pain is never something that comes to my mind.

Are you seriously comparing being in the womb with having water torture performed on you?

Water torture isn't the same has having a cold or the flu, or being in the womb.. It forces the body to go through every mechanism it would if you were actually drowning.. because you are actually drowning. Just in slow motion, and it's stopped before you die (usually).

The bottom line is that water torture (aka water boarding) has been recognized as torture for centuries, and for at least 100 years in this country. We've prosecuted our soldiers who've done it to others, and prosecuted others who've done it to our soldiers. It's not even debatable about whether it's actually torture, and because it's torture, it's illegal.

The only debate left is whether or not we should be using torture techniques on people we capture and accuse of being guilty of this or that. I personally think we shouldn't.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Not necessarily. It doesn't have to be painful. Of every person I've heard talk about waterboarding pain is never mentioned. Could it cause severe pain? Sure, but not necessarily.

Here's a few videos (even though I already posted one) of protesters waterboarding themselves.

Why would they cause such 'excruciating pain' to themselves?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Are you seriously comparing being in the womb with having water torture performed on you?

Water torture isn't the same has having a cold or the flu, or being in the womb.. It forces the body to go through every mechanism it would if you were actually drowning.. because you are actually drowning. Just in slow motion, and it's stopped before you die (usually).

No, just giving examples of how fluid in the lungs doen't really cause as much pain as you claim.

The bottom line is that water torture (aka water boarding) has been recognized as torture for centuries, and for at least 100 years in this country. We've prosecuted our soldiers who've done it to others, and prosecuted others who've done it to our soldiers. It's not even debatable about whether it's actually torture, and because it's torture, it's illegal.

The only debate left is whether or not we should be using torture techniques on people we capture and accuse of being guilty of this or that. I personally think we shouldn't.

jWaterboarding and water torture aren't the same thing.

In this form of water torture, water is forced down the throat and into the stomach. This happens repeatedly until osmosis causes the cells to explode. It was used as a legal torture and execution method by the courts in France in the 17th and 18th century, was employed against Americans and Chinese during World War II by the Japanese, and was also used against Filipinos by American Forces during the Philippine-American War. The Human Rights Watch organization reports that in the 2000s, security forces in Uganda sometimes forced a detainee to lie face up under an open water spigot.[1]

Water intoxication can result from drinking too much water, and this has caused some fatalities over the years in fraternities during Rush Week. For example, a person was hazed to death by Chi Tau of Chico State in 2005 via the forcing of pushups and the drinking of water from a bottle. [1]

However, these are hardly torture:

Waterboarding refers to a technique involving water poured over the face or head of the subject, in order to evoke the instinctive fear of drowning.

In many cases people had very cold water poured over them, to make a whipping more painful. The water also made it easier to pierce the skin.

What is called the "Chinese water torture" was a torture described by Hippolytus de Marsiliis in the 16th century that was supposed to drive its victim insane with the stress of water dripping on a part of the forehead for a very long time.

In this form of torture, a victim would be repeatedly immersed in water, then pulled out and asked to confess to a crime. Those who failed to confess would be immersed again.

Oh no! Please, don't make me wet!

Let's be real. If you're claiming that these forms of 'torture' are really torture, then you should also acknowledge that bad music playing in my neighbors house is also torture, and should be illegal! Let's ban bad music!

Note, the only one that seems close to real torture is forced ingestion. Let's jump off the over-emotional bandwagon already.

[motivez]

You can make all the ridiculous comparisons you want, it doesn't change that water boarding and water torture are the same thing. The difference is in the technology and minute details of the method used to make the person drown in slow motion.

It's torture and always been recognized as torture, comparing it to having to listen to bad music or being in the womb makes no sense and doesn't really warrant much of a rebuttal. It's not chinese water torture where you have something dripping on your forehead every few seconds.

You keep stating that it's simply a 'fear of drowning' .. which is true in the sense that the person usually doesn't actually drown from the technique, so there's a psychological aspect to the torture, but absolutely incorrect in that the technique makes the person succumb to every bodily mechanism that happens when you're drowning, just in slow motion, and it's stopped before you actually do drown.

Water is still forced down your throat and into your lungs, and so on and so forth.

It's far more than a simple 'fear' of drowning, you actually ARE drowning, in slow motion, as attested by people who I've linked earlier in the thread.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

You can make all the ridiculous comparisons you want, it doesn't change that water boarding and water torture are the same thing. The difference is in the technology and minute details of the method used to make the person drown in slow motion.

What kind of technology does it take to dunk someone in water or pour water over someone's face? I'm curious to know...

It's far more than a simple 'fear' of drowning, you actually ARE drowning, in slow motion, as attested by people who I've linked earlier in the thread.

Nobody drowns in a matter of seconds, or even minutes for that matter. Don't kid yourself.

How does someone drown in 'slow motion' anyway?

[Dumpy Dooby]

To me, torture is a premeditated act of aggression that is intended to make the victim believe that they are in a life-threatening situation that can be resolved by mere compliance. So if you're willing to accept that definition, then it would be rather disingenuous to not consider waterboarding to be a type of torture.

Physical torture has been proved many times to be an extremely inefficient means of gathering information. As victims approach their "breaking point," they become more inclined to lie just to make the torture stop. I'm surprised that there are still people that would defend it on the grounds that it provides them with viable information. It's one of the most unreliable information-gathering techniques.

edit: I should emphasize that I qualified my statement with "physical" torture. Non-physical torture (colloquially "psychological torture" or "brainwashing") is an entirely different animal.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

How any times of this being done would create that damage?

Are we this strained in our diplomacy and intellegence that this is what we resort to?

Actually yes!

We won't talk to bad guys who might help us no matter their motive. That is the PC bullshit injected into our intelligence service in the 90's. So now we must torture the people who will try to harm us in any way possible. That and try to understand what happens on the grond with satelites. Nice expensive toys with very limited abilities. I doubt an enemy intelligence service could inject us with our own failures. But I am sure self-esteem is very high.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by JaJae

You're deflecting the issue. Terrorists involved with attacking America were captured and through previous interrogations informed us of more attacks that were coming, but wouldn't give us details on it. We then waterboarded and he gave the details on dozens of attacks. Waterboarding him wouldn't bring your dead husband back. I'm talking about preventing the attacks and not having him die in the first place. Is that worth 35 seconds of this guy being waterboarded? If you had to choose, which would you pick?

PS- It's not fair to answer that question after he left the toilet seat up

I would not pick the torture. Even if it would save lives.

Those lives aren't worth saving for our country to stoop to the level of terrorists.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Actually yes!

We won't talk to bad guys who might help us no matter their motive. That is the PC bullshit injected into our intelligence service in the 90's. So now we must torture the people who will try to harm us in any way possible. That and try to understand what happens on the grond with satelites. Nice expensive toys with very limited abilities. I doubt an enemy intelligence service could inject us with our own failures. But I am sure self-esteem is very high.

Before we start torturing, we should at least attempt to get their nation's government to assist us. And just "not talking" to them, because of the assinine reasons we have currently is not good enough.

[IminWonderland]

Besides, the government KNOWS its wrong.

They all know it is wrong to be doing this, and doing it in secret.

They know it is wrong for them to be doing it without oversight.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

I would not pick the torture. Even if it would save lives.

Those lives aren't worth saving for our country to stoop to the level of terrorists.

Even if it were your family? Would you be willing to sacrifice your family? Waterboarding this guy for 35 seconds prevented dozens attacks. If your family were to be the victims of one of those attacks would you still have the same opinion? I'm trying to get you personalize this, because that is the way I look at it. If it weren't just Americans, and it weren't just "lives" and instead it was your family how would you feel on the issue?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

Before we start torturing, we should at least attempt to get their nation's government to assist us. And just "not talking" to them, because of the assinine reasons we have currently is not good enough.

What can their nation's government do that we couldn't have done?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

Besides, the government KNOWS its wrong.

They all know it is wrong to be doing this, and doing it in secret.

They know it is wrong for them to be doing it without oversight.

Define oversight in this instance.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Even if it were your family? Would you be willing to sacrifice your family? Waterboarding this guy for 35 seconds prevented dozens attacks. If your family were to be the victims of one of those attacks would you still have the same opinion? I'm trying to get you personalize this, because that is the way I look at it. If it weren't just Americans, and it weren't just "lives" and instead it was your family how would you feel on the issue?

As long as you're going to continue asking this bullshit question, you should have to answer my bullshit question

How many little girls would you torture if it meant stopping 9/11? Saving your family?

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Even if it were your family? Would you be willing to sacrifice your family? Waterboarding this guy for 35 seconds prevented dozens attacks. If your family were to be the victims of one of those attacks would you still have the same opinion? I'm trying to get you personalize this, because that is the way I look at it. If it weren't just Americans, and it weren't just "lives" and instead it was your family how would you feel on the issue?

JaJae, I keep answering you.

I still wouldn't be OK with the torture.

Even if it were my family.

I hate the guy who rear ended me. But, I wouldn't want him waterboarded.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by JaJae

What can their nation's government do that we couldn't have done?

I don't think we could know this until we ask them, could we?

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Define oversight in this instance.

Why can't we know who said it haas been OK for them to do this?

Why are they destroying the evidence and begging the Judical Branch to end their inquiries?

If we are so righteous then why is our government trying to hide this?


No oversight. No one stepping up or in.

That's an even bigger problem than the torture.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

As long as you're going to continue asking this bullshit question, you should have to answer my bullshit question

How many little girls would you torture if it meant stopping 9/11? Saving your family?

I wouldn't torture any little girls. Grown men who are terrorists against our country and responsible for many deaths I'd consider waterboarding though.