Is waterboarding torture?

[DroptopDrifting]

If you don't know what the bracketed numbers mean, those are the citation numbers.

i understand they are citations. as i said in the first post, wiki will allow any post as long as there are citations. and as i've said in both of the prior related posts, there are experts to back up both sides of the argument. but since it is a subjective argument, there is no definitive answer.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

What you wrote:

I'm going to post this again:

Waterboarding is considered a form of torture by legal experts,[2][3] politicians, war veterans,[4][5] medical experts in the treatment of torture victims,[6][7] intelligence officials,[8] military judges,[9] and human rights organizations.[10][11]

I'm inclined to believe these people.

What the beginning section of the waterboarding wiki page says:

It is considered a form of torture by legal experts,[2][3] politicians, war veterans,[4][5] medical experts in the treatment of torture victims,[6][7] intelligence officials,[8] military judges,[9] and human rights organizations.[10][11]

Why not reference the citations themselves? Did you even read them?

[C-Kwik]

I'll pose this question to those who believe waterboarding isn't torture:

Can you provide actual arguments that it is not torture?

As far as I can tell, most of you have done nothing but try and discredit arguments that it is. Lets have a real discussion. Not just a bunch of nonsensical banter. I do agree Wiki is not a great source to cite directly, but I find your discreditation of it for being Wiki to be as bad as using it as a source.

That said, is waterboarding torture? I believe so. Regardless of if there is actual risk of death or not, imagine being subjected to it. Ever have the feeling of almost drowning? Not fun. Add to it the fact that it is usually a prolonged procedure and it will provide at the very least acute and intense discomfort. Most typical methods of torture (electro schock, beatings, pulling of nails, physical pain, etc, uses such to break the will of a person. How is waterboarding any different? Because it doesn't leave marks? It would seem that many of you are reaching...

[themadscientist]

Has the CIA tried making suspects read this thread? They would beg to be water boarded.

Waterboarding in concept sounds scary as hell but I don't personally see it as torture. I draw the line at permanent physical harm.

It likely creates such a frantic need to make it stop that I suspect someone would say anything to do that. I would find intelligence obtained in that process sketchy at best.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Has the CIA tried making suspects read this thread? They would beg to be water boarded.

Waterboarding in concept sounds scary as hell but I don't personally see it as torture. I draw the line at permanent physical harm.

It likely creates such a frantic need to make it stop that I suspect someone would say anything to do that. I would find intelligence obtained in that process sketchy at best.

This thread is frowned upon by several international accords...

[Beancooker]

So because John Mc Cain was a POW and has been tortured, he is the be all end all of the discussion? "nuff said"?

Hell, it's no secret that Charlieo and I dislike each other. Hell, I might go as far as to say we would probably end up in a fight within the first 30 seconds of meeting.

I would let Chuckie waterboard me. Why not? It has been proven that it won't kill you. It just scares the hell out of you. That would be one of the more realistic scenarios that I can think of. Letting someone you dislike scare the hell out of you.

Plus people keep going on about how water is poured into the mouth and nostrils. One important fact is left out. A fairly thick towel is placed over the boardee's face. This aids in the prevention of him drowning. If you just kept a hose pouring in someone's mouth and nose, they would drown. The towel keeps the water from filling you up, and also aids in making it harder to breathe.

I hardly consider waterboarding torture. A really mean thing to do to someone, yes, and I'm sure it's a hell of a day wrecker, but it's not torture.

And damn man, quit citing wikipedia as the holy grail. If I could remember my wiki name and password, I could edit that article.

[Kohster]

you wouldnt't agree that McCain is an authority on the subject? I would certainly say that he's more qualified than you to speak about the subject.

[Beancooker]

also, you don't need a password or username to edit on wikipedia. and ill post wikipedia entries when i want, where i want, nuff said.

Depending on the article on Wiki, yes you do have to be able to sign in. Try to edit your waterboarding article...

Jesus Christ, what's with the attitude? Post your wiki blather all you want. I don't really give two s**ts either way. It just isn't considered a reliable source.

you wouldnt't agree that McCain is an authority on the subject? I would certainly say that he's more qualified than you to speak about the subject.

Don't know if I would consider him an "authority" or not. I'm sure he has gone through a lot more in his life than I have. That doesn't necessarily make him more qualified.

by the way, chaleo still has yet to contribute anything constructive to this thread. just saying.

What is your point? DILLIGAF?

At least spell his name right.

[BusyBadger]

also, wiki is considered as accurate as the britannica encyclopedia, scholarly studies support this. so nuff said.

Shouldn't it be as accurate as the people posting?

also, you don't need a password or username to edit on wikipedia. and ill post wikipedia entries when i want, where i want, nuff said.

So, because of the ease of editing no malicious party/parties would even think of posting inaccuracies to an article to lower or boost credibility to suit their own end? Wikipedia is a great "card catalogue" for finding sources online, but a credible source all on its own? I don’t think so.

charleo, if you had actually read the thread instead of trolling, you would know that i quoted information from the citations.

charleo, the fact that you continue to blather about the semantics just reinforces the notion that you are attempting to troll and that you genuinely don't have anything to contribute to this thread.]

by the way, chaleo still has yet to contribute anything constructive to this thread. just saying.

just saying chalo hasnt posted anything worthwhile in this thread.

ob-ses-sion [uhb-sesh-uhn]  –noun 1.the domination of one's thoughts or feelings by a persistent idea, image, desire, etc. 2.the idea, image, desire, feeling, etc., itself. 3.the state of being obsessed. 4.the act of obsessing.

[ravagemotorsports]

I think as long as we get good information from it, then do it.

[dusred]

Back on topic here.

I thought everyone was saying that waterboarding is harmless but makes you think you're drowning?

Not true. You actually are drowning. Pouring water down ones nose is the same as drowning them. Period.

Here are some more vids about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G2wZ5A2zRA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...lated

[BusyBadger]

Back on topic here.

I thought everyone was saying that waterboarding is harmless but makes you think you're drowning?

Not true. You actually are drowning. Pouring water down ones nose is the same as drowning them. Period.

No, its not. Drowning (the prototypical drowning) occurs when fluid enters the lungs and eventually leads to asphyxiation.

This isn't physically possible if waterboarding is performed "properly", as the subject is placed on an incline where the head is lower than the lungs, thus preventing the inhalation of water and thus, drowning.Waterboarding can lead to something called "dry drowning" but actual drowning (fluid entering the lungs) won't occur.

[srellim234]

I tend to believe Mancow Muller, a conservative talk show host, when he subjected himself to waterboarding and it instantly changed his mind from not believing to believing it is torture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkj9pjx3H0

In subsequent interviews he has admitted that the effects stayed with him and messed him up for days. He also has said that he would have said anything the interrogators wanted him to say, true or false, in order to get them to stop.

[Kohster]

So what do you call it when waterboarding isn't done "properly"? Would it be ok to call it torture then?

[BusyBadger]

So what do you call it when waterboarding isn't done "properly"? Would it be ok to call it torture then?

I'd call it improper technique. If you would actually read my post you'd see that I never said it was or was not torture, I merely said that it wasn't actually drowning.

Maybe you should stick to championing Wikipedia.

[dusred]

No, its not. Drowning (the prototypical drowning) occurs when fluid enters the lungs and eventually leads to asphyxiation.

This isn't physically possible if waterboarding is performed "properly", as the subject is placed on an incline where the head is lower than the lungs, thus preventing the inhalation of water and thus, drowning.Waterboarding can lead to something called "dry drowning" but actual drowning (fluid entering the lungs) won't occur.

And when you take a breath of water in? Than what? It enters your lungs and you drown. . . . than you've killed the golden goose.

[Kohster]

I'd call it improper technique. If you would actually read my post you'd see that I never said it was or was not torture, I merely said that it wasn't actually drowning.

Maybe you should stick to championing Wikipedia.

Improper technique? lmao.

If you had fully understood my post, you would have known that I didn't say that you said that "it was or was not" torture. I merely asked what would have constituted as torture.

So, do you believe waterboarding is torture? I have a hunch that you don't.

[Kohster]

Maybe you should stick to championing Wikipedia

Look who else "champions" wikipedia:Quote »The academic world's view of Wikipedia has improved during the last few years, as can be inferred from the increase in the number of citations in international scientific journals. As of September 12, 2007 a search in the ScienceDirect database (a large online collection of published scientific research produced by Elsevier) for academic and scientific articles citing Wikipedia yields the following result:

Year article published No. of articles citing Wikipediabefore 2003 02003 12004 92005 282006 1292007 3582008 (as of August 11) 490[/quote]

[C-Kwik]

No, its not. Drowning (the prototypical drowning) occurs when fluid enters the lungs and eventually leads to asphyxiation.

This isn't physically possible if waterboarding is performed "properly", as the subject is placed on an incline where the head is lower than the lungs, thus preventing the inhalation of water and thus, drowning.Waterboarding can lead to something called "dry drowning" but actual drowning (fluid entering the lungs) won't occur.

Isn't that pretty semantical? I mean, if a person is facing asphyxiation, regardless of how, and the options he understands is to either tells what he knows or make stuff up if that is what appears to work, then what what does it matter? It would seem to me that pro-waterboarding folk seem to try and find technically acceptable ways to administer and justify torture. Fine, don't call it torture then. But such coersion under stress doesn't appaear to be reliable:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31376177

Good investigative skills can try to confirm if he was indeed lying or not. But if we could figure that out through an investigation, we could also get much of the same info without waterboarding. And more importantly, its likely more credible.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

I think charleo got pwnt

Wants to get the message out to college students that they shouldn’t use it for class projects or serious research.

http://chronicle.com/wiredcamp...ation

Oh snap, Oh no he didn't! That bastard! Doesn't he know librarians say wikipedia is ok?

Oooooh, pwwwwwnd! Pew pew pew!

Status report: I still haven't contributed usefully to this thread! A new record!


Modified by charlieo at 8:55 PM 6/22/2009

[C-Kwik]

OK...this is getting out of hand. If you have an argument to make, MAKE THE ARGUMENT. THIS IS NOT A DEBATE ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF WIKI. If you disagree with a statement made, then prove the statement is wrong. If you feel a source is not credible, then prove it is wrong. Arguing that is is not credible on the fact that its on Wiki alone is NOT a valid argument. If you can't do this, show yourself out of politics or you will be shown out. PERIOD. If you want to debate the credibility of Wiki, take it to Gen Chat. This thread has turned to crap over this issue. Lets get it back on track.

[Kalypso]

WE HUNG JAPANESE WHO DID IT TO US POW'S AFTER WWII

/thread

[Urabus GodofTraction]

WE HUNG JAPANESE WHO DID IT TO US POW'S AFTER WWII

/thread

We also rounded up Japanese in the US and put them in camps! Yeah! History!

We hung them because we were the victors, and might makes right. I'm sure we waterboarded the s*** out of some Japanese, and nobody on our end got hung for it...

You had a point?

[Kalypso]

The ethics of Water boarding extremists is a distraction. a conversation topic to insulate the people from asking deeper ethical questions about activities within our government...

It still isnt conclusive, that the US government didnt orchestrate the sept 11 attacks themselves,purely to amass more power here domestically and expand a military empire overseas.

If thats the case... then the real enemy is within.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469And thankfully americans are smart enough to realize that. As of 2006 according to a cbs and ny times poll 81% of people believe the government is either outright lying or hiding something about the 9/11 attacks.

so after all your right, my point was mute.. and the problem is deeper.

[Kohster]

Hello Mr. Straw man! You don't make an effective argument! Superb dismissal of a ruination of your argument. It's like you didn't even notice it was there!

What "ruination"? You only addressed one example and conveniently ignored the rest, which you continue to do.

Quote »Here's the deal: go to college. Write a serious paper. Cite wikipedia. See what happens. College professors aren't good for much, but they tend to have a pretty good BS filter.[/quote]Here's the deal: noone in the real world cares about the arbitrary rules in college.

And college professors have a very poor bs filter, or maybe you weren't very good at bsing. I've bs'd my way through school with ease.

Quote »And wikipedia is BS. Why? Because I change things. Yes, everytime I visit a wiki, I change something small. The capacity of an engine, the distance a star is from the Earth, you name it. Wikipedia is only as good as it's users.[/quote]Chances are your vandalism was corrected days later. You're right, Wikipedia is as only good as its users, and they have a lot of users that are dedicated enough to keep wikipedia afloat.

Quote »You might not be bright enough to realize it, but people, especially people on the internet, as dumb as s***. And then you add in the moderators. Ask AZHitman what sort of standup people Wikipedia moderators are. Yeah...[/quote]"as dumb as s***"? lol nice grammar.

Quote »P.S.: No one here is taking you seriously. [/quote]You sure seem to be.

Quote »Britannica Encyclopedia? Brilliant![/quote]

Not sure what your point is here. Amazon calls it the "britannica encyclopedia" too. http://www.amazon.com/Britanni...92923

At least it isn't as bad as your "as dumb as s***" phrase. Ironically, you typed out that little number while you were pointing out how dumb people are on the internet. =/

Quote »You can't even spell my name right. [/quote]What are you talking about, charleo?

Quote »Hell, you're so terrible at this you have Beancooker on my side! Go cry to your local librarian at your local public library. Reference Librarians hate wikipedia. Fact. [/quote]If I'm so terrible at this, why is it that C-Kwik, a moderator, is telling you to either contribute to the discussion or gtfo?

And another crappy line about librarians that, once again, falls flat. *sigh*

Quote »Keep citing wikipedia, keep being taken less than seriously. [/quote]As long as you continue to take me seriously, that's more than enough for me.

Quote »Further reading on your level:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...pedia[/quote]Thanks for the link. Did you read this part?

Quote »Comparative study on scientific articles conducted by Nature

In December 2005 the journal Nature conducted a single-blind study comparing the accuracy of a sample articles from Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica. The sample included 42 articles on scientific topics, including biographies of well-known scientists. The articles were compared for accuracy by academic reviewers that remained anonymous − a customary practice for journal article reviews. Based on their review, the average Wikipedia article contained 4 errors or omissions; the average Britannica article, 3. The study concluded:[18] "Jimmy Wales’ Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds."[/quote]Were you aware of this? Of course not, since it is ostensible that you lack the ability to apply any sort of critical thinking to your lackluster posts.

[Kohster]

OK...this is getting out of hand. If you have an argument to make, MAKE THE ARGUMENT. THIS IS NOT A DEBATE ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF WIKI. If you disagree with a statement made, then prove the statement is wrong. If you feel a source is not credible, then prove it is wrong. Arguing that is is not credible on the fact that its on Wiki alone is NOT a valid argument. If you can't do this, show yourself out of politics or you will be shown out. PERIOD. If you want to debate the credibility of Wiki, take it to Gen Chat. This thread has turned to crap over this issue. Lets get it back on track.

I would love nothing more than to continue to discuss the ethics of waterboarding. However, I can't guarantee that charleo has the same intention.

[heliochrome85]

maybe if you debated like an adult, you would get an actual debate on the issue. grow up. go away. choose one please.

[Kohster]

maybe if you debated like an adult, you would get an actual debate on the issue. grow up. go away. choose one please.

[strikeout]If you don't like me, stop viewing this thread. It's that simple.[/strikeout]

If I've acted childish, I apologize. Some individuals just bring out the worst in me.


Modified by Kohster at 11:58 AM 6/24/2009

[heliochrome85]

just a couple points:1.) physiologically, aspirating water into the lungs is catastrophic. In people with insufficient surfactant, this causes alveolar actelectasis and is the same as collapsing a lung. my guess is that improper administration of this technique is rampant, and this is a definate possibility.

2.) the friends i have in the military, who have just gotten back from iraq, they say that the technique is flawed. the information is suspect, and often wrong. for the most part, they are against it.

3.) grow up. your arguement is based on movies and wikipedia. sounds like a terrible middle school paper.

[Kohster]

Ironically your post has the spelling of a middle school paper :P