Conservative radio hosts gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before saying its torture

This has nothing to do with religion or race...the subject at hand is whether water-boarding is torture or not. I don't believe it is, because torture would cause permanent bodily harm, to the point the individual may become physically or mentally disabled.
It would seem that individuals who have experienced water-boarding make a full recovery. Again, water-boarding isn't meant to be a pleasant experience, but isn't meant to kill anyone or leave them maimed or disabled. It seems to be effective to some degree, although, it doesn't appear to be something that is used against most detainees. There are many different interrogation techniques, while water-boarding isn't one that is used often (from what I've read). It is all determined by individual perspective...perhaps I would find another -legal- interrogation technique to be more like torture than water-boarding. Point being, it is an interrogation technique.



[edit on 23-5-2009 by laiguana]

reply to post by QueenofWeird

Real Drowning? AHA! The DEGREES of waterboarding. I'm sure the level of intensity reached when demonstrating the technique on some talking head, with cameras rolling, doesn't compare with the levels that might be attained in some dank Egyptian dungeon by a CIA rookie trying for a promotion. Or, in the words of CIA agent Spann, speaking to an Afghan detainee shortly before he himself was killed in a detainee uprising, "You had better cooperate, or you're going to DIE here!" Apparently, the Afghans (John Walker Lindh was also among them) were not intimidated by Spann's CIA badge.

How many Christians have been water boarded by the US GOV?


Nuff said..

reply to post by its bologna

Waterboarding is torture, even conservatives are starting to say it. But the real debate is over whether or not we should.

Some have. Like McCain for example, he has stated repeatedly that he thinks water boarding is torture and should not be allowed.

I still think its a pretty dumb idea to be waterboarded in order to confirm that it is indeed torture. But thats just me I guess._javascript:icon('')

Ok now ladies and gentlemen so that brings the number of people that have now been waterboarded to a total of, ahem, FOUR!

Great googlymoogly, sweet irony.
Not only did he give up in six seconds but he also came back talking about his past experiences so I guess waterboarding works after all.

Not only does he now think it is torture, but the flip side of this is that those that think water boarding is horiffic are now playing back and viewing the video over and over.
So I guess it's not as horiffic to watch as they thought it would be.

Now I'd like to watch a video of someone that claims beheading is not torture.

Originally posted by laiguana
whether water-boarding is torture or not. I don't believe it is, because torture would cause permanent bodily harm, to the point the individual may become physically or mentally disabled.
It would seem that individuals who have experienced water-boarding make a full recovery.

[edit on 23-5-2009 by laiguana]

chocking on water can cause permanent bodily harm... in fact they can have medical examiners stand by to keep the tortured person in a near death sustained drowning experience ect.... in extreme cases they do drown and revived by CPR, then again they could repeat the water-boarding process....

therefore it is torture.....

[edit on 24-5-2009 by imitator]

Disclaimer the first part of this post is just an observation . From what I saw of the video clip the towel didn't cover his mouth so in effect he was only partially Waterboarded . One can only imagine what his reaction would have been had the towel covered his mouth .

As for the matter Waterboarding itself yes it is a form of torture and thus morally wrong . All those who think that the torture of terror suspects is OK because they don't play by our rules have not heard the expression " Two wrongs don't make a right . "
The fact that someone will just about confess to anything under torture is completely overlooked by its advocates . A skilled interrogator can extract information without the use of torture . Allied aircrews were shot down over
Germany during the war were known to give up information they would have never planned on doing so due to the skills of German interrogators .

I should point out that I am not denying that in some cases allied aircrews were tortured by the Gestapo(SP?) but my point is still historically valid .

Originally posted by yellowcard


So, I guess Sean Hannity is next? I wonder if Sean would denounce it as torture if it was done to him. I know that he said he was going to do it for charity, but he has yet to do so. If Hannity says it's torture it could send a shockwave through the right wing, I think. I'm sure that despite it being torture he may still say it's needed for national security. Many right-wing hosts have different perspectives on this, some even say that the terrorists have no right under the Geneva Convention because they weren't in uniform.

rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

What the government is failing to realize/accept is that EVERYONE has basic human rights, no matter who/what they are.

Human rights refer to the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."[1] Examples of rights and freedoms which have come to be commonly thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.

en.wikipedia.org...

Now I realize that there MAY be some pretty bad guys at gitmo and they MAY have been involved in killing/injuring US/world troops and in that case, they should be tried and jailed based on their crimes. Also, I am by no means any type of terrorist sympathizer. However, I think torturing prisoners sets a VERY bad president. There is now an excuse given to the enemy that we will not play by any rules and it gives them the excuse to do the same. We can never claim the enemy has committed an atrocity against our soldiers because we've already done it to them. We have no high ground anymore for countries that may have been sympathetic enough to get involved.

This is what we know
Water boarding IS torture.
Torture is NOT an effective means of obtaining information.
So why are we doing it?

A former FBI man who interrogated an al Qaeda leader said Wednesday extreme techniques used by the Bush administration were "ineffective, slow and unreliable" and caused the prisoner to stop talking.

Ali Soufan, testifying to a Senate panel behind a screen to hide his identity, said that his interrogation team obtained a "treasure trove" of information from Abu Zubaydah using a non-threatening approach that outwitted the detainee - even getting him to talk by using his childhood nickname.

Soufan said his team had to step aside when CIA contractors took over, using simulated drowning, sleep deprivation and other harsh methods. He said those techniques caused the prisoner to "shut down."

Soufan countered that his personal experience showed that the harsh interrogation techniques didn't work even when there wasn't a lot of time to prevent an attack.

"Waiting 180 hours as part of the sleep deprivation stage is time we cannot afford to wait in a ticking bomb scenario," he said.

Soufan said the harsh techniques were "ineffective, slow and unreliable and as a result, harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda."

Also scheduled to testify is Philip Zelikow, who as a member of Condoleezza Rice's inner circle at the U.S. State Department, Philip Zelikow argued within the Bush administration that simulated drowning and other extreme interrogation techniques were illegal.

Zelikow learned of the then-classified Justice Department legal opinions in May 2005 and wrote a memo a few months later that contended the policies violated the U.S. Constitution.

www.cbsnews.com...

Jesse venture put it very well when he said, if it isn't torture, why don't our police do it during an interrogation ?

Don't get me wrong I highly believe doing things of this nature is wrong but seriously just take a moment to google Waterboarding.


If there was no bag or cloth on the persons head, it seems almost similar to the high school pranks Jocks would pull on the Nerds when giving them a swirly in the toilet, only in this case there's a bag on the persons head.


What I see when I see this kind of treatment it can only reminds me of High School bullies but in this case it looks like the ROTC flexing their own authority high past the limits of whats mildly considered "an abuse of power."

This stuff has to end, and it has to end now!


Kumar's guesses were right about these f**ks!!!



[edit on 24-5-2009 by anarcissus]

Mancow is a wuss if that gave him nightmares. Jesus we used to drown each other for fun in the pool when we were kids. If you all want to raise like 50k tax free you can water board me on and off for an hour or two.

Originally posted by sos37
So you're obviously cavalier about terrorism then since you don't give a damn whether or not we get information out of captured men that could possibly prevent an attack on one of our cities.

Let's see - torture a terrorist who will live from the experience or watch a building full of innocent people go down just to satisfy your moral compass.

Nice. I can honestly say from the standpoint of an American born IN America who honestly loves his country that all of you who would rather treat these men like they are on some kind of vacation that all of you are truly disgusting individuasl - you would rather these reprehensible men be treated with flowers and daisies while your own countrymen die.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by sos37]

Is information gained thru means of torture reliable? If so gimme an hour with waterboard and youself and you will agree you murdered John F Kennedy.

[edit on 24-5-2009 by December_Rain]

[edit on 24-5-2009 by December_Rain]

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by grover
Yeah all those who are cavalier about torture obviously haven't had it happen to them... think about it though... waterboarding simulates drowning... having come close to drowning a couple of times in my life and I can say without equivocation that it is a terrifying experience and even if you know that you aren't drowning... your body doesn't and will react like it does... with panic.

So you're obviously cavalier about terrorism then since you don't give a damn whether or not we get information out of captured men that could possibly prevent an attack on one of our cities.

Let's see - torture a terrorist who will live from the experience or watch a building full of innocent people go down just to satisfy your moral compass.

Nice. I can honestly say from the standpoint of an American born IN America who honestly loves his country that all of you who would rather treat these men like they are on some kind of vacation that all of you are truly disgusting individuasl - you would rather these reprehensible men be treated with flowers and daisies while your own countrymen die.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by sos37]

more excessive propaganda.

No one said they would be treated like they were on vacation.


torture wouldnt have prevented 9-11 my friend, however, honesty and bipartisan cooperation of our intelligence agencies could have.

reply to post by CityIndian
Sorry chief! They hit us first: the world trade center: The USS Cole: The Twin Towers on 911. In my opinon, we waited way too long to go after these guys. We invaded 2 countries, one of them based on faulty intel that had been coming in for years. They didn't get near what they deserved, in my opinion.

reply to post by kettlebellysmith


There is no evidence linking al Qaeda to 9/11, especially to bin Laden. Even the FBI will tell you this, maybe you should go ask them about it? Or do you think you know more than they do? It was an inside job by your own military industrial complex, btw, with Israeli help (remember the dancing Israelis? turns out they were spies, they were waiting for the whole thing to happen and were videotaping it, and they were released back to Israel).

The 1993 bombing was a set-up by the FBI, too, and they have also told you that much, though you are obviously unaware. The FBI was going to supply everything for a bombing, but then give a fake bomb and arrest the suspects they were egging on for actually trying to do it. This is all on record, I don't really care if you deny it because it's a form of psychosis to deny what is plainly obvious. Their informant, Emad Salem, even taped hours of phone conversations with the FBI showing their intentions and just how involved with the whole thing they were. Remember there was a big court case because of this, though it was overshadowed by the whole OJ thing.



If you look for a Muslim behind every tree for 20 years, what a shocker that you're going to start convincing yourself that you're seeing them. But there is still no hard evidence for any of the events that make up the backbone of the "war on terror." It's propaganda, it's a joke, just an excuse to get into the Middle East and wage a huge military campaign, and you bought it hook line and sinker, and now we're going to follow in Nazi Germany's footsteps because of it. If you don't think we are, you are in for a rude awakening, because in the headlines every day I see it happening, and other people even realizing the same thing. You will get what is coming to you.

[edit on 24-5-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by HunkaHunka

Ignorance is turning a blind eye to the fact that we are at war with an enemy who will cut your head off while you are trying to be nice and obey the law. Ignorance is not realizing that the next time you go to the mall, some terrorist might walk up to your family and blow himself and them up!
I am a gentle man. I don't like to inflict pain on anyone. But if it means I am protecting my family, my friends, or my country, I'll do what ever it takes.

reply to post by bsbray11
Go ahead. Believe your little conspiracy theories. I saw the towers get hit. I saw them go down. I watched it over and over. Damn it people. Cant' you get it threw your heads that when a 747 crashes into something, it is by god, going to hit the ground.
Please tell me what reason we would have to drop the towers. And don't give me that "false flag" BS. Don't tell me we needed a reason to go to Iraq. Hussien had committed enough crimes against his own people that we were justified. I suppose your going to tell me he didn't invade Kuwait either!
And it sure wasn't for oil. How much oil have gotten from Iraq? Any idea? Not enough to make it worth while to send the first plane!
If they would take a 59 year man, I would join and volunteer of either place. It's a worthwhile cause.
My friend, I have studied history all my life. This country is nowhere near Nazi Germany and I and I'm sure a great many here would resent the comparisons. You need to pull your head out and take a look around at your friends and neighbors. And talk to a few strangers as well. In fact, walk up to some WWII vet and compare us to Nazi Germany. But be prepared to land smack on your butt!


[edit on 24-5-2009 by kettlebellysmith]

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
Go ahead. Believe your little conspiracy theories. I saw the towers get hit. I saw them go down. I watched it over and over. Damn it people. Cant' you get it threw your heads that when a 747 crashes into something, it is by god, going to hit the ground.

That's funny because I saw the planes hit them, too, and they didn't collapse immediately. They didn't even sway or visibly budge at all when they were impacted. So there must obviously be some flaw in your logic somewhere, huh?

Not to mention, an engineer with the original volunteer FEMA team went to the AP in 2006 saying he had been trying to reproduce their findings for years and had only been able to contradict them, saying most NYC skyscrapers could have withstood plane impacts and fire, and all his simulations showed that the WTC towers should have been able to do the same. Not many people were privy to the structural documentation and other technical details necessary to do this kind of analysis, and this should tell you why. Also the buildings' engineers say they designed the buildings to withstand high-speed jetliner impacts, that it wouldn't affect the buildings any more than sticking a pen through a screen net. And most of the columns were intact after the impacts, etc. Fires themselves have never been known to cause failure to steel structures, though the phenomenon is very well studied. There is a lot of information, that you obviously are unaware of.

Please tell me what reason we would have to drop the towers.

Military campaign in the Middle East, for one thing, and war is a multi-trillion dollar industry. The same companies that manufacture for our military, like GE, also own shares in our media, etc.

Don't tell me we needed a reason to go to Iraq. Hussien had committed enough crimes against his own people that we were justified.

If you feel that way then you should've went to Iraq with an assault rifle yourself. The USA used to be isolationist, and any real conservative or constitutionalist is also an isolationist. We have nothing to gain from war, except profits for our military industry.

[edit on 24-5-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Ignorance is turning a blind eye to the fact that we are at war with an enemy who will cut your head off while you are trying to be nice and obey the law. Ignorance is not realizing that the next time you go to the mall, some terrorist might walk up to your family and blow himself and them up!
I am a gentle man. I don't like to inflict pain on anyone. But if it means I am protecting my family, my friends, or my country, I'll do what ever it takes.

Here are the problems with that:
1. Torture has never been shown to provide accurate information.
2. You're assuming everyone that was tortured, was guilty. If you torture someone long enough, they'll tell you whatever you want to hear.
3. Once you deem torture to be an acceptable means of gathering information, where do you stop?
As example:
1. You have someone in custody who knows the whereabouts of 10 kids who will die in 10 hours if he doesn't tell you where they are and he's not talking. Do you torture him?
2. You have someone in custody who knows where a bunch of tainted illegal drugs are that are killing 1000's of drug addicts and he won't tell you where they are. Do you torture him?
3. You have someone in custody who is an accused terrorist that you BELIEVE, MAY have information about a POSSIBLE upcoming terror attack. Do you torture him?
4. You have someone in custody who has been accused by an anonymous source of being a terrorist that is planning a strike inside the US. Do you torture that person? Oh yes, I almost forgot, and that person might be your wife, husband, child, etc...

Where do you draw the line?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Go ahead. Believe your little conspiracy theories. I saw the towers get hit. I saw them go down. I watched it over and over. Damn it people. Cant' you get it threw your heads that when a 747 crashes into something, it is by god, going to hit the ground.

That's funny because I saw the planes hit them, too, and they didn't collapse immediately. They didn't even sway or visibly budge at all when they were impacted. So there must obviously be some flaw in your logic somewhere, huh?

Actually by all accounts, the impacted towers did sway quite a bit.
Also, the towers not falling immediately after impact means nothing.