This Is What Waterboarding Looks Like

September 29, 2006 7:25 AM

This Is What Waterboarding Looks Like -- David Corn, co-author with Michael Isikoff of HUBRIS: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal and the Selling of the Iraq War, writes about what waterboarding is and what the torturer's tools look like. Back in the day, the Khmer Rouge, among other repressive regimes, used it. Interestingly, waterboarding typically isn't employed to gain useful information. No, this near-drowning technique is most useful for eliciting "confessions". Good times, good times. ( via reddit via Diggdot.us)
posted by mooncrow (166 comments total)

I feel sick now
posted by talitha at 7:31 AM on September 29, 2006

Yeah. I've felt sick for the past couple of years, ever since seeing that first AbuGhraib photoset.
posted by mooncrow at 7:35 AM on September 29, 2006

If it's good enough for the Khmer Rouge, it's good enough for the US government.
posted by chunking express at 7:37 AM on September 29, 2006

The Japanese used this on Allied POWs. Can't think of the account title or the author, but dig up The United States Navy in World War II (S.E. Smith, ed.), and there's an excerpt in there.
posted by pax digita at 7:39 AM on September 29, 2006

The good news is that once they confess and accept jesus as their personal lord and savior, if they die in your custody, their souls have a chance of hitting heaven. Torture is the method by which man is forced to transcend his mortal condition.

After all, what would Jesus be without the crucifixion?
- - - Just another Jewish Hippie Peacenik.

/srcsm
posted by isopraxis at 7:40 AM on September 29, 2006

This whole time I thought those prisoners were just being forced to surf.

OK, that wasn't funny. Man, that's some sick stuff.
posted by gurple at 7:42 AM on September 29, 2006

Finally, something even lamer than wakeboarding.
posted by Bageena at 7:43 AM on September 29, 2006

8230;Torture is the method by which man is forced to transcend his mortal condition.
posted by isopraxis at 3:40 PM GMT on September 29 [+] [!]

Joy: it8217;s the fucking American Inquisition.
posted by bouncebounce at 7:45 AM on September 29, 2006

Shit, what happened to my HTML entities? Did I miss a memo?

Admin, please hope me.
posted by bouncebounce at 7:46 AM on September 29, 2006

gurple, that's a negative. "Surf torture" (more properly "cold water conditioning" is how they weed out the wannabees from the future SEALs at BUD/S.
posted by pax digita at 7:47 AM on September 29, 2006

gavno, missed a right paren.
posted by pax digita at 7:47 AM on September 29, 2006

So, whatcha' gonna do about it? You're in America, most of you are American, and I guess most of you don't like the idea of a TortureAmerica.

Do something other than send a email, faxing a Congressman or laughing hard about it whilst watching The Daily Show.
posted by gsb at 7:48 AM on September 29, 2006

Senate Wins Fight To Lower Allowable Amperage Levels On Detainees' Testicles.
posted by chunking express at 7:48 AM on September 29, 2006

The key fact to note in the whole thing is that the method doesn't work for gaining information. Its for eliciting false confessions for political purposes. That's how these techniques have always been used --from the Inquisition up until now.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:48 AM on September 29, 2006

According to the torture guide posted on Slate and here on Mefi two days ago, waterboarding is not one of the authorized "tough interrogation" techniques.
posted by StarForce5 at 7:52 AM on September 29, 2006

deanc, it took a lot of Americans to make this possible. And your sitting on your ass, doing nothing but snarking at anonymous internet users, also helps keep the dream alive.
posted by chunking express at 7:59 AM on September 29, 2006

The thing that disturbs me most about this is, we're fighting an enemy that is already suceptible to outrageous propaganda against Americans- the Taliban claims American Jews drink baby blood and a significant portion believe it.

I never really understood how the ideological aspect of this war was fought so hard and so well here in America, and utterly ignored outside the US. how could They be so good at propaganda here and so bad overseas?

the irony of calling an institution that tortures 'Intelligence' boggles the mind and, yeah, sickens the heart.
posted by carsonb at 8:01 AM on September 29, 2006

deanc, it took a lot of Americans to make this possible. And your sitting on your ass, doing nothing but snarking at anonymous internet users, also helps keep the dream alive.

Ahh, the irony.
posted by IronLizard at 8:02 AM on September 29, 2006

Since we're here, did anyone else notice that McCain voted for this bullshit bill?
posted by secret about box at 8:05 AM on September 29, 2006

Yes, and Razis on other political boards are using that fact to claim that the president's programs have therefore gotten approval from the people who know best.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:08 AM on September 29, 2006

Do-It-Yourself home torture kit on sale now!
posted by blue_beetle at 8:10 AM on September 29, 2006

I'm sorry, but you all must have your facts wrong. I saw the president on television, and he said that he wanted tools that would allow him to ask the terrorists questions, which, I presume, is a rather polite undertaking, involving brandy snifters, pats on the back, and earnest inquiries.

This doesn't look polite at all. Not one little bit.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:11 AM on September 29, 2006

So what does freedom look like?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:11 AM on September 29, 2006

Hi, World. We're America. We just want you to know we had a big long chat about the ethics of it all, and we decided to do the wrong thing. Oh, also, Uli and Laura made it on Project Runway! Just thought ya'll should know. 'k, bye!
posted by DenOfSizer at 8:14 AM on September 29, 2006

totally off-topic, but, pax digita, I have it on reasonably good authority that "gavno" (sp?) is really only a noun, not an interjection. It turns out most languages have a much richer ecology of profanity than (American?) English, and so don't have to overload things quite as heavily as we tend to.

</derail>
posted by MadDog Bob at 8:17 AM on September 29, 2006

Seriously, can someone explain to me why Sen. McCain and a bunch of Democrats supported this bill?

Are they ethically bankrupt too? Do they actually believe this is a Good Thing? Is it because of reelection fears?
posted by Artful Codger at 8:24 AM on September 29, 2006

Why not follow the Khmer Rouge's example? They have quite a few achievements under their belts!



Now, I don't want to hear any of that "McCain is a maverick" bullshit in the future. It might have been true at one point, but it's just become a sick joke.
posted by clevershark at 8:29 AM on September 29, 2006

Oliver Stone, recent Patriot, is now giving comfort to the enemy!
posted by NationalKato at 8:34 AM on September 29, 2006

Why don't they just skip this crap and shoot the suspected terrorists with sodium pentothal and ask the questions?
Seems to me that asking people questions under duress would put any answers you get in doubt.

All this torture stuff would work better if the terrorists had families we could kidnap and then hold a gun to their heads.

FYI: That is sarcasm. But also a good idea? hehehe, no really, sarcasm.

Doesn't this whole bill smack of fight fire with fire, or eye for an eye, type of thing?
posted by a3matrix at 8:36 AM on September 29, 2006

All this torture stuff would work better if the terrorists had families we could kidnap and then hold a gun to their heads.

Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
[John] Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:40 AM on September 29, 2006

Ahh, the irony.

Yes, the irony of a Canadian bitching out lazy Americans on the interweb. When Canada starts fucking up i'll be sure to do my part; till then, watching America crash and burn is how I pass my day.

And Artful Codger, Democrats voted for the bill so they wouldn't be called soft on terror in the attack ads that were sure to come. NY Times on this topic.
posted by chunking express at 8:40 AM on September 29, 2006

the irony of calling an institution that tortures 'Intelligence' boggles the mind and, yeah, sickens the heart.

"Information Retrieval" works too.

*more Brazil flashbacks*

Do something other than send a email, faxing a Congressman or laughing hard about it whilst watching The Daily Show.

Suggestions? I suppose you mean demonstrations, but those happen all the time and not one whit of attention is paid.
posted by jokeefe at 8:46 AM on September 29, 2006

watching America crash and burn is how I pass my day.
posted by chunking express at 8:40 AM PST

Yea, it'll be REALLY fun when the US Dollar is unable to be traded for goods/services outside the borders of the US of A. You think you have crash/burn now...just wait till voting with the Dollar starts. Woooh wee. Fun times ahead.

*starts crying hoping the salty tears can put out the fire*
posted by rough ashlar at 8:52 AM on September 29, 2006

MadDog Bob and pax digita:

Probably the right word was blyad'...
posted by claudius at 8:57 AM on September 29, 2006

When Canada starts fucking up i'll be sure to do my part; till then, watching America crash and burn is how I pass my day.

Get moving, comrade.
posted by Jairus at 8:58 AM on September 29, 2006

Has Senator McCain legalized everything that was done to him when he was a POW in Vietnam?

The good news is that once they confess and accept jesus as their personal lord and savior, if they die in your custody, their souls have a chance of hitting heaven.

Think of it as waterbaptizin'.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:00 AM on September 29, 2006

And Artful Codger, Democrats voted for the bill so they wouldn't be called soft on terror in the attack ads that were sure to come.

Oh well, now it all makes sense. Brilliant move, then. I'm sure there won't be any attack ads or accusations of being soft on terror levelled against democrats now.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:07 AM on September 29, 2006

Mark Steyn and Hugh Hewitt's inhuman attitude is mirrored by the commander of Guantánamo, Rear Admiral Harry Harris, who claims that prisoner suicides are, not the act of despairing men who face a life of torture and imprisonment with no option of a trial, but actually ingenious PR moves calculated to hurt the War on Terror. Harris has also claimed that the prisoners use urine and feces as weapons, apparently the guns, dogs, barbed wire, mace, tasers, and numbers of guards are no match for these terrorist masterminds.

Maybe he is afraid they will distill phosphorus from their urine and make bombs in retaliation for Falluja. (I guess, actually, most Guantanamo inmates will have not even heard about that incident.)
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:10 AM on September 29, 2006

deanc, it took a lot of Americans to make this possible. And your sitting on your ass, doing nothing but snarking at anonymous internet users, also helps keep the dream alive.

Two zen monks were walking back to their temple. They spotted a beautiful woman in a kimono unable to cross a wide muddy swath in the midst of the road. One monk picked the woman up and carried her accross the muddy patch. He set her down and the monks continued on their journey. Several hours later, the pair reached their temple. As they approached the monk who had not picked up the woman turned to his companion and said "You know us monks are not supposed to go near women. Why did you pick her up?" The second monk said "I set that woman down hours ago. Why are you still carrying her."
posted by Ironmouth at 9:10 AM on September 29, 2006

Offtopic: Jairus, the Canadian government has apologized to Arar, and recently released a report outlining all the failures that took place for such an event to occur. The Canadian government didn't try to justify what had happened, or make excuses. I think Canada is moving forward, not backwards, when it comes to this sort of thing.
posted by chunking express at 9:11 AM on September 29, 2006

Jairus, the Canadian government has apologized to Arar

No, they haven't. The RCMP and Parliament has. Canada has not.
posted by Jairus at 9:23 AM on September 29, 2006

"That's what makes this shit so disgusing- it passed under the mockery of "protecting Americans" when all it will do- literally, the only thing it will actually do- is kill more American troops."


Yup. And that's the point. Every single thing the Bush Admin has done has been intentional and specifically calculated to enrage the Arab Street, and engulf the Middle East in chaos.

That's how we justify further military engagement and occupation in the year(s) to come.
posted by stenseng at 9:23 AM on September 29, 2006

Jairus: true; I forgot Harper's a jerk.
posted by chunking express at 9:26 AM on September 29, 2006

One thing Canadians are pretty good at is castigating ourselves for our failures. And what happened to Maher Arar is a huge failure, as I imagine most Canadians are well aware. I've certainly never heard anyone defend all the crap he had to go through, for a start.
posted by stinkycheese at 9:29 AM on September 29, 2006

Freedomboarding everybody, freedomboarding.
posted by craven_morhead at 9:32 AM on September 29, 2006

My guess is the CIA can now stop recruiting at Universities and Colleges and go straight to the psychiatry wards at hospitals. Finding the right mix of loose morals and lack of feelings for another person should be easy enough to find. What are they going to do, burn out on the job? Just reduce the meds and they liven up for the next interrogation.
posted by fluffycreature at 9:37 AM on September 29, 2006

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, who also testified Thursday at the committee, did not apologize on behalf of the government, but he did reiterate the government's full confidence in both Mr. Zaccardelli and the RCMP in the wake of Justice O'Connor's report. MPs have voted unanimously on a motion that said: “It is the opinion of this House that apologies should be extended to Maher Arar for the treatment he received.”

I think an apology from Stockwell Day would just make me more angry personally. Maybe it's better that the Liberals get back in first, and then formally apologize. After all, this happened on their watch.
posted by stinkycheese at 9:38 AM on September 29, 2006

How the Abu Ghraib images lost their power to horrify (Slate)
posted by BaxterG4 at 9:38 AM on September 29, 2006

Thanks mooncrow. I'd read the descriptions of waterboarding, but really hadn't been able to picture it. Probably because it's literally medieval.
posted by Nahum Tate at 9:43 AM on September 29, 2006

Maybe it's better that the Liberals get back in first, and then formally apologize. After all, this happened on their watch.

I think this whole "don't apologize for things that your party didn't do" is bullshit, and just fosters partisan hostilities. Harper is the head of the Canadian government, and the Canadian government should apologize.

Harper wasn't in power when the Chinese Head Tax was collected sixty years ago, but he still apologized on behalf of the Government of Canada.
posted by Jairus at 9:53 AM on September 29, 2006

MadDog, my Russkoye's pretty darn limited. I guess I could've gone with yob t'voyu mat, but oh, well....since you raised the subject, what's a Russian yell out loud when he hits his thumb with a hammer or suchlike? Or maybe that's overkill...how would you say something like "oh, shoot" or "aw, shucks" or "zut"?
posted by pax digita at 10:00 AM on September 29, 2006

totally off-topic, but, pax digita, I have it on reasonably good authority that "gavno" (sp?) is really only a noun, not an interjection.

Yes, American students get all excited when they learn the Russian word for 'shit' (говно [govno], pronounced gahv-NO) and start hollering it every chance they get (I know, because I was one of them), but in fact Russians don't use it that way. A much more likely exclamation, as claudius says (for a minute there I was all excited thinking clavdivs had dropped by—hi, clav!), is блядь [blyad'], which (like fuck in English) can basically be dropped in anywhere—I knew a guy who seemed to put it into every sentence at least once.

On topic: torture is bad. But you knew that.
posted by languagehat at 10:01 AM on September 29, 2006 [1 favorite]

Starforce5 wrote:
According to the torture guide posted on Slate and here on Mefi two days ago, waterboarding is not one of the authorized "tough interrogation" techniques.

Is Starforce5 correct, anyone? Is is clear whether this practice is or isn't permitted under the new rules?
posted by washburn at 10:02 AM on September 29, 2006

On non-preview: a more likely exclamation using the eb word is ебена мать, pronounced ye-BYO-na mat' (it literally means 'fucked mother,' but literal meanings are beside the point in such things); Pushkin famously used it in his poem "Телега жизни" 'The Wagon of Life,' which in all official editions has an ellipsis in the eighth line in place of the unprintable phrase.
posted by languagehat at 10:06 AM on September 29, 2006

chunking express writes "the Canadian government has apologized to Arar"

As far as I know only the opposition parties in the House have done so. That doesn't really make it a government apology in my book. In fact Prime Minister Harper has steadfastly refused to do so, which seems to me only so much aping of Bush's equal inability to apologize or ever admit failure in anything. It's rather puzzling given that this happened under a former government of which he was not part, but I guess he doesn't want to appear soft on people who've been falsely imprisoned and tortured.
posted by clevershark at 10:14 AM on September 29, 2006

and here I thought waterboarding was a synonym for surfing
posted by matteo at 10:22 AM on September 29, 2006

They used to call it 'the water treatment.'
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:26 AM on September 29, 2006

posted by squalor at 10:43 AM on September 29, 2006

Sometimes a picture ISN'T worth a thousand words.

Since NO FUCKING WHERE is it actually STATED:
(Oooh! the act that can't be spoken!)

Is it that the person is lashed to the angled board, blindfolded for confusion and sprayed witha continuous flow of water over the face, therebye causing gasping breaths through the spray, creating a panic drowning reaction?
posted by HTuttle at 10:48 AM on September 29, 2006

From Outsourcing Torture

Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, told me that he had treated a number of people who had been subjected to such forms of near-asphyxiation, and he argued that it was indeed torture. Some victims were still traumatized years later, he said. One patient couldn’t take showers, and panicked when it rained. “The fear of being killed is a terrifying experience,” he said.

Terrifying?Terror?War on-?Torture?Terrorists?Terryifyi- *explodes*
posted by Stauf at 10:49 AM on September 29, 2006

Since NO FUCKING WHERE is it actually STATED:
(Oooh! the act that can't be spoken!)

I cannot parse this gibberish.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:54 AM on September 29, 2006

*gotta tell the client those magazine layouts won't be done 'til Monday- duty calls!*
posted by squalor at 11:00 AM on September 29, 2006

Anybody who considers this practice to be "torture lite" or merely a "tough technique" might want to take a trip to Phnom Penh. The Khymer Rouge were adept at torture, and there was nothing "lite" about their methods.

The methods of waterboarding the Khymer Rouge used are not the issue; it’s only the ones the Americans want to use that are relevant.

It was one of only two devices singled out for highlighting.

And what can be safely inferred from the fact that this machine was one of two that had been singled out?

Not only do waterboarding and the other types of torture currently being debated put us in company with the most vile regimes of the past half-century; they're also designed specifically to generate a (usually false) confession, not to obtain genuinely actionable intel.

Breathing air and enjoying art also put us in company with the most vile regimes of the past half-century, for what it’s worth. There are plenty of good arguments against torture. There’s no excuse for this crap. Furthermore it seems really strange to posit much importance on what this device or the technique itself was designed to do. The concept of a “confession” (or a “truth” or “falsity” for that matter) is simply too abstract for this sort of simple mechanical device or physical technique to convey. For what they were designed or intended is entirely irrelevant.
posted by ed\26h at 11:02 AM on September 29, 2006

Jairus: You're right, Harper really should apologize, in as much as Canada should apologize, and Harper is (gag) the present leader of the country.

I do think however that Harper, in aping Bush as much as possible, confuses bullheadedness with resolution - he's made his views on the matter clear, and he does not intend to apologize.

If he does do so therefore, it'll be because he felt forced to, because his cronies said it'd get him X amount of votes in Ontario, or some such empty rationale - it'll be through grit teeth (though not Grit teeth, that would've been Paul Martin).

It won't mean nothing, it'll mean less than nothing. Really, it should've never happened; when it happened, it damn certainly should've been apologized for (and much more besides); when it was made public that it happened, it should have been a no-brainer to apologize. At this point, it's just one more example of Harper being a U.S. stooge and an embrassment.
posted by stinkycheese at 11:06 AM on September 29, 2006

embarrassment!
posted by stinkycheese at 11:08 AM on September 29, 2006

There are plenty of good arguments against torture. There’s no excuse for this crap.

And there are no good arguments for torture as an effective tool, ever. Even discussing it as Corn does buys into the setup the GOP wants--they put out outrageous immoral evil things, and people say like imbeciles, "well, let's discuss this. here's what it is and what it's supposed to do", which legitimizes the discussion entirely. As if it's a sensible, reasonable thing that is just like overhauling the way Federal contracts are awarded or the formulas used by the Dept. of Commerce in determining the health of the economy or something.
posted by amberglow at 11:16 AM on September 29, 2006

“And your sitting on your ass, doing nothing but snarking at anonymous internet users, also helps keep the dream alive.”

Folks should define their commitment level and ante up. One can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a group against torture that might appeal to them.

Into law? There’s the ACLU for starters.
Veteran? Plenty of
anti-torture groups
there

Into policy? There’s the open policy center.

Dig the human rights angle? There’s
Amnesty International - USA or Human Rights First or Human Rights Watch (etc.)

Like Blogging? Plenty of people to network with and dig up ideas with, perhaps some in your area.

Religious? (even if you’re not, the enemy of my enemy is my friend) Plenty of different types of groups , et.al to volunteer with.

Again - define your terms, what you’re capable of - your skills, etc., what you’re willing to do, and then do what you can. That’s it. It’s only failure if you don’t try. No one’s holding a gun to your head saying you have to get involved. Lots of people (me included) make noise saying people should get involved, but it’s only yourself you have to answer to. Can’t do it? Don’t have time? Have other things you’re working on? That’s fine. Life goes on. But if this particular subject is your thing, you’ll be happier if you’re in there swinging. Whatever the outcome.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:18 AM on September 29, 2006 [2 favorites]

And there are no good arguments for torture as an effective tool, ever.

There is no argument in favor of torture that does not equally apply to child torture and rape.

Apologists have to pretend that their torture is not "really" torture, because the enormity of the evil they propose cannot be totally ignored even by them.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:19 AM on September 29, 2006

Even discussing it as Corn does buys into the setup the GOP wants--they put out outrageous immoral evil things, and people say like imbeciles, "well, let's discuss this. here's what it is and what it's supposed to do", which legitimizes the discussion entirely.

So – it’s “imbecilic” to attempt even an entirely rational discussion on the issue of torture? Simply because that’s what the GOP wants? Just inherently? Or for another reason?

Apologists have to pretend that their torture is not "really" torture, because the enormity of the evil they propose cannot be totally ignored even by them.

What does this mean?
posted by ed\26h at 11:32 AM on September 29, 2006

It's not clear?

It means that whatever, whatever the Bush administration does, it will be cast as "not torture" by apologists.

For instance, if waterboarding is not torture, is it ok to waterboard the children of a suspected Mad Bomber?
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:35 AM on September 29, 2006

Yeah, they hate us for our freedom. What a sad comment this is on where America has sunk to . . . .
posted by birdhaus at 11:44 AM on September 29, 2006

(OT)languagehat, pax digita and MadDog Bob:

I've also heard "ёбанный в рот!" (Yobanniy v rot - fucked in the mouth) in the same situation.
posted by claudius at 11:47 AM on September 29, 2006

So – it’s “imbecilic” to attempt even an entirely rational discussion on the issue of torture? Simply because that’s what the GOP wants? Just inherently? Or for another reason?

You can't have a rational discussion about torture. It's all been settled and cast in stone against doing it--it's been proven to be ineffective, evil, immoral, illegal, and harmful to both the tortured and the torturer in many ways. That's why it's illegal everywhere people call themselves civilized and "good"--especially when they use torture comitted by other "evildoers" as an excuse to invade other countries and wage war. It's inherently not up for discussion. It's not some new tool, or new action---it's ancient and evil. Us making it legal makes us immoral and evil too. There's no explanation of it that will change any of that. There's no back-and-forth possible--Civilized people don't torture. Good people don't torture. People who accuse others of torture and use that to invade, occupy and kill cannot use torture themselves if they want to have a hope in succeeding. ...
posted by amberglow at 11:50 AM on September 29, 2006

It means that whatever, whatever the Bush administration does, it will be cast as "not torture" by apologists. For instance, if waterboarding is not torture, is it ok to waterboard the children of a suspected Mad Bomber?

Thanks. If by “apologists” you mean, say, Bush’s cronies and the like, then for all I know, you’re quite possibly right – they may just deny that, whatever they do, they are torturing people. I’m not sure though, why a proponent of torture (in at least the most extreme situations) would need to rely on having it thought of as “not actually torture”. I mean, perhaps it would be acceptable to torture (with a capital T, if we like) the Mad Bombers kids if the situation was grave enough.
posted by ed\26h at 11:51 AM on September 29, 2006

It's like discussing incest and cannibalism, really. A discussion is a back-and-forth--it's not a sales pitch nor a debate.
posted by amberglow at 11:52 AM on September 29, 2006

The fact that we have to use "soft" language and code words to describe these acts should be, in and of themselves, a warning that we're doing evil instead of good.

Is it that the person is lashed to the angled board, blindfolded for confusion and sprayed witha continuous flow of water over the face, therebye causing gasping breaths through the spray, creating a panic drowning reaction?

It's more than just a "panic drowning reaction." You're inverted, and you're not just blindfolded - for this to be really effective, the entire face is covered with a heavy cloth (think "terrycloth towel.")

Water constantly falls on you - soaking the fabric and running through it. Your face is soaked - can't open your eyes. You can't breathe - your nose is full of water, and every time you open your mouth, you're inhaling water through the cloth. You're forced to swallow & gag constantly on the water running down your nostrils and filling the back of your throat. You can't get away from the water. You're restrained, so you can't pull the cloth away. Your torturer can do this all day - heck, they can even automate it, simple as turning on a faucet.

Doesn't take long for you to cave in - about as long as you can hold your breath, really. It's very effective as a form of torture, and has lasting psychological effects.

It's sick.
posted by FormlessOne at 11:53 AM on September 29, 2006

(OT) BTW, languagehat, I've never heard ебен(а/о) with the spelling or stress you wrote before. Is that a regional or archaic variant?
posted by claudius at 11:55 AM on September 29, 2006

I mean, perhaps it would be acceptable to torture (with a capital T, if we like) the Mad Bombers kids if the situation was grave enough.

Indeed. If it were even graver, we should maybe off a kid from his town every minute until he gives us the sekrit codes?

Or rape his wife in front of him, if the first few things didn't work?

And maybe when The Aristocrats have finished, we think, oh shit, this is the wrong guy.

The point is: if you have made the decision that torture is acceptable, you will always be able find a justification to do so. Are there NO behaviors that are simply unacceptable?

We can justify ANY depraved act to ourselves. Others have.

We are lying to ourselves if we think otherwise.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:57 AM on September 29, 2006

I find it painfully ironic that the same people who love to crow endlessly about the evils of "moral relativism" are perfectly happy to have their morals about torture be relative.
posted by flaterik at 12:29 PM on September 29, 2006

I mean, perhaps it would be acceptable to torture (with a capital T, if we like) the Mad Bombers kids if the situation was grave enough.
posted by ed\26h

Please elaborate.
I'm curious as to exactly under what circumstances you think it might be acceptable.
And let's make you the "mad bomber" and your child the victim of this torture.
posted by nofundy at 12:33 PM on September 29, 2006

(OT) BTW, languagehat, I've never heard ебен(а/о) with the spelling or stress you wrote before. Is that a regional or archaic variant?

(OT) I hope not! I'm not a native speaker, but I thought I knew at least basic mat. How do you say it? It's ебёна мать in my reference books, for what that's worth.

Apologies to all for the off-topic discussion, but I find it much more pleasant to discuss the fine points of Russian obscenities than the fine points of American torture. Just ignore us.
posted by languagehat at 12:34 PM on September 29, 2006

It's like discussing incest and cannibalism, really. A discussion is a back-and-forth--it's not a sales pitch nor a debate.

So – you’re saying that torture, like cannibalism and incest, are both inherently wrong?

Indeed. If it were even graver, we should maybe off a kid from his town every minute until he gives us the sekrit codes? Or rape his wife in front of him, if the first few things didn't work? And maybe when The Aristocrats have finished, we think, oh shit, this is the wrong guy.

Well I suppose, yes, if the stakes were high enough, those things, however abhorrent, might be justifiable. But for that sort of thing, they’d have to be pretty high. And by the way – did you use “sekrit” try to associate the position with the sort of ignorant, back-water hick who might spell the word that way? Come on – you’re better than that! :)
posted by ed\26h at 12:43 PM on September 29, 2006

We have met the Taliban, and they are. . . U.S.
posted by mk1gti at 12:48 PM on September 29, 2006

What does the Bush administration hope to gain by torturing these people?

It seems to me that any plot that involves a captured terrorist would immediately be altered to render whatever information that person has irrelevant.

Isn't it really just punishment? Are they trying to show the world how tough they are on terrorists?
posted by SteveTheRed at 12:51 PM on September 29, 2006

_{(OT again, I'm sorry as well)}
I'm also not a native speaker, but I remember being laughed at by a taxi driver or saying "еБАнная пробка", and according to a сибиряк I worked with almost everything was "ёбанный". www.russki-mat.net gives the same (and I never would have found that site if not for this discussion).

You mean the passive past participle right?
posted by claudius at 1:26 PM on September 29, 2006

Corn takes money from pro-torture, pro-racism Pajamas Media, so why should we care what he has to say?
posted by cell divide at 1:31 PM on September 29, 2006

So – you’re saying that torture, like cannibalism and incest, are both inherently wrong?

Not to speak for amberglow, but YES. Absolutely 100% wrong in all times and places, no exceptions.
posted by InfidelZombie at 1:32 PM on September 29, 2006

When my friend combined this thread and the the official seal generator he got this.
posted by smallerdemon at 1:41 PM on September 29, 2006

What does the Bush administration hope to gain by torturing these people?

1. The pleasure of being able to. You have read 1984, haven't you? The party doesn't need a reason.
2. This is just the first step to soften you up. Eventually, domestic suspects will be detained, and their confessions published. It will be ok, because they were materially supporting terrorists. It won't be hushed up, it will be widely reported, and news anchors will look grave as they nod approvingly and cut to emotional speeches from the President where he describes how he has saved you from them.

I'm honestly starting to think that what you have in America is a slow-motion putsch. 9-11 was your Reichstag fire.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:50 PM on September 29, 2006

please note i don't believe in any 9-11 conspiracy/coverup, the analogy is about the political use of the event only.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:51 PM on September 29, 2006

The pleasure of being able to. You have read 1984, haven't you? The party doesn't need a reason.

Well, it might be worth remembering that 1984 is not a history book; it’s a novel.

I'm honestly starting to think that what you have in America is a slow-motion putsch. 9-11 was your Reichstag fire.

The important distinction being of course that 9-11, if, as you mention, we’re not to take any conspiracy theories about it seriously, was actually cause by the people the government claim it was caused by.
posted by ed\26h at 2:08 PM on September 29, 2006

ed\26h, if you can suggest a better historical analogy for an event that was parlayed into an excuse to suspend normal governance and substitute dictatorial power, please do.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:25 PM on September 29, 2006

“So – it’s “imbecilic” to attempt even an entirely rational discussion on the issue of torture?’

Yep. Inherently.

Unless you’d like to have an entirely rational discussion on which race is superior. Or a nice rational discussion on why I need to place you on a stone slab, cut your gut open with an obsidian dagger and cut out and burn your heart so the sun doesn’t die.

You don’t want the sun to die out, do you?

“Well I suppose, yes, if the stakes were high enough, those things, however abhorrent, might be justifiable.”

There is no situation wherein torture is justifiable. Life simply is not worth that cost. Why the hell else would people have given their lives to STOP it?

“Well, it might be worth remembering that 1984 is not a history book; it’s a novel.”

Yes. Something fictional cannot possibly contain truth. It’s easily one of the best works on totalitarianism ever written. It happens to be in novel form.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:51 PM on September 29, 2006

spasiba, tovarich.
posted by pax digita at 3:07 PM on September 29, 2006

If you can suggest a better historical analogy for an event that was parlayed into an excuse to suspend normal governance and substitute dictatorial power, please do.

What I am saying, quite clearly, is that the analogy you drew was a false one. Whether I can think of a better historical analogy, in this regard, is quite beside the point. That would be your job, not mine. And furthermore, whether or not dictatorial power has been evoked is a debate of its own.

Unless you’d like to have an entirely rational discussion on which race is superior. Or a nice rational discussion on why I need to place you on a stone slab, cut your gut open with an obsidian dagger and cut out and burn your heart so the sun doesn’t die.

Well, it’s perfectly reasonable to have a rational discussion about which race is superior – if you managed to come up with a good argument that no one could develop a sensible objection to, then any reasonable person would have to accept its truth. I don’t fancy anyone’s chances where that is concerned, but there we are.

Yes. Something fictional cannot possibly contain truth.

I’ve never claimed that I can’t. However, a fictional work can never offer empirical evidence outside its own fictional realm.
posted by ed\26h at 3:33 PM on September 29, 2006

What I am saying, quite clearly, is that the analogy you drew was a false one

Oh dear. Historical analogies will never be entirely true, by virtue of the fact that no two events share the same set of facts. Now, I could argue about the details of the Reichstag fire - whether van der Lubbe acted alone, or whether the communists were ever involved, or the nature of the Nazi's involvement before the event - but the germane part of the comparison is the use of an event to successfullyl request unusual powers leading to the installation of an undemocratic government. If it makes you happy, then let me withdraw the analogy. I will simply say, without analogy: in hindsight, I am afraid that 9/11 will turn out to have been the excuse needed to successfully request unusual powers leading to the installation of an undemocratic government.

Well, it might be worth remembering that 1984 is not a history book; it’s a novel.

And may that continue to be the case.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 3:54 PM on September 29, 2006

There is no situation wherein torture is justifiable. Life simply is not worth that cost. Why the hell else would people have given their lives to STOP it?

People have given their lives to stop the prevention of the spread of totalitarianism.
posted by ed\26h at 3:56 PM on September 29, 2006

We have to use waterboarding because the desert environment makes keelhauling impractical.
posted by Frank Grimes at 4:00 PM on September 29, 2006

I am afraid that 9/11 will turn out to have been the excuse needed to successfully request unusual powers leading to the installation of an undemocratic government.

As am I.

And may that continue to be the case.

I agree wholeheartedly. I, although not necessarily in the same way as you, worry that it, to some degree at least, may not be.
posted by ed\26h at 4:04 PM on September 29, 2006

forget the Reichstag fire--we're on to the Enabling Act now. --The Enabling Act, officially known as the “Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and Realm,” was short and simple. Its operative provisions were as follows:
Article 1
In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich….
Article 2
Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.
Article 3
Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette….

That, seasoned with only a soupçon of legalistic detail, was it. What it meant was that the executive was empowered by the legislature to decide what the law was. He was empowered to ignore the constitution. Neither the courts nor the legislature would have means to check executive power. ...
posted by amberglow at 4:08 PM on September 29, 2006

So, whatcha' gonna do about it? You're in America, most of you are American, and I guess most of you don't like the idea of a TortureAmerica.

Do something other than send a email, faxing a Congressman or laughing hard about it whilst watching The Daily Show.
posted by gsb at 3:48 PM GMT on September 29 [+] [!]

They brought Bush to his knees,
by swapping cds.
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:49 PM on September 29, 2006

A few points I missed, but I think are worth addressing:

If you have made the decision that torture is acceptable, you will always be able find a justification to do so.

Of course though, this simply doesn’t follow. For one thing I haven’t said that torture is acceptable per se – but only that it might be, given certain extreme conditions. Furthermore, analogously, physically withstraining a person, say, if they were trying to attack you, is acceptable, but it by no means follows that one would always be able to find a justifiable reason to physically withstrain someone. I mean, why would it?

Are there NO behaviors that are simply unacceptable?

Well, probably. I’d say, for instance, that torturing people simply because you find it amusing, that that is simply unacceptable.

Please elaborate. I'm curious as to exactly under what circumstances you think it might be acceptable. And let's make you the "mad bomber" and your child the victim of this torture.

Well, what you’re trying to do there of course is what’s called appealing to private motives. But that has no logical bearing per se, so sure – let’s roll with it. And it’s quite possible that this is nothing new to you, but:

1. I pant a nuclear bomb in a densely populated city.
2. “They” (whoever they may be) see me doing this and arming the device with a sektrit code.
3. Due to their understanding of the device they know it can be disabled with said code.
4. There’s five minutes on the clock and with all the good cop, bad cop routines they can muster, they’re not getting anything out of me.
posted by ed\26h at 5:27 PM on September 29, 2006

Well, tough shit for the densely populated city, then, ed. You think you can't hold out against torture for five minutes?
posted by interrobang at 5:33 PM on September 29, 2006

So you tell them a false code, they go and type it in and the city blows up.

Generally, people under torture say *whatever they think will make the torture stop* -- not "the truth".
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 5:53 PM on September 29, 2006

Yes, ed\26h has omitted:

5. There is a reasonable chance that torture will persuade me to produce the secret code.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 5:59 PM on September 29, 2006

I'm also pretty sure that for any statement of the form "it is never right to do X" I can come up with a hypothetical situation where utilitarian considerations argue for doing X.

ed\26h, being a self-copnfessed pretend philosopher, presumably wants us to speak in the carefully circumscribed manner of philosophical argument and confronts us with the logical problems that arise from cocky absolutes and rhetorical useage. Good luck with that, pal.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 6:02 PM on September 29, 2006

the carefully circumscribed manner of philosophical argument

posted by squalor at 6:16 PM on September 29, 2006

People have given their lives to stop the prevention of the spread of totalitarianism.

That does not mean what I think you think it means.

1. I pant a nuclear bomb in a densely populated city.
2. “They” (whoever they may be) see me doing this and arming the device with a sektrit code.
3. Due to their understanding of the device they know it can be disabled with said code.
4. There’s five minutes on the clock and with all the good cop, bad cop routines they can muster, they’re not getting anything out of me.

We're not talking about the season finale of 24 here, for Christ's sake. Come back when you know how to construct a proper argument.
posted by jokeefe at 6:18 PM on September 29, 2006

... There’s all sorts of evidence that torture doesn’t work, so why is it done? I don’t know. I can’t answer that. What I can tell you is that a message is being sent out. It is about telegraphing a certain message. That message is not about what intelligence has been gathered, but what message can we send to his comrades: In effect, “Don’t mess with the United States.” Because if you do, you could end up in a dungeon with someone cutting up your penis. ...

except that that doesn't stop anyone, and it makes us tons more enemies. We're going to cut everyone's penis, ed? That's what it takes nowadays, even tho it doesn't stop anything? It makes our dicks look bigger, or makes us big men to do that to people?
posted by amberglow at 6:22 PM on September 29, 2006

Yes, ed\26h has omitted:

5. There is a reasonable chance that torture will persuade me to produce the secret code.

One last thought: anybody who is batshitinsane enough to plant said nuclear device in said densely populated region is probably not going to be moved by any threat to his own safety and will, I hazard, be ready to die for his cause. So torture isn't going to cut it, even in this imaginary scenario.
posted by jokeefe at 6:27 PM on September 29, 2006

In effect, “Don’t mess with the United States.” Because if you do, you could end up in a dungeon with someone cutting up your penis. ...

So if that what America has come to? Give me your huddled masses indeed.

What a fantastically effective act 9/11 was. If the idea was to fracture the United States and weaken it from the inside, you have to appreciate the genius who came up with the plan. It was a masterstroke, and has done exactly what it was intended to do: bring the US to its knees.
posted by jokeefe at 6:30 PM on September 29, 2006

I'm also pretty sure that for any statement of the form "it is never right to do X" I can come up with a hypothetical situation where utilitarian considerations argue for doing X.

OK – well how about this one – “It is never right to make none of the people happy all of the time.”

Being a self-copnfessed pretend philosopher, presumably wants us to speak in the carefully circumscribed manner of philosophical argument and confronts us with the logical problems that arise from cocky absolutes and rhetorical useage. Good luck with that, pal.

Well, no. I merely want you to present a rational argument. Good luck I may need though, all the same.
posted by ed\26h at 6:34 PM on September 29, 2006

I won't be meeting that desire. Not because I can't, but because I don't believe there is any need to debate the merits of torture in a civilised society.

I am happy to admit that hypotheticals can be posed where water boarding might be justifed, but I don't think that you can show any of the cases mentioned in this thread - whether the Khmer Rouge or the rogues of Abu Ghraib or interrogators at Guantanamo - are of the kind that might fall into the secret code/bomb scenario.

It is as if we were discussing a heinous murder, and you popped by to invite us to consider when unlawful killing might be a good thing. That would be an interesting discussion to have, but it is not currently one I give two shits for.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 6:54 PM on September 29, 2006

What a fantastically effective act 9/11 was. If the idea was to fracture the United States and weaken it from the inside, you have to appreciate the genius who came up with the plan. It was a masterstroke, and has done exactly what it was intended to do: bring the US to its knees.

But Osama had no chance to succeed without his inside team, the secret al Qaida enablers: Richard Cheney and George W. Bush.

Without them, the United States would have lost little besides the awful toll of 9-11. Osama killed 3,000 people in the Towers and the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field.

All the rest? The $350 billion gone and 100,000 American and Iraqi dead and wounded, their blood disappearing into the sands of Iraq, all the weakening and the shriveling of American influence on the rest of the world? The Taliban resurgent, the Iraqi people polled more than 60 percent supporting the attacks on US troops, more than 90 percent wanting Americans to leave right fricking now?

That's George Bush and Richard Cheney.
posted by sacre_bleu at 6:55 PM on September 29, 2006

Give me your huddled masses indeed.

We've replaced that with Oderint Dum Metuant.
posted by eriko at 6:59 PM on September 29, 2006

5. There is a reasonable chance that torture will persuade me to produce the secret code.

Well, from what I’ve heard about it, torture, if severe enough, will make practically anyone tell you what you want to know (if they know it of course). But, just for arguments sake, let’s say that isn’t the case. Let’s say, and I think I’m being really generous here, that there’s only a ten percent chance it’ll work. Given that that millions of people will certainly die if you don’t, I can’t see how any rational person would say that you shouldn’t at least try.
posted by ed\26h at 7:08 PM on September 29, 2006

Well, from what I’ve heard about it, torture, if severe enough, will make practically anyone tell you what you want to know (if they know it of course).

Where have you heard this?

From what I've read, the French Resistance basically expected you to hold out two days if you were captured. You were going to die anyway, but in two days the other people in your cell would know you were gone and would adjust their plans accordingly.

If I'm the bomb planting guy, I'm going to die anyway. It was almost certainly part of the plan all along. What can you possibly do to me in five minutes that will make me give you the code?
posted by Cyrano at 7:22 PM on September 29, 2006

If it ever comes down to five minutes, you're into, "Cut the blue wire!"

"They're all blue wires!!!" territory.
posted by Cyrano at 7:25 PM on September 29, 2006

But Osama had no chance to succeed without his inside team, the secret al Qaida enablers: Richard Cheney and George W. Bush.

Well, yeah, that was kind of my point.
posted by jokeefe at 7:29 PM on September 29, 2006

We're not talking about the season finale of 24 here, for Christ's sake. Come back when you know how to construct a proper argument.

Whether or not that particular heuristic device bears resemblance to the plot a TV series, no matter how far developed, is irrelevant. With that post I was merely responding to a request for a hypothetical situation which I believed might justify torture – it, quite clearly, was never intended to be an argument.
posted by ed\26h at 7:46 PM on September 29, 2006

Well, from what I’ve heard about it, torture, if severe enough, will make practically anyone tell you what you want to know (if they know it of course).

Clearly we don't hear the same things. My understanding is that to the limited extent that torture persuades its victims to tell the truth, it persuades them to tell you a lot of rubbish as well. Thus in order to make use of intelligence gained through torture you need to take days, weeks, or months to investigate everything the victim said.

Given that sort of timeframe, there are other, more effective means of eliciting information.

Eight lessons of Torture
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 7:49 PM on September 29, 2006

With that post I was merely responding to a request for a hypothetical situation which I believed might justify torture

And I think I showed why your scenario is utter rubbish.

So I'll say it again: What can you possibly do to me in five minutes that will make me give you the code?

I've got 72 virgins waiting for me, after all.
posted by Cyrano at 8:14 PM on September 29, 2006

Torturing suspects is an extension of the administration's attack on Iraq. We are taking our revenge. We are punishing the evil-doers. We are demonstrating that we are the baddest dog there is, you mess with us, you are going to get hurt.

That is about as deep as the thinking about the "War on Terror" is.
posted by tgyg at 8:19 PM on September 29, 2006

Now, we're going to openly admit we'll torture people if we capture them, and we think this will increase the liklihood of people coming forward to work with us?

No. Whether you openly admit that will depend entirely on the outcome of the next two elections.

Either the American people are going to clean house, or they are going to prove themselves the worst nation ever.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:25 PM on September 29, 2006

My understanding is that to the limited extent that torture persuades its victims to tell the truth, it persuades them to tell you a lot of rubbish as well.

For what it’s worth, I basically agree with that anyway. But, either way, in my hypothesis, for instance, there could be an agent standing right by the buttons, and she could try any code as soon as it was relayed to her; the victim could be made aware of this.
Furthermore – linking to a site for the Campaign to Stop Torture, which contains uncited claims about the issue, can hardly be seen as objective evidence.
posted by ed\26h at 8:27 PM on September 29, 2006

One thing Canadians are pretty good at is castigating ourselves for our failures.

So good that I hope Arar sues the fuck out of the RCMP, the Canadian Government, and anyone else in power he can think of that might be remotely culpable for what happened. And I hope he wins a shitload of money, because it's the nearest thing to actual compensation that he'll ever get (he'll never win relief from the nightmares.) I am mortified that our government hasn't apologized. Harper is a Grade-A asshole, and I hope karma comes around to smoke his ass.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:30 PM on September 29, 2006

And I think I showed why your scenario is utter rubbish.

Well, fine. But what you’ve done there is dismissed a problem purely on the grounds that it is hypothetical; hardly a rationalist thing to do. But the again – perhaps you’re not rationalist – who knows.
posted by ed\26h at 8:36 PM on September 29, 2006

It is as if we were discussing a heinous murder, and you popped by to invite us to consider when unlawful killing might be a good thing. That would be an interesting discussion to have, but it is not currently one I give two shits for.

Well, something that one might find interesting but at the same time not “give two shits for”, could quite validly, I think, be seen as something of an oxymoron. But for all that, its rational nature hasn’t been as much as mentioned. Furthermore – given that “heinous” inherently means “immoral”, to draw that analogy would seem to beg the question at issue.
posted by ed\26h at 9:02 PM on September 29, 2006

Here you go, ed---this is who we have tortured and detained so far--now there'll be many many many more--- ...Only 8 percent of detainees at Guantanamo were labeled by the Defense Department as “al Qaeda fighters,” they found, and just 11 percent had been captured “on the battlefield” by coalition forces. ...
posted by amberglow at 9:03 PM on September 29, 2006

ed\26h writes "what you’ve done there is dismissed a problem purely on the grounds that it is hypothetical; hardly a rationalist thing to do. But the again – perhaps you’re not rationalist – who knows."

There is no possible way to codify extreme circumstances into law which allow torture and simultaneously prevent torture in other circumstances. The primary reason it happened and is currently happening by the hand or will of the US is because of the tacit approval given to it. Permitting it at all is to allow it to flourish. There is nothing really rational about trying to find a proper time for torture. It only provides sadistic pleasure and unfathomable pain, nothing else.
posted by krinklyfig at 9:09 PM on September 29, 2006

Okay, dipshits, explain why the CIA says torture isn't of any use. FFS, if there's anyone that would know, sure it'd be the CIA!
posted by five fresh fish at 11:07 PM on September 29, 2006

Mork gets teh Waterboard lol:

posted by squalor at 11:21 PM on September 29, 2006

WTF?? Here Mork gets teh Waterboard!11
posted by squalor at 11:24 PM on September 29, 2006

hm. you broke it good.
posted by carsonb at 12:49 AM on September 30, 2006

freedomboarding
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:16 AM on September 30, 2006

oh, and torture is not a family value, you fucks.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:17 AM on September 30, 2006

(OT again, I'm sorry as well)
I'm also not a native speaker, but I remember being laughed at by a taxi driver or saying "еБАнная пробка", and according to a сибиряк I worked with almost everything was "ёбанный". www.russki-mat.net gives the same (and I never would have found that site if not for this discussion).
You mean the passive past participle right?

(OT) Oh, I see. Yeah, the past participle is ёбан(н)ый, but this is a different form. You wouldn't believe the variety of forms associated with the ёб root. Try my phrase sometime and impress your Russian friends! (Quoting the Pushkin poem with the line properly filled in should get you several free rounds.)
posted by languagehat at 5:18 AM on September 30, 2006

Here you go, ed---this is who we have tortured and detained so far--now there'll be many many many more.

Well, that’s all very interesting, and yes, you could be right in that regard, but none of this is pertinent to what I’ve been saying.

Anybody who is batshitinsane enough to plant said nuclear device in said densely populated region is probably not going to be moved by any threat to his own safety and will, I hazard, be ready to die for his cause. So torture isn't going to cut it, even in this imaginary scenario.

Well, leaving aside the issue of in what way the person in this kind of hypothetical situation is insane, being tortured is not merely a problem to someone because it is a threat to their personal safety or life. What you’re relying on there, is that the victim would exercise a choice not to reveal the information – and given the option, yes, he could quite possibly do just that – but of course, torture is a method of removing that choice.

There is no possible way to codify extreme circumstances into law which allow torture and simultaneously prevent torture in other circumstances. The primary reason it happened and is currently happening by the hand or will of the US is because of the tacit approval given to it. Permitting it at all is to allow it to flourish. There is nothing really rational about trying to find a proper time for torture. It only provides sadistic pleasure and unfathomable pain, nothing else.

Well, firstly, I’ve not said anything about the feasibility of appropriating all of this into workable law. I’ll address your point anyway, but I’m not quite sure why you’d claim this to begin with. There are, for instance, perfectly lucid, legal justifications to, say, kill a man, should the options be limited enough and he is, for instance, desperately trying to kill you for no good reason. Permitting killing people in self-defence hardly allows killing people in general to “flourish”, so why should permitting torture, (in only the most extreme circumstances) allow that to flourish? The best you could say is that allowing at least some torture is a necessary condition for it to become ubiquitous – but it certainly isn’t a sufficient one. Furthermore – I’ve never attempted to “find a proper time for torture”, only presented a problem for the position that holds torture to be inherently unjustifiable.

Okay, dipshits, explain why the CIA says torture isn't of any use. FFS, if there's anyone that would know, sure it'd be the CIA!

Thanks for that burst of scattershot abuse.
It’s hard to tell if those particular members of the CIA, military and so on who endorsed the letter you linked are particularly likely to be valid authorities on whether or not torture can yield useful information. But whatever; let’s say they are. The only claim about the usefulness, or not, of torture in that letter is a quote by one Lt. Gen. John Kimmons:

No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tells us that.

But it’s difficult to tell exactly what he is referring to here. I’m perfectly willing to accept, for example, that all the unsubstantiated “tell us who you’re working for!” stuff, generally, doesn’t provide useful intelligence. But this says nothing about the extreme situations in which I’ve argued torture might be justified.
posted by ed\26h at 7:55 AM on September 30, 2006

People like you, ed, are the reason the USA has the problems it does. Expert after expert has gone on record to say that torture is not a useful tool. But you, gosh!, with all your worldly knowledge and simply endless experience in the field of intelligence operations, why you know better than them!

Ed\26h, you are a moran.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:33 AM on September 30, 2006

ed\26h: I'm glad you see the extreme extraordinariness of any situation where torture might be even considered.

What our administration wants to do is make what used to require absurd hypotheses into a matter of course.

oh, yeah, 'sekrit' was indeed a sarcastic spelling. You're a bright one, eh?

If you can imagine these wild-ass bullshit hypotheses (embarassing we even have to discuss them, but when dealilng with children) then you should be able to imagine that any bomb-preventing torture will surely not be prosecuted by a grateful nation.

You have successfully taken the conversation so far afield so as to completely derail it. Thanks.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:03 AM on September 30, 2006

People like you, ed, are the reason the USA has the problems it does.

Funny – I’d have said that bigots who are unmoved by rational argument are the reason the USA has the problems it does. And how ironic that you should use an example of someone being foolish in simply abusing their political opponents in order to abuse a political opponent.

Expert after expert has gone on record to say that torture is not a useful tool. But you, gosh!, with all your worldly knowledge and simply endless experience in the field of intelligence operations, why you know better than them!

As I said in my last post – I’m perfectly willing to accept, for example, that all the unsubstantiated “tell us who you’re working for!” stuff [as, seemingly, is being alluded to in said letter], generally, doesn’t provide useful intelligence. But this says nothing about the extreme situations in which I’ve argued torture might be justified.
posted by ed\26h at 9:16 AM on September 30, 2006

Whether it is morally justified, it can never be legally justified, or we have given up our civility.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:20 AM on September 30, 2006

I’d have said that bigots who are unmoved by rational argument are the reason the USA has the problems it does.

Dicking around with absurd hypotheticals that do not relate to the law in question is not rational argument. It's water-muddying equivocation.

You want to talk about whether or not, torture would be acceptable to you, if Saturn was about to launch their Qucular missiles at us? Hey, those Saturnites aren't even humans, what's the problem?

Nobody gives a fuck about that, because that's not what's going on. What's going on is the normalization of barbaric practices, imprisonment and torture without possibility of release, contrary to all accepted cultural standards of decency and hundreds of years of law. Fuck you for pretending it's something else.

Simply because you can imagine raping a stack of children under some ridiculous circmstances doesn't mean the situation will ever come up or bears any relevance to real life. Other people aren't going to waste their time daydreaming about heroic acts of torture in the face of grave danger. What are you, twelve? Real hard-nosed. Real realistic. Real rational.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:28 AM on September 30, 2006

For one so fervently opposed to torture in all its forms it seems strange that you’d then want to torture me!

Now, I’ve been very clear about this – but I’ll relay it one more time anyway. Some people on this thread are explicitly using, and some others seem to be using, the following argument:

Torture is inherently wrong.
Therefore a law that allows torture is also wrong.
Therefore any such law should be opposed.

I’ve simply pointed out that there are rational objections to the first premise and that perhaps it’s just downright false. If those objections are successful, then, obviously, the argument fails. This, of course, isn’t to say that, if it does fail, it then follows that such laws should be supported – not by any means – but it would fail none the less.
posted by ed\26h at 11:00 AM on September 30, 2006

For one so fervently opposed to torture in all its forms it seems strange that you’d then want to torture me!

What the hell are you talking about? I just reread all my posts and can't find anything like that. Unless this is wry wit, in which case har har har.

Torture is inherently wrong.
Therefore a law that allows torture is also wrong.
Therefore any such law should be opposed.

Whether or not torture is wrong if [insert absurd situation], any law that supports torture is wrong, nevertheless. What is there to argue here?

IF (a BIG if) you should ever find yourself in such a situation, what bearing has the law on what you should do? If you are willing to torture someone to save lives, wouldn't you also be willing to break the law? Jesus.

You are NOT being rational, you are ignoring the real situation in favor of some technical word parsing and prepubescent fantasizing. It's embarassing.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:15 AM on September 30, 2006

Well, from what I’ve heard about it, torture, if severe enough, will make practically anyone tell you what you want to know (if they know it of course).

We're still waiting for a source. I know you're just semi-trolling at this point, ed, but c'mon. Leaving *aside* any moral concerns about physically damaging someone so badly they would prefer death, torture has not ever been proven to "work," aside from cowing oppressed peoples into further submission, e.g. inquisitions.

Give us a fucking source, please. Even anecdotal evidence?
posted by mrgrimm at 11:23 AM on September 30, 2006

We're still waiting for a source. Give us a fucking source.

Most of what I know about the issue I gleaned from Kidnap and Torture American Style, which, ironically enough, argued that torture is inherently wrong. Here’s a quote concering roughly what I’m talking about:

You don't get good information from torturing people. They will tell you anything to make the pain go away.

Hardly helpful to my case you might think. But in the hypothetical situation I put forward, any information given is immediately testable. It’s not like, to end his ordeal, the victim can simply implicate innocent parties (as was being alluded to), reveal false bomb-codes or anything like that.

But, either way, here’s my full quote where I point out that, in this kind of hypothetical situation at least, it doesn’t really matter whether it is all that reliable or not.

Well, from what I’ve heard about it, torture, if severe enough, will make practically anyone tell you what you want to know (if they know it of course). But, just for arguments sake, let’s say that isn’t the case. Let’s say, and I think I’m being really generous here, that there’s only a ten percent chance it’ll work. Given that that millions of people will certainly die if you don’t, I can’t see how any rational person would say that you shouldn’t at least try.
posted by ed\26h at 12:53 PM on September 30, 2006

You ignore the reality for hundreds if not thousands of real people currently detained without oversight and subject to torture--if not tortured already--for a hypothetical that has never happened? Sad.
posted by amberglow at 1:01 PM on September 30, 2006

You ignore the reality for hundreds if not thousands of real people currently detained without oversight and subject to torture--if not tortured already--for a hypothetical that has never happened?

Well, the answer would be “no” – I do not.
posted by ed\26h at 1:18 PM on September 30, 2006

But in the hypothetical situation I put forward, any information given is immediately testable.

Conveniently enough for your argument. You're just making things up.

How can you not see how obtuse this is?
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:18 PM on September 30, 2006

Conveniently enough for your argument. You're just making things up.

Well, of course I’m making things up. Being “made-up” is the very nature of a hypothetical situation. And it’s hardly surprising that aspects of it are convenient, given that it was designed to test the logical fortitude of the claim that torture is inherently wrong.
posted by ed\26h at 1:38 PM on September 30, 2006

You prove that nothing is inherently wrong by that method. Just keep making up details that balance whatever sense of justice you have until you justify the deed.

Suicide bombers, villains of the age, think that they are doing the right thing. Torturers think they are doing the right thing. If nuclear war ever erupts, it will be because the people in charge of such things thought they had to follow through, for the greater good.

I can justify any evil deed to myself. It logically, necessarily can prove nothing beyond how corruptible I am, how easily I can redefine my terms until nothing means anything. Nice for existential masturbation, not very good for policy or civilization.

I guess what I am saying is that your line of inquiry is not at all outside my grasp (or anyone else's on this thread), but it is fruitless and I doubt your motivations for pursuing it.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:50 PM on September 30, 2006

From someone who lived under Idi Amin to all of us: "I feel for you really. Because I don't think you have any idea how far down the road you already are."
posted by amberglow at 3:16 PM on September 30, 2006

I have always found it fascinating that on every single torture thread on metafilter there is at least one torture apologist. I wonder if perhaps John Yoo keeps a bunch of sock puppets around just for that purpose :-)
posted by dopeypanda at 9:13 PM on September 30, 2006

You prove that nothing is inherently wrong by that method...

Well, as I touched on earlier, no – you don’t. For example, I cannot see how anyone could come up with a justification for torturing people simply because they find it amusing. That, I imagine, is something that is inherently wrong. But even if examples like this one didn’t exist, and that nothing is inherently wrong, I don’t see how that necessarily causes us too much of a problem anyway. Killing people, for instance, ethically, would be in most cases an even worse act than torturing them would, but we don’t hold that the act of killing people is inherently wrong. In genuine self-defence or in times of a just war it can be, again ethically speaking, a fine-and-dandy thing to do. But as a result of this, it’s not like people are forever contriving situations so that they can claim they were justified in killing someone and consequentially getting away with murder. I’m sure this happens, mind, but what I mean is, developed society hasn’t fallen into absolute barbarity and what is effectively legalised murder simply because the commonly held view is that killing is not inherently wrong. So – why should anything all that terrible necessarily follow if we’re as much as allowed to think that maybe torture isn’t inherently wrong? And furthermore – even if we could be sure that things all that terrible would necessarily follow – this says nothing about the actual truth of the claim – but merely appeals to the negative consequences that would occur if we are as much as allowed to doubt it
posted by ed\26h at 8:33 AM on October 1, 2006

I cannot see how anyone could come up with a justification for torturing people simply because they find it amusing.

Didn't you read the reports ? "Some days we would just get bored, so we would have everyone sit in a corner and then make them get in a pyramid. This was before Abu Ghraib but just like it. We did it for amusement."

It proves the point, really--the reasons for it do not matter and never ever excuse it. If it's available and lawful, it'll be used even more than it has been.
posted by amberglow at 11:10 AM on October 1, 2006

"Some days we would just get bored, so we would have everyone sit in a corner and then make them get in a pyramid. [...] We did it for amusement."

Perhaps if this had been an example of someone actually managing to justify torturing people because they found it amusing, then maybe it would have been in some way relevant. But of course, it’s an example of no such thing. It’s not even an example of an attempt at such a justification – merely one of people partaking in the act itself.
posted by ed\26h at 12:16 PM on October 1, 2006

It's an explanation given to Human Rights groups in testimony. You're the one attempting justifications thru hypotheticals alone--i just gave you what real people who have already done it in real life have said when asked.
posted by amberglow at 1:56 PM on October 1, 2006

I can dig up the court records from Lynndie England and the others if you like too--they actually did these things to people repeatedly, not dreamed up situations where it might possibly be done.
posted by amberglow at 1:57 PM on October 1, 2006

It's an explanation given to Human Rights groups in testimony.

It may well be, but as I explained in my previous post, where my argument is concerned, it is irrelevant.
posted by ed\26h at 2:36 PM on October 1, 2006

Dude, you don't have an argument. You have a movie script.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:09 PM on October 1, 2006

Dude, you don't have an argument. You have a movie script.

You have confused the argument with the hypothetical situation. Furthermore – whether or not the latter bears resemblance to the plot of a movie is also irrelevant.
posted by ed\26h at 6:06 PM on October 1, 2006

Why am I even commenting? Oh well. Here goes anyways:

“So – it’s “imbecilic” to attempt even an entirely rational discussion on the issue of torture?’

Yep. Inherently.

Unless you’d like to have an entirely rational discussion on which race is superior. Or a nice rational discussion on why I need to place you on a stone slab, cut your gut open with an obsidian dagger and cut out and burn your heart so the sun doesn’t die.

You don’t want the sun to die out, do you?

That is NOT a rational discussion, of course. A rational discussion doesn't mean you give every possible viewpoint equal time; that's a common fallacy in media discussions about current events, which attempts to paint moderate viewpoints from the side you don't agree with as "batshitinsane" and the batshitinsane viewpoints from the side you do agree with as "normal." A rational discussion should appeal to facts and logic, not some misguided idea of balance. So the rational response to "why I shouldn't cut you open so the sun doesn't die" is "what proof do you have that the sun will die, and what proof do you have that cutting out my heart will stop it?" If there are no good answers to either question, perhaps the other party should think twice about cutting out your heart.

So of course you can have a rational discussion about torture. Just as an earlier poster finds it funny that those who usually malign "moral relativism" have no qualms about applying the same relativism to torture, I find it funny that those who usually defend "moral relativism" and understand its usefulness would then resort to the absolutism of "torture is always wrong, always, and never, ever works." From a rhetorical standpoint, that's a dangerous position to take; all any proponent of torture needs to destroy your argument is to find one example that torture has yielded important information. That's what ed\26h is getting at with his extreme hypothetical; sure, it's basically the plot of a bad season of 24, but it could happen, and torture could work. By taking the position that torture never works, you're giving the pro-torture side an easy out.

So why is torture a bad idea? It wins us no friends, it sickens our allies, and the intelligence we receive is often tainted and rarely correct. I can't give you a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis or anything because I simply don't have all the facts, but all my reading suggests that torture comes out very badly when you consider the intelligence you receive through torture, compared to the many deleterious effects at home and abroad. The logical response to ed\26h's hypothetical situation has already been given: while one out of every hundred thousand situations may be extreme enough to warrant the use of torture, the other 99,999 situations are not. The harm we do in those 99,999 other situations outweighs the one time it might do some good.

ed\26h is arguing a very narrow question: is there any situation in which torture could possibly be justified, ever? This is akin to asking the family of someone who was brutally raped and murdered, "so what should we do with the guy who did this to your child?" You'll get an answer, alright; it just won't be relevant. Stop letting him define the argument by fighting him on his own grounds.
posted by chrominance at 7:41 PM on October 1, 2006

In all these super extreme situations, the obvious answer is to keep torture legal and then let a jury decide.
If you personally think pulling the finger nails off some guy will prevent a nuclear holocaust then you should go ahead.
posted by Iax at 11:20 PM on October 1, 2006

In all these super extreme situations, the obvious answer is to keep torture legal and then let a jury decide.

From the context, it is clear you meant illegal.
posted by sonofsamiam at 5:51 AM on October 2, 2006

Thanks for such an articulate post, chrominance – I basically agree with it, especially about giving the pro-torture side an easy out – but here’s one point:

While one out of every hundred thousand situations may be extreme enough to warrant the use of torture, the other 99,999 situations are not. The harm we do in those 99,999 other situations outweighs the one time it might do some good.

Well, it isn’t as if whether or not it’s justified can only be known retrospectively; nothing quite so broad as applying torture carte blanche is required to consequentially allow it in at least some of the cases that it is justified.
posted by ed\26h at 7:32 AM on October 2, 2006