Waterboarding for Terrorism suspects

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The psychological effects alone qualify it as torture.

Is that a legal opinion? I'll be straight up, I have no idea what the legal definition of torture is. I always thought of it as physical.

Unfortunately the legal definitions often differ from common sense definitions, and when you have people (attorney generals, for instance) twisting the legalities about what it is and isn't - it muddies the waters no end.

BTW Have you read 1984? The torture scene in there is pretty harrowing - its clearly as much about breaking the person's mind, the physical stuff is simply about making it easier to do that. Pretty unpleasant stuff.

[JODO 2]

From my understanding, information obtained via torture has historically proven to be unreliable. So, if the US is water-boarding to be 'really mean" to our enemies, then OK, but using water-boarding as a form of intelligence gathering seems misplaced.

[almaty 19]

This definition of “cruel and inhuman treatment” responds to the administration’s claim that some of the “enhanced” interrogation techniques allegedly approved in the past – techniques like extended sleep deprivation, exposure to extreme cold, and waterboarding (mock drowning) were not cruel and inhuman because they did not cause “prolonged” suffering. While the administration may argue that such techniques are still allowed, Senators John McCain and John Warner, two of the MCA’s primary authors, have stated that the legislation is specifically designed to criminalize these and other abusive interrogation practices allegedly used by the United States.4 Such methods violate the international law prohibitions against cruel and inhuman treatment, and may amount to torture.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

BTW Have you read 1984? The torture scene in there is pretty harrowing - its clearly as much about breaking the person's mind, the physical stuff is simply about making it easier to do that. Pretty unpleasant stuff.

Yes I've read it. I'm familiar with the scene. I have mixed feelings about this. Obviously, if it has a consistent record of being ineffective, it shouldn't be done. I don't think anyone is arguing with that. The real conundrum (for some. like me) is if it has a record of effectiveness in some cases and it doesn't result in any physical damage (e.g. no missing eyebrows, no burn marks, no missing limbs, no bleeding testicles, etc ). To me, that's a grey area and not clearly what I'd consider torture. That said, I realize what I consider torture isn't really relevant, there are laws on the books governing that sort of thing and I've already made clear I have no idea what those laws are.

Edited December 14, 2007 by VJ Troll

[mawilson 2,133]

Just let Jack Bauer do his job, people.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Just let Jack Bauer do his job, people.

Get Jack some Jackboots.