I have to say that that all seems pathetically weak to me.

As someone who has trained in the martial arts for more than 20 years the slapping thing seems silly… we get hit a lot.

So the slapping techniques do not impress me in any way.

In the military I worked 72-84 hour shifts… most of which I was standing, which sucked no doubt, but it was not torture.

So the standing thing… not very impressive.

Again in the military I was wet and cold for weeks at a time. And while this also sucked it was in no way torture, even though I had hypothermia twice.

Cold cell while unpleasant seems less than impressive.

Waterboarding…

I have never been waterboarded but I have been through the gas chamber 2 times, once in the military and once in law enforcement training and the gas does seem like it is cutting off your ability to breathe, we had to endure that for several minutes at a time…

Furthermore growing up in Florida along the water I have inhaled water on more than one occasion, in short I nearly drowned, which I imagine is worse than a simulation.

Much of this was unpleasant and sometimes frightening but it did not traumatize me or leave a lasting fear… I still love the water.

And I would try waterboarding if offered and executed by professionals.

If I were captured and interrogated in such a manner I would be thankful that that was all that they did… none of the above seems overly painful or traumatic to me, but I admit that I may have a unique outlook on the subject.

Although I suspect that terrorists are harder men than I am and view such techniques as laughable by their standards…

Later

From what you've said, it appears that you doubt that these methods could be very effective at getting prisoners to talk. I guess the point of them is that they can be used repeatedly or for a long time to break down the prisoners' resistance. With three of the detainees, waterboarding was used 244 times. That kind of use brings up the problem, though, of how anyone knows that a prisoner has something in particular to reveal. What is the justification for torturing (I will use that word for waterboarding) one person over 100 times?

It also should go without saying that none of the six methods describe permissable routine treatment for captured enemies. All prisoners should be treated humanely (as I'm sure you would agree). Interrogation represents a controversial exception to mandated humane treatment. Things obviously did run amok at Abu Graib.

Also bear in mind that it is a far thing from the real deal when you volunteer to be waterboarded by people who do not despise you and will cease the moment you ask them to (or tap out or whatever).

DWill
From what you've said, it appears that you doubt that these methods could be very effective at getting prisoners to talk.

Any one method used only one time yes, but as you recognize multiple attempts and procedures are used with the intent to wear them down.

DWill
I guess the point of them is that they can be used repeatedly or for a long time to break down the prisoners' resistance.

Exactly… and they need to mix and match so to speak. For certain people lack of sleep might be the straw that breaks them for others it might be the cold, but almost nothing short of real torture breaks a person in one attempt.

DWill
With three of the detainees, waterboarding was used 244 times. That kind of use brings up the problem, though, of how anyone knows that a prisoner has something in particular to reveal. What is the justification for torturing (I will use that word for waterboarding) one person over 100 times?

I would say that the status of the detainee would justify the interrogation, as would the quality of the information gathered… in the cases mentioned above it appears that the information saved lives.

DWill
It also should go without saying that none of the six methods describe permissable routine treatment for captured enemies. All prisoners should be treated humanely (as I'm sure you would agree). Interrogation represents a controversial exception to mandated humane treatment. Things obviously did run amok at Abu Graib.

Things did get out of hand there, which is in part due to the uniqueness of the facility and who they had running it. Soldiers make bad jailers unless properly trained and those people were not trained properly in the beginning.

Also there is something being missed here, a prisoners treatment is almost entirely a result of their behavior. Prisoners that attack the guards get beat up, plain and simple… if they continue to struggle they often hurt themselves worse. Rule breakers are put in isolation and their privileges are reduced or removed. This is the normal state of any prison and I suspect that it is similar there.

Johnson1010
Also bear in mind that it is a far thing from the real deal when you volunteer to be waterboarded by people who do not despise you and will cease the moment you ask them to (or tap out or whatever).

I would insist on the 45 second time limit imposed on the waterboarders just like with the actual prisoners, anything less would give a bad understanding of the procedure.

Later

There is so much contradictory evidence on this subject, or it's not even really evidence but statements that contradict. I was eyeing a book the other day called How to Break a Terrorist. The jacket copy says that author, Matthew Alexander, was brought in to interrogate al Zarqawi (sp.) after interrogators using "force on force" techniques failed to get anywhere with his associates. Alexander used no harsh techniques at all and, according to the copy, was resoundingly successful. I don't say that this clinches the matter by any means, but it's clear that many in military intelligence agree that enhanced techniques, torture, whatever you want to call it, have drawbacks including that they aren't effective enough at getting information.

Truth.

We have testimony from right-wing broadcaster Erich Muller of Chicago that waterboarding is torture. Muller was waterboarded on his show and lasted about 7 seconds. He was unequivocal that the technique is torture and was sorry to have to admit that. I note discussion on the web saying that Muller faked the waterboarding. This would be easier to consider if he had afterwards maintained it wasn't torture. Why would he fake it and arrive at an opinion opposite from going in?

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Ma ... Loses.html

That makes "only two" conservatives that I know of who have submitted to waterboarding. Each has become a convert to waterboarding-as- torture. If we had a larger sample, is there any reason to think that the picture would alter? Waterboarding triggers a physiological response that all of us can be presumed to share. The abusive nature of the technique explains why we prosecuted Japanese officers for using it on our soldiers, and why a Texas sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in 1983 for using the method.

Yes. When you remove free will from the subject, anything is torture.

Also, I remember the government releasing a stimulation of a waterboarding in which one soldier "gently" had the palms of his hands on the terrorist's body, and another figure gently ladling the water on the towel placed over the face. I mean, what the heck was the terrorist doing, taking a nap? I had to laugh at the b.s. of the military trying to cover up with a stimulation they have control over the color scheme, the positions of the figures...

Patrick Kilgallon wrote:

Yes. When you remove free will from the subject, anything is torture.

Oh dear, I'm afraid to say, I torture my kids with their homework everyday.

Whoops, I guess my previous statement was too much of a generalization. I would probably add using unjustified physical force?