Interesting food for thought:



http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808

8/11/2008 10:06:28 AM

Eh, we as a country don't do that anyway, so much ado about nothing.

8/11/2008 10:28:26 AM

yeah...anyone who doesn't think waterboarding is torture is a fool. i'd like to see how long such a person would stand by that position while strapped to the board.

those guys were pretty gentle with him in the video, too.

8/11/2008 7:36:54 PM

the thing that I didn't realize, or didn't really think about before watching that video was that you are literally strapped to a board and completely immobile, with a bag over your head then a towel. The imagine in my mind before that video was of someone laying on a board, able to wiggle or squirm or even use their arms, i guess, and of your face being open to the air with water over your head.

but that takes it to a completely different level if you cannot even turn your head or move your arms. Then with the bag and towel over your face, you get a constant feeling of water in your mouth and nose, and again the most scary part is you can't see or move at all.

8/11/2008 7:55:47 PM

Hitchens is the man y0

That shit was the most pussified version you could ever expect to get and it still scares the shit out of me to consider.

[Edited on August 11, 2008 at 8:05 PM. Reason : ]

8/11/2008 8:01:15 PM

the vanity fair piece is good. i'd suggest reading it

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808

8/11/2008 8:02:42 PM

Unfortunately this nor nothing else would stop chickenhawks from supporting waterboarding in the hopes of looking "tough on terror."

8/11/2008 8:04:29 PM

^^^^ the techniques vary, but yeah...the subject is pretty much always strapped down.

that was the "dryest" waterboarding i've ever seen. sometimes they use many buckets of water or a water hose. sometimes they'll stuff a rag in your mouth, and there's a way to do it with something like saran wrap, but i'm not as sure how to do it.

You could get a whole lot meaner with it than that video, though. that was efficient and almost like a medical procedure...if you were physically roughing up the victim, yelling at him, using more water, etc...it could get far worse.



^^ that is an absolutely outstanding article. he writes a great account, and while it is certainly an opinion piece, he really does strive to present both sides of the argument and not to necessarily demonize those who support using these practices.
[Edited on August 11, 2008 at 8:10 PM. Reason : asdfadsafd]

[Edited on August 11, 2008 at 8:26 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

8/11/2008 8:10:02 PM

I maintain my position that the shenanigans about water boarding are just a smoke screen for far sinister things. We don't have black sites just to waterboard, that strikes me as absurd.

8/11/2008 8:14:27 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSKUA75551820080807

Waterboarding an attraction at amusement park

Quote :

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - A man with a black hood pours water on the face of a prisoner in an orange jumpsuit strapped to a table: no, it's not Guantanamo Bay naval base, but New York's Coney Island amusement park. The scene using robotic dolls is an installation built by artist Steve Powers to criticize waterboarding, a simulated drowning technique the United States has admitted using on terrorism suspects, but that rights group say is torture. "Waterboard Thrill Ride" beckons a sign along with cartoon character "SpongeBob SquarePants" who appears tied down and exclaiming: "It don't Gitmo better!" The public can peek through window bars and feed a dollar into the slot to bring the robotic dolls into action, one more attraction in the beachfront amusement park in the New York neighborhood of Brooklyn. "Anyone can see this is painful from 50 feet away," said Powers, who had previously been painting signs and storefronts in the area. "I wanted people to understand the psychological ramifications of this.""

8/12/2008 12:17:58 AM

And anyone who doesn't support causing distress to one individual in order to save thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or possibly millions of lives is a fool. Call the technique in question anything you like--call it torture--and I'll still support its very limited use in extreme circumstances.

I hope and pray that America's new leader will do what is necessary to keep our country safe.

And as has been noted here, way to demonize supporters of the technique at issue by referring to them as "chickenhawks," Str8Foolish. GG. What branch of the military did you serve in again?

[Edited on August 13, 2008 at 4:06 PM. Reason : .]

8/13/2008 4:04:53 PM

Are you serious? The problem with any type of torture like this, is not that you can't get real results, which you can, but you can get big ass negative results as well. Hitchens alludes to this, someone who knows something will probably tell you, but someone who doesn't will say anything for it to stop, thus you might waste valuable resources on chasing down ghosts while those resources should be directed elsewhere.

8/13/2008 4:46:04 PM

Quote :

"And as has been noted here, way to demonize supporters of the technique at issue by referring to them as "chickenhawks," Str8Foolish. GG. What branch of the military did you serve in again?"

Do you know what the term "chickenhawk" means?

8/13/2008 4:53:44 PM

^^ Yeah, "valuable resources" like a couple of guys, some sawhorses and planks, and a jug of water. Not a heavy investment to possibly save thousands or millions of lives.

^ Yes, do you? See how that works?

8/13/2008 5:00:33 PM

Don't you have to support military action to be a chickenhawk?

The whole point is you support military action you aren't willing to participate in yourself. I'm not willing to participate in it but I certainly don't support it.

8/13/2008 5:04:52 PM

^ By your logic, only people who do not support military action and have not served in the military are allowed to voice a legitimate opinion? In any event, "chickenhawk" is pejorative--and I think you know this.

8/13/2008 5:23:08 PM

Quote :

"^ By your logic, only people who do not support military action and have not served in the military are allowed to voice a legitimate opinion? In any event, "chickenhawk" is pejorative--and I think you know this. "

What? I don't think I ever implied such a thing. I'm just saying there are a bunch of chickenhawks who no demonstration or argument would ever sway. Doesn't imply that everybody who supports waterboarding is a chickenhawk. It certainly doesn't imply whatever you're trying to make it say.

Seriously confused here.

8/13/2008 5:27:58 PM

^ Yes, you are confused--you have that part correct.

Quote :

"Unfortunately this nor nothing else would stop chickenhawks from supporting waterboarding in the hopes of looking 'tough on terror.'"

Str8Foolish

You used the epithet at issue ("chickenhawks") to question the principles of those who support waterboarding. Furthermore, you implied that anyone who supports waterboarding is a chickenhawk.

Stop being purposely obtuse.

8/13/2008 5:45:03 PM

What? No not really. I had a specific type of person in mind -- but by all means keep telling me what I said and offering half-assed postmodernist interpretations of my posts.

8/13/2008 5:47:17 PM

There is no implication there that everyone who supports waterboarding is a chickenhawk.

8/13/2008 5:47:29 PM

hooksaw logic:

A's support B.
-------------
Everyone who supports B is an A.

Flawless.

8/13/2008 5:49:42 PM

^^ I disagree.

^ Yes, now you have a firm grasp of your own implication.

8/13/2008 5:56:21 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, "valuable resources" like a couple of guys, some sawhorses and planks, and a jug of water. Not a heavy investment to possibly save thousands or millions of lives"

No... more like "valuable resources" like taking information gotten from torture and flying a couple of Blackhawks to some remote village in Afghanistan, with a squad or two of men. Then busting down a few doors where the families were completely innocent and thus ruining any goodwill you might have had in that community/family/clan. All because some guy thought torture was a good way to get legitimate information.

8/13/2008 7:22:18 PM

wow... valuable resources and goodwill squandered. what a shame.

forget the fact that in that scenario, an innocent person was tortured, and innocent families in afghanistan were blown to bits.

8/13/2008 8:50:12 PM

Quote :

"^^ I disagree. ^ Yes, now you have a firm grasp of your own implication."

Are you being "ironic"? Because that's an invalid mode of reasoning.

8/13/2008 8:54:58 PM

America doesn't torture.

hooksaw: you know, unless it's maybe to our advantage at the time. Then we do it.




[Edited on August 13, 2008 at 11:32 PM. Reason : .]

8/13/2008 11:31:10 PM