I’ve known about Christopher Hitchens’ Vanity Fair article where he changed his tune regarding whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture; but I hadn’t realized there’s also a video that shows the session he had.
He lasts for only about 5 or 6 applications.
I wouldn’t be so quick to pass judgment on Hitchens as a wimp, either; not unless you’ve personally experienced the same, yourself (I know some of our readers have).
Regardless of whether it’s applied to our own soldiers in SERE training to develop coping mechanisms to resist, or whether it’s being inflicted on enemy combatants to go beyond their breaking points….can we or should we concede that waterboarding does in fact fit into the categorical definition of “torture”?
After all, I could potentially classify such things as tickling and most hip hop music as torture, so why not waterboarding?
Conceding the language and calling the “harsh interrogation methods” as “torture” without a distinction is politically damaging to those of us who have defended the Bush Administration and CIA decision to engage in “enhanced interrogation” to keep us safe.
How should we define “torture”? And how effective were the “harsh interrogation” methods in extrapolating actionable intelligence?
Well, maybe there’s hope for them, yet.
In another 200 years, they’ll be having the debate over gay marriage; if not for George W. Bush, the world’s progressives would be waiting another 2000 years, still protesting against wars.
I think that was the point. Where did Mata say or imply…
…………..?
@Wordsmith
That reminds me of a muslim speaker at a liberal politics conference who took offence at those danish cartoons and wanted them banned. I was part of the audience and I told him that I took offence at the Koran and should we ban that too? He replied that I had to understand Islam is 400 years behind Christianity and that they haven’t had their reformation yet. I told him I’m not going to wait 400 years as I won’t be here then.
So although some on here might think the UK is overun by muslim population who are terrorist sympathisers and devout to their religion – what I have found is that it is quite mixed – that some are ‘westernized’ and modern thinkers. So even in the middle East I believe the populace will have a mix of views and it is important that the US attempts to get through to the moderates.
Gaffa, now you may comprehend my “they will out multiply us” comment that you had trouble translating from Colonial from Queen’s English. Those that you disagree with may not be those bent on instilling jihad via violence. But when they are the majority population, and in control of the reins of Parliament, they will have no bad conscience inflicting their superior Islam beliefs in the form of legislation with that power.
For the beginning, you need only look at your now parallel judicial system… with your British laws, and the Shariah law today, side by side. Over time, as their numbers increase, so will their legislative influence. ala, if they are patient and have the desire, they have no need for jihad.
All that remains to be seen over time is if the Islam masses prefer oppressive Shariah law over western democracy/republics.
@GaffaUK:
LOL. Touchy, aren’t we?
Thanks for the advice, oh wise in one’s own eyes. But you’re the one who needs to grow up.
No one is “crying,” little feller, just “debating” as you say.
And no, I am not going to leave baby Gaffer alone when he throws his little tantrums if I don’t want to. You don’t have to come here, you know. But, if you do, expect some criticism, especially if you persist in mocking people, spewing nonsense, and acting like a jerk.
Now, about those video games. They don’t talk back, nor do they interfere with your bloated ego. You can be a star, where all but the bad guys love you. If what you want is to nurture that superior feeling, or at least for no one to point our your many faults, go back to them until you grow up.
@Yonason
So what do you do for a living?
Obama, said last night Winston Churchill wouldnt use torture in WW2…..Excuse me he broke the german code years before didnt need to torture to get his information…..Are the english people not using torture on the irish for the last hundred years…or did he forget all of that…How convient to miss that fact…Lets just make stuff up and call it history…..Duke
Well looks like the Commies reckon the English torture…
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/290_torture.html
Although in the same article…in regards to the actions against those interned in Northern Ireland in the 70s….
@GaffaUK:
Retired. I used to be in
toxiclology researchpharmaceutical R&D and quality control. And you?@GaffaUK:
Knowing what’s in you library really helps us understand how you “think,” so thanks for that “enlightening” bit of propaganda.
When the President is done with America
1) We will be flat broke.
2) We will be taxed to death
3) We will be defenseless
4) We will be at war with ourselves
5) Our National Health will be diminished
I will still love this country
Duke
@GaffaUK:
We are trained to EXPECT to be water boarded, at the very least. As we do not participate in unlawful combat activities, we would expect to be protected under the GC. So by that simple observation, water boarding is not “torture”, unless you are willing to accept that we are to expect that we will be tortured. Then there goes your argument that we shouldn’t do anything bad, so the enemy wont do anything bad back.
Your comment about the same subject being water boarded 80 times is naive and ill-informed. The number that was quoted is of individual streams of water. That could all be in one session or 80 sessions. Of course now we know that isn’t the case. The number of pours, the duration of pours, and the amount poured were all very strictly limited. They were even guaranteed a specific rest period of several hours.
But there is a obvious flaw in your attempt to infer outrage over the idea of 80 water boarding sessions. If water boarding were as horrible and torturous as you imply, then no one would endure 80 sessions. And if they could, they certainly would not surrender useful intelligence under anything less.
As to your question, your dilemma is interesting. But it actually only pretends to be an intelligent question. You comply ignore the greater moral dilemma. Do you allow many thousand innocent people die, so that you can claim to be morally superior. Is that morally superior? My answer remains. For the POW you will be legally culpable if you take action to force the information from the POW. You are not legally liable (according to the GC) for forcing the information from the terrorist. But you will be morally culpable for the deaths of those innocent people if you do nothing.
@B Ciz:
As all his “questions” are, posing, and rather badly, at being intelligent. He’s a waste of time, except to show that fact, as you have quite effectively done.
Pingback: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Poll finds most Americans oppose the closing of Gitmo
Pingback: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Obama Launches His Second Charm Offensive in the Middle East