On Waterboarding
If you are like me, you've heard a lot about "Waterboarding" as a means used by interrogators to get information from those captured. It is usually described as invoking a feeling that one is drowning, without actually causing any real, lasting harm.
So I was glad to get a chance to see reporter Steve Harrigan voluntarily undergo waterboarding to demonstrate just exactly what is involved.
Assuming that this was an accurate portrayal of waterboarding and its "phases", I think it is essential to note that Harrigan admits that although it was not at all pleasant, he felt fine again a matter of minutes later. This technique uses fear and pain to try to get information, not permanent mental or physical harm (e.g., cutting off a finger). For me, this distinction is important in considering whether waterboarding should be called "torture" or not, and hence whether it should be allowed or not to get vital information from high-value prisoners.
Labels: us_gov_politics
posted by Thomas R. Stone @ 10:41 PM
2 Comments
Links to this post
2 Comments:
Is it well defined what constitutes "harm"? Humans have complex psychologies, and being threatened with death in this way has a potential to do permanent harm, I would say. I've seen the video you linked to and also read some accounts of people who have undergone waterboarding. They describe it as a viscerally terrifying experience. The water slowly creeps up in one's sinuses to the point where it is on the very edge of spilling over into the airway. According to what I've read, this produces a feeling of panic and helplessness that is almost sublime.
I for one would rather have a finger joint cut off than undergo this, any day of the week. Especially if I didn't know the intention was not to kill me.
This is also one case where the practical argument against something which I object to in principle is actually valid (in my opinion). People under torture will tell you whatever. Even if you get one good piece of information by torturing people, I would guess you'd get ten bogus pieces of information. And these wouldn't just result in a waste of time. They would result in US forces banging down the doors of innocent people, and dragging them into the interrogation room. Where, since they honestly don't know anything, they would have to be tortured. And then they would give bogus information. So it's kind of a vicious circle.
When considering the treatment of terrorist suspects, people (not you, I'm just making a general observation) seem to forget that they are suspects. I'm not saying we can't detain people without having a proper trial first; I'm just saying that when Americans talk about "the bad guys" (an intentially childish phrase) in Guantanamo, we shouldn't forget the fact that a lot of those "bad guys" have done nothing against the US.
I just think it's crazy to not call something "torture" just because it (supposedly) doesn't cause permanent damage. I wouldn't want to be put in a total sensory deprivation tank for one week running; that would basically be like hell, forever. Even though I would probably recover after being released. The suffering caused would be indescribable.
A lot of people seem to be in to these little thought experiments along the lines of "well what if the terrorist knew the code to disarm the bomb blah blah blah". What if an individual, not the terrorist, happened to overhear the code, and was now withholding it for reasons of his own. Shall we torture him? And this isn't perfectly distinct, there is a continuum between the sole plotter and a true third party.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home