What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
159 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+124It's probably nastier when you can't just tap on the torturer and he immediately stops.
- Jonas1982, on 10/12/2007, -11/+105It is so obviously torture. Just imagine your outrage if you saw 3 insurgents holding down some 18 year old PFC and doing this. Simple, blatant torture.
- AhronZombi, on 10/12/2007, -18/+85clearly torture. even within the fox double speak i dont see how anyone could see otherwise
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -7/+60This didn't show phase 4 and 5
There was much better video from earlier in the broadcast, it looks like Fox News didn't like what he said about it. He went into much greater detail and he hadn't recovered from it, in this video he acts like it was no big deal. - Mejogid, on 10/12/2007, -5/+53If you scare someone enough, you can get them to say anything. It is among are most basic animal instincts to resist asphyxiation - no one who knows how to swim can drown themselves voluntarily and no one can hold their breath to kill themselves. People can put a bullet in their skull or slit their wrists, but cannot strangle themselves.
Being forced to endure this brings on a terror beyond anything some one who has not experienced it can imagine. What this guy has effectively done is held his breath as long as he can, where as others are forced to endure the same feeling for as long as the torturer wants.
As has been said, once they have endured this for any length of time it is doubtful the victim will have retained his sanity, and when faced with an infinitely drawn out death or admitting to something you didn't do and rotting in a cell, no one will chose the former. It's like a playground bully beating up the little kid till he takes the blame for him.
In a state where a confession under duress means anything, the truth becomes what ever those with the power want it to be. - ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+51What's funniest about his interview is he asks how long interrogations usually last. They say that a few minutes may be enough.
Add up the amount of time he is actually tortured in this video:
Phase One - 15 seconds.
Phase Two - 13 seconds.
Phase Three - 5 seconds.
So he lasted 33 seconds and thinks that's an accurate portrayal?
Right. - 81v3d07g0d, on 10/12/2007, -8/+45Has everyone forgotten that torture is notoriously unreliable way of getting good information out of people. At some point they eventually will start telling you whatever you want to hear just to make it stop, even if they don't know anything. Listen if these people have done something wrong then sure do something about it, but in so many ways this seems counter productive for anything other than extracting some kind of personal vengeance on an individual basis.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+44No, it isn't that simple.
And even if it was, coerced confessions are near useless - the reason torture was abandoned in the first place was mainly that the quality of information obtained was so low.
Oh, and here's a DoD list of prisoners who've died while in custody. It's a year and a half old, so all these transgressions are now gone, not merely swept under the rug by the recent change to the constitution which makes details on torture techniques state secrets. Right?
http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/ - shadus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+42You seem to be missing the fact that HE suffered no mental trauma since he could "tap" out. He suffered no lasting mental trauma because those guys couldn't come and get him at any time and repeat that for as long as they wanted. He suffered no lasting mental trauma because it happened to him 3 times and not 30-40 times. That bears no resemblance to what a real session of waterboarding would be like.
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -7/+40When do you know when torture is enough and when the guy said the truth? When do you stop?
The idiots who support torture never asked these questions, they just assume that you torture somebody and the guy will tell you the truth. But will you know the truth when you hear it? Will you accept it? - patience, on 10/12/2007, -21/+51Disgusting
- KingMofo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+38I love how their emphasis is how they are physically healthy.
Yeah, rape victims are physically healthy too... after all, it's just intercourse, we were designed to do it.
Problem is the psychological scars left *for life*. Imagine being in a dank and dark room where you feel like nobody will ever find you... And compare that to being on Fox where you know you're safe no matter what.
Doubethink. That's exactly what it is. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30A big problem is if you dont know anything at all you WILL 100% make something up to get them to stop. They simply wont stop if you keep screaming you dont know anything. They already dont believe you that is why they are torturing you. SO you must say something.
- bitteroldcoot, on 10/12/2007, -13/+39Which makes me ask the obvious question. What the hell were they thinking?
Did they think their viewer would see Steve struggling to break free, an not conclude it was torture? I know fox is into sensationalism, and that their viewers are brain dead rednecks, but that was absurd. It reminded me of a slasher flick. - SlappyMc, on 10/12/2007, -11/+35Agreed Jonas. I don't want to see this done to anyone.
It's even hard to watch it get done to a reporter from hell (fox) - shadus, on 10/12/2007, -11/+33The ends never justify the means. Never adopt the enemies techniques for your own or you risk becoming them. Psychological trauma is just as severe long term as physical trauma.
- oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23i wish it would've been geraldo being waterboarded.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+31You seem to have missed the little detail that even at gitmo many are completely innocent, and that people subsequently cleared of any suspicion have actually been tortured to death by US troops in Iraq?
If only known terrorists with outstanding arrest warrants were waterboarded/renditioned, as the original intent was, I'd have no problem with it. I do have a problem with it being used as a standard interrogation technique, on people vaguely suspected of doing something wrong. And as it turns out, many of them have done nothing but piss off another iraqi, who've then falsely reported him as a terrorist to get back at him. Does torturing innocent people like that give you a perverse sense of joy? - kozkos, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25Since this isn't torture; can we use this method to ask Bush, Rumsfeld & Cheney some questions?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -27/+46oh, oh... let me... I'll make that motherfscker talk... or at least make it not matter any more.
BTW, I'm fairly certain that certain training seals and force recon go though involve the non-torture version of waterboarding.
The key psychological factor to consider is that you are surrounded by people who are willing to do unpleasant things to you but keep emphasizing that your only out is to talk to them (what they don't show you is the trips back and forth from the torture room to the interrogation room... which may happen 20 or 30 times... it's policy: even after you have the information you were seeking, you send them back for more... maybe so you can gather some personal information that you can use to manipulate the subject after they are released). In addition to offering that out it is important that that those administering the torture show no distaste as the level of desperation rises. I'm pretty sure that there are two schools of thought depending on how the subject reacts: 1 - rapid escalation demonstrating that not only are the torturers willing to administer the treatment, but that they actually enjoy administering the treatment in direct relationship to the desperation of the subject and will continue the escalation to the point that the subject could/will die; 2 - steady, non-escalating, even keeled application of torture day in and day out for days or weeks on end. The first one yields subjects so frightened that they'll tell you anything you want to hear. The second is dangerous because it must hit that point just before the subject is actually going to expire from the very first session and actually must be adjusted downwards as the subject is physically and psychologically depleted.
This is what America has become. Congratulations America, you are now officially a mature, adult nation-state that values the acquisition of power and resources over your citizens' individual freedoms. - moofer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Can I waterboard Nancy Grace?
- AmishRefugee, on 10/12/2007, -13/+30I still can't really tell what's going on
but yeah, that's definitely torture - an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Your comment reveals you to be an evil person.
- Bob042, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14That's got to be pretty bad if he freaked out in about 5 seconds on the 3rd try, and he KNEW they weren't actually going to hurt him.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21@theblooms: What part of "some of them are innocent" is it you don't understand?
I assure you I do not cry over terrorists. I would say torturing a proven terrorist might be defensible if you have very specific questions like "where is the kidnapped Marine held" and you know that the captive knows the answer. However, any kind of torture means you abandon the moral high ground over the terrorists (who torture and kill).
But when torture is applied to innocents you _become_ a terrorist, and THAT is what I have a real problem with. - shadus, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20I have seen the videos. They're sickening.
Terrorists aren't misunderstood, their exact intent is right there in their name. Terror. End of story. People hurting people, humans are true experts at it, but does it make us right to do the same thing back to them? No. If we accept their tactics and make them our own they've won, we've become them with a new name.
End never justifies the means. Wrong is wrong. If you can't get to an end with your moral integrity intact its not an end worth getting to. - haxx4, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Maybe Bill O'Reily would be better suited for such an experiment.
- Cthalupa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Most trained CIA agents last on average 14 seconds. People TRAINED to withstand torture.
- levine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12"This is far from torture..."
Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#Legality
"A Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, was tried in 1947 for carrying out a form of torture (waterboarding) on a U.S. civilian during World War II, and was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor." Further, "the U.S. Department of State formally recognizes 'submersion of the head in water,' as torture..." Lastly, "on September 6, 2006, the United States Department of Defense released a revised Army Field Manual entitled Human Intelligence Collector Operations that prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel."
Waterboarding is torture, by both world and US standards. - ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16Harrison: "One wasn't too bad, two was pretty scary...I don't know how many numbers these guys got--"
Soldier: "Oh, we've got a lot of them."
Harrison: "--but we'll see...."
Classic. - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12It's interesting to see. But this just gives us an idea of the physical process. It doesn't give much indication as to how dangerous or even traumatic it is.
I mean, the difference between being waterboarded vountarily and being waterboarded by hostile people is the same as the difference between being locked in the bathroom by your brother and being put in jail.
In one, there's not a lot of menace. You may be apprehensive, but there's a lot less fear. In the other, you don't know what these people's true intentions are. - piper999, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Bill O'Reilly would have been my first choice.
I guess the problem would have been pulling the guys doing the torture off him before they went all the way and drowned the *****. - foxymcfox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@ Shadus:
I suggest you read up on the Standford Prison Experiment... http://www.prisonexp.org/
Amazingly, most people would have done similar things to those perpetrated at Abu Ghraib. I know it doesn't sound true, but it is.
Honestly, naked twister doesn't sound like torture...it sounds like a fun friday night. (That was a joke)
Nick Fox - sooperdooper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Or just get them drunk?
- imjoe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12thats pretty much what happened the last time I went snowboarding.
- ozroy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15If you notice, at the end of the report the guy even calls it torture. He says "As far as torture goes, this is a pretty efficient method"
- an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Really? So there was a situation where this could have stopped 9/11 because we had a terrorist in custody, who we couldn't fully question without torturing? Dang.
I had no idea. - tpaine, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14@theblooms
except that as the parent said if the subject can merely "tap out" at any point then the true psychological effect is lost. If I shove a gun in your mouth and tell you to tell me something whether you tell me or not and whether it is torture or not is determined by solely by whether you believe me or not. If I am your trainer then clearer you don't believe me, but if I am your guard in a brutal prison where people disappear regularly and you have zero contact with the outside world then ya, you would probably believe me and it would be considered torture.
"Leaving a mark" is not the ruler by which we measure torture. - SlappyMc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11http://youtube.com/watch?v=4Fk1uE1SPOo
a little more real. Scary stuff - Humptydank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Well, since you were low enough to conclude with the standard "if it could have saved the people in the Towers..." argument, then I'll open with my own standard low response:
I watched the towers burn from the roof of my building on September 11th and I had a friend who died in Tower 2, and no, I would not request waterboarding be tried. There are many practical reasons why any form of physical coercion like this should not be used, not the least of which is that it's worse than nothing at all. It generates a series of stories made up by the subject to get off the waterboard that the FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security then have to run around and track down. It's a factory for red herrings.
But my opposition, the opposition I dedicate to my friend Jeff, is that using physical coercion is ultimately not about effectiveness or who the terrorists are, but about who we are. The terrorists cut people's throats and kill children with bombs to get their way, does that mean now we can too? Or is there a double standard that we uphold because we are who we are, even at the risk of American lives?
We should be training many more skilled Arabic-speaking interrogators, people who can implement the techniques that have proved enormously effective in extracting information: creating a sense of affiliation with the subject, a clear association between deprivation and reward for quality information, and skillful questioning.
Being willing to beat up a terrorist prisoner until he says something isn't the gut check you think it is. I will, however, ask the question that is: Would you be willing to reward a terrorist prisoner for good information if it saved 3000 lives? Moderate and well-timed reward is part of an effective interrogation, but we can't even consider that because our current administration seems more intent on showing strength and exacting revenge than our actual long-term national security.
And that worries me because I only have a few more friends left to offer. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15I've got one ***** question for all the *****-fisters who say "all he has to do is tell them what he knows and they will stop" - WHAT IN JESUS ***** RECTUM-GOUGING CHRIST DO YOU DO IF YOU HONESTLY DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING TO TELL THE INTEROGATOR?
- shadus, on 10/12/2007, -14/+21Yes and we don't abuse their genitals, build naked human pyramids, etc. right? Degree doesn't matter, torture is torture, one wrong doesn't validate committing another. Yes, they have perform more heinous acts than we have at present... for how long? Once you start down that slippery slope of "it's nothing compared to what they did" you can justify ANYTHING as being acceptable. Torturing another human being, even a prisoner of war, is flat out wrong, it makes us the same as them. Two wrongs never make a right. It just makes more wrongs.
- tpaine, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12"Leaving a mark" is not the ruler by which we measure torture.
- Xinareiaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Imagine having someone waterboard you after knocking the wind out of you. Now THAT would be tourture. I cant think of anything worse that I have gone threw then completely having my lungs colapsed. I once passed out 8 minutes from being hit so hard in the chest that there was no air.
- martalli, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13"I like waterboarding, and in the winter I go snowboarding"
...except in this case, snowboarding would mean packing your nose and mouth full of snow. - martalli, on 10/12/2007, -15/+21Apparently someone in the military is pretty familiar with waterboarding.
- controlguy, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16On the other hand, suppose you know you've captured somebody with detailed knowledge that could save many lives (perhaps a bomb in a busy city square, but you don't know the city). I don't think of it as "right" or
"wrong," but at what point do you apply these methods.
Also, I'm impressed Fox News did this story. Granted, it's probably at about 1/10 of what really happens, but CNN only gave a computer graphic of this. Showing people what it is "in person" with a person really drills the point home and makes it easier to decide how you feel about it. - an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I would like to have seen them refuse to let him tap out for another 20 seconds or so. Pull that safety blanket back a bit.
- Clevinger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@nmoline: And you seriously believe that all the military is doing is pouring a little water in someones mouth?
Iraqi National male was captured by Navy Seal Team #7 and resisted aprehension. External injuries including multiple contusions are consistent with injuries sustained during apprehension. Fractures of the ribs and a contusion of the left lung imply significant blunt force injuries of the thorax and likely resulted in impaired respiration. Ligature marks of the wrists and ankles. Remote gunshot would of torso. No significant natural diseases identified. According to investigating agents, during interrogation of the detainee, a hood made of synthetic material was placed over the head and neck of the detainee. He died while detained at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Cause of death: Blunt force injuries complicated by compromised respiration. Manner of Death: Homicide. DOD 003329 refers to this case as "1 blunt force trauma and choking; died during interrogation." DOD 003325 refers to this case with the notation "Q[uestioned] by OGA [Other Governmental Agency - non-military, often refers to the CIA] and NSWT [Navy Seals] died during interrogation." ~ http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/
People do not 'leave' Abu Gharib with autopsy reports such as this one as a result of the 'torture' Steve Harrison received. It's not just a scare tactic when you die in the process. - punkrawkintrev, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I would love to see George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft and all of there other cronies waterboarded for what they have done to the bill of rights and to the damage that they have done to our country that far exceeds what any terrorist could ever do. They obviously dont think its so bad so let them expirence it. The terrorists have taken almost 3000 lives from us, but our leaders lies have cost us just as many lives of our young men and women in Iraq and on top of that they have DESTROYED our bill of rights the very thing those men and women are charged to defend. Shameful, and disgusting.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 159 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is