I want to challenge Snipe

[MikeWaters]

actually, I am willing to perform it on any proponent of its use.

Archaea? Tex? ExUte?

I think, after going through it, you would have a very informed opinion of whether it is in fact torture.

I'm convinced it is torture. I can also tell you that drowning is not pleasant. I came within a inch of drowning once in a river. I know what it feels like to see the surface and not be able to reach it. (Thank you Brother Fenn for saving my life).

So I'm pretty confident that the feeling of drowning over and over, hour after hour, day after day is torture.

I know Cheney doesn't think so (he has said this publicly), but I trust myself more than Cheney.

[MikeWaters]

another reason to hold a demonstration like this is the publicity. I think this could possibly be national news, if you played it right.

we could go on a "anti-torture torture tour". The AT&TT.

I would love to waterboard Hannity and Rush. That would be great fun. If we could find a board strong enough to support Rush, that is.

[Archaea]

I didn't even know what it was, how could I be a proponent thereof?

I suppose the distinction "proponents" make of it, is not actually placing the victim in harm's way, only the belief is necessary to cause the desired result, i.e., disclosure of information.

So is psychologically attacking the interrogee, but not actually placing the person in physical harm torture or not?

A person subjected to the tactic would find it psychologically akin to torture, but intellectually is it torture if no physical harm actually results?

Mike has arrived at his answer, and I suppose Snipe his, but the rest of us may not have considered this point of view before.

[MikeWaters]

who says no physical harm has occurred? You make a false assumption.

Ingestion of too much water can kill, for example.

Not to mention the physical stress placed on the heart. Or the effects of partial asphyxiation.

But you bring up a great point--if believe is necessary to make this torture, then it ABSOLUTELY would have NO potential for torture in my proposed demonstration. Because the person would know exactly what was going to happen. And that measures would be taken to ensure they wouldn't die.

If I were to waterboard Snipe for an hour (which may be excessive given his fitness and habitus), what sort of premium would an insurance company demand, to be paid out on his death during the event.

Do you think that it would be pittance (no chance of death)? For partially suffocating a man for let's say, 72 hours straight? Or even 1 hour?

Don't fool yourself thinking this is just "psychological."

Don't you think placing someone in a sensory deprivation chamber would be torture? Even though you might argue that there is no "physical harm"?

When you think about it, your argument is absurd.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

who says no physical harm has occurred? You make a false assumption.

Ingestion of too much water can kill, for example.

Not to mention the physical stress placed on the heart. Or the effects of partial asphyxiation.

But you bring up a great point--if believe is necessary to make this torture, then it ABSOLUTELY would have NO potential for torture in my proposed demonstration. Because the person would know exactly what was going to happen. And that measures would be taken to ensure they wouldn't die.

If I were to waterboard Snipe for an hour (which may be excessive given his fitness and habitus), what sort of premium would an insurance company demand, to be paid out on his death during the event.

Do you think that it would be pittance (no chance of death)? For partially suffocating a man for let's say, 72 hours straight? Or even 1 hour?

Don't fool yourself thinking this is just "psychological."

Don't you think placing someone in a sensory deprivation chamber would be torture? Even though you might argue that there is no "physical harm"?

When you think about it, your argument is absurd.

Don't go menstral on Mike.

I was using the concept as a thought experiement. I wasn't actually analyzing the medical aspects of the practice, but was viewing as a nonphysician. You have the benefit of seeing it as a physician, I do not.

And this issue is extremely emotional for you, more so than for most. I'm convinced not to use torture, because current evidence shows it ineffectual. That's all I need to know.

[JohnnyLingo]

Mike, what are you doing to stop this torture?

I ask this because complaining about it on message boards will not help end the practice.

[SeattleUte]

Mike, I'll donate my time to write the release we'll make Snipe sign so if he becomes incapacitated or dies his heirs can't sue you or CG.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Tex

With apologies to Gary Larson:

What MikeWaters says:



What we hear:

Now that's actually kinda funny.

[Detroitdad]

I would pay $100 to watch and consider it some of the best money I have ever spent.

[Insensitive PAP]

Clearly there are scenarios when torture is reasonable. If I knew torture would save 1 million innocent lives in exchange for the suffering of a single murdering rapist, the decision to torture wouldn't be difficult to make.