Jesse Ventura says water boarding is indeed torture

Cainkane1

Philosopher
Cainkane1
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
9,011
Location
The great American southeast
I've been taken to task about my opinion that waterboarding is not torture. I came to that conclusion for two reasons it does not leave permanent scars and no physical impairment.

Ok I stand corrected. Jesse Ventura says it is and he should know.

https://youtu.be/wgarV13g6QM

One person here said I advocated torture to save lives and while that opinion is a subject for argument I have to cave in and admit water boarding is indeed torture.
 
Cainkane1 said:
I've been taken to task about my opinion that waterboarding is not torture. I came to that conclusion for two reasons it does not leave permanent scars and no physical impairment.

Ok I stand corrected. Jesse Ventura says it is and he should know.

https://youtu.be/wgarV13g6QM

One person here said I advocated torture to save lives and while that opinion is a subject for argument I have to cave in and admit water boarding is indeed torture.
Click to expand...

Sen. McCain has been saying for many years that it's torture. You didn't believe him?
 
Cainkane1 said:
I've been taken to task about my opinion that waterboarding is not torture. I came to that conclusion for two reasons it does not leave permanent scars and no physical impairment.

Ok I stand corrected. Jesse Ventura says it is and he should know.

https://youtu.be/wgarV13g6QM

One person here said I advocated torture to save lives and while that opinion is a subject for argument I have to cave in and admit water boarding is indeed torture.
Click to expand...

Wow!

It is nice to see that you can realize when you are wrong. It only took you several months, several anti-torture postings, and an opinion piece from Jesse 'The Body' Ventura (of all people) to convince you that you were wrong, but you were convinced all the same.

Good for you!

Hopefully, the next time it will only take half as much effort for you to realize such an obvious truth.
 
"it does not leave permanent scars and no physical impairment"

You realize you can inflict pain and distress without having permanent scare or impairment, right ?

Torture is not defined by leaving permanent mark, it is defined by inflicting pain or psychological distress. Note by that definition there is nothing about scars or permanent impairment.
 
When a wrestler tells you you're wrong you need to listen.
 
baron said:
When a wrestler tells you you're wrong you need to listen.
Click to expand...

I have a relative who believes everything her customers tell her about fields she is not interested in. Like fields I, or others in her family, have degrees and deep expertise in. It is quite literally the most frustrating thing in the world to talk to her about anything other than her own field of expertise because she goes from "exceptionally well informed matched with clear thinking process" to "my client says text messages are private and can never be used as evidence in court" or "my client say they got a patent by mailing themselves a description of the product".

But if she had a client who convinced of something that is correct, I would be equally happy as I am for the OP.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
What seems to be the problem with torture?
Click to expand...

You could always start a thread on that, being as such a discussion would be off topic in this one.

-

The idea that if there is no physical impairment and no scar then it isn't torture flies in the face of international treaties, but also of logic. I mean, dangle someone naked and blindfolded from a ceiling, and attach wires connected to a truck battery to their testicles, and there'll be no scars. Break someone's fingers, or drill into a tooth without anaesthetic and there'll be no scars. For fun, you (OP) could make up a few of your own.
 
Cainkane1 said:
I've been taken to task about my opinion that waterboarding is not torture. I came to that conclusion for two reasons it does not leave permanent scars and no physical impairment.

Ok I stand corrected. Jesse Ventura says it is and he should know.

https://youtu.be/wgarV13g6QM

One person here said I advocated torture to save lives and while that opinion is a subject for argument I have to cave in and admit water boarding is indeed torture.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't trust Ventura (Janos) to water my lawn. he's a carny that got lucky.

That being said, waterboarding is torture of the non disfiguring type.
 
Per Jesse:


The official word: The 19 hijackers were all fanatic Muslim terrorists linked to al-Qaeda and its ringleader, Osama bin Laden.

My take: Our government engaged in a massive cover-up of what really happened, including its own ties to the hijackers. Unanswered questions remain about how the towers were brought down, and whether a plane really struck the Pentagon.


��
 
I watched an in depth description of the practice, and safeguards, used over the first four or five years this go-around at Gitmo... and I have to say, waterboarding may be the most humane version of torture (most all of the practitioners voluntarily endured it, just so they'd know).

But it is torture... or "enhanced interrogation" if parsing it is your bent.

Debate all you like over the effectiveness, legality, morality etc. ... just not the categorization.
 
Last edited:
Cainkane1 said:
I've been taken to task about my opinion that waterboarding is not torture. I came to that conclusion for two reasons it does not leave permanent scars and no physical impairment.
Click to expand...

Causing pain or distress deliberately and methodically need not leave permanent physica scars. You're also forgetting psychological damage.
 
There was a radio host a number of years ago who volunteered to be waterboarded on camera, intending to show that it wasn't a big deal and people shouldn't be complaining about it being used. I think he lasted about 10 seconds before he was panicking and yelling for his crew to stop.

Searching...Eric "Mancow" Muller in 2009. It's even mentioned in the Wikipedia article for waterboarding.
 
Armitage72 said:
There was a radio host a number of years ago who volunteered to be waterboarded on camera, intending to show that it wasn't a big deal and people shouldn't be complaining about it being used. I think he lasted about 10 seconds before he was panicking and yelling for his crew to stop.

Searching...Eric "Mancow" Muller in 2009. It's even mentioned in the Wikipedia article for waterboarding.
Click to expand...


That sounds about seven seconds longer than I expect I'd last. :p

With care taken to avoid a cardiac event, there's very little chance of physical harm if done right.

And barring that... it's probably extraordinarily scary and likely to induce PTSD in any susceptible subject.

"Useful" is up for debate... but "effective" it certainly is.
It's rather an involuntary reaction, feeling like you're drowning and all.
 
Armitage72 said:
There was a radio host a number of years ago who volunteered to be waterboarded on camera, intending to show that it wasn't a big deal and people shouldn't be complaining about it being used. I think he lasted about 10 seconds before he was panicking and yelling for his crew to stop.
.....
Click to expand...

Christopher Hitchens allowed himself to be waterboarded. He didn't like it.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/08/hitchens200808
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58
 
Skeptical Greg said:
What seems to be the problem with torture?
Click to expand...

Agree this should be a new thread, but quickly:

If you are trying to obtain information, it's almost totally useless. Victims say whatever they can to make it stop. The only use for torture is to obtain false confessions.

Also, deeply morally wrong even if it yielded reliable, useful information.
 
TraneWreck said:
Agree this should be a new thread, but quickly:

If you are trying to obtain information, it's almost totally useless. Victims say whatever they can to make it stop. The only use for torture is to obtain false confessions.
Click to expand...

This is nonsensical. Torture can and often does work. It's a fantasy to believe otherwise. The crude use of torture is mostly used for getting false confessions, but that really isn't its only potential application. Information which can be verified once obtained is very susceptible to extraction through torture, because if the subject doesn't give the correct information, then the torture will not in fact stop.

Also, deeply morally wrong even if it yielded reliable, useful information.
Click to expand...

This is a legitimate argument. But it's really the only legitimate argument. People don't want to resort to it because of the obvious tradeoff that it implies (harm may result in not obtaining information that could have been obtained through torture), and so they resort to the far more comforting lie of your first argument. But you can't escape that potential tradeoff if you're being honest.
 
Norman Alexander said:
I'll just leave this here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff
Click to expand...


That's commendable that he was able (and let's be honest... allowed) to leverage the many shared social aspects between himself and his Allied prisoners. His personal command of English as well as US and UK customs, humor etc. were no doubt invaluable.
A very slow method, but good on him for persevering (it makes clear he "learned as he went"). The old "honey vs. vinegar" argument.

Much of that though may have been sadly inapplicable to the situation in Gitmo.
I don't condone the traditional class of brutal torture we probably all picture (bamboo under the nails, electroshock, etc) but I'm fairly okay with finding an effective middle ground.
Yes... pain, fear and deprivation can and do produce real intel. I see no justification in being gleefully sadistic about it though.

And we make, and try to keep to, rules just to try to curtail that easy urge when you're one of the ones who've watched bodybags and coffins headed back home. We intentionally train soldiers to be brutal when needed. That's not something to be given free rein.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
This is nonsensical. Torture can and often does work. It's a fantasy to believe otherwise. The crude use of torture is mostly used for getting false confessions, but that really isn't its only potential application. Information which can be verified once obtained is very susceptible to extraction through torture, because if the subject doesn't give the correct information, then the torture will not in fact stop.
Click to expand...

This just isn't accurate. There are centuries upon centuries of data demonstrating that torture is not an effective means of information gathering:

..an exhaustive 2014 report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence analyzed millions of internal CIA documents related to the torture of terrorism suspects, concluding that “the CIA's use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees.” It adds that “multiple CIA detainees fabricated information, resulting in faulty intelligence.”
Click to expand...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...or-400-years-that-torture-doesn-rsquo-t-work/


This is a legitimate argument. But it's really the only legitimate argument. People don't want to resort to it because of the obvious tradeoff that it implies (harm may result in not obtaining information that could have been obtained through torture), and so they resort to the far more comforting lie of your first argument. But you can't escape that potential tradeoff if you're being honest.
Click to expand...

I think the moral side is a sufficient argument, but the empirical data almost unanimously supports the fact that torture is not a reliable information gathering technique.
 
Here is something I never understood. There are bad places that use false confessions to target opponents. But why bother with the torture? Why not just say they confessed?
 
KSM gave the CIA accurate information on his first day in custody before he was tortured. The CIA assumed he was lying. When they tortured him, he frequently gave false confessions.

The detainee who provided the most accurate information about the courier that led the CIA to bin Laden did so without being tortured. Detainees that were tortured withheld or falsified information.
 
Ziggurat said:
This is nonsensical. Torture can and often does work. It's a fantasy to believe otherwise. The crude use of torture is mostly used for getting false confessions, but that really isn't its only potential application. Information which can be verified once obtained is very susceptible to extraction through torture, because if the subject doesn't give the correct information, then the torture will not in fact stop.



This is a legitimate argument. But it's really the only legitimate argument. People don't want to resort to it because of the obvious tradeoff that it implies (harm may result in not obtaining information that could have been obtained through torture), and so they resort to the far more comforting lie of your first argument. But you can't escape that potential tradeoff if you're being honest.
Click to expand...



There's some really worrying wishful thinking in this post.
 
Ziggurat said:
This is nonsensical. Torture can and often does work. It's a fantasy to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...

Sure. And witches contorted with the devil.

It does not matter what you think about this, there is pretty much the agreement a general agreement that once you start including pain or psychological distress, then the information you get is tainted.
 
Aepervius said:
There is always with people thinking torture is a useful tool. In this case, I think a lot of people were influenced unduly by "24h" and similar testosterone flicks and series, and they know better...
Click to expand...


It's like they think that utterly unfeasible fiction represents reality. Which, to be fair, goes some way to describing why the electorate appears to be so ill informed in the UK and the US.
 
Aepervius said:
Sure. And witches contorted with the devil.

It does not matter what you think about this, there is pretty much the agreement a general agreement that once you start including pain or psychological distress, then the information you get is tainted.
Click to expand...

Seems like getting captured and imprisoned would be psychologically distressful.
 
applecorped said:
And projection in this post
Click to expand...

Oh, is there? Please explain? Given that the post I quoted was expressing, as fact, an opinion contrary to the actual, researched studies, nearly all of which describe torture as ineffective, what am I projecting and on to whom?
 
Ziggurat said:
This is nonsensical. Torture can and often does work. It's a fantasy to believe otherwise. The crude use of torture is mostly used for getting false confessions, but that really isn't its only potential application. Information which can be verified once obtained is very susceptible to extraction through torture, because if the subject doesn't give the correct information, then the torture will not in fact stop.



This is a legitimate argument. But it's really the only legitimate argument. People don't want to resort to it because of the obvious tradeoff that it implies (harm may result in not obtaining information that could have been obtained through torture), and so they resort to the far more comforting lie of your first argument. But you can't escape that potential tradeoff if you're being honest.
Click to expand...

Sorry 'Ziggurat', but torture is actually a very poor way of collecting data.

By the time the person is apprehended, the torture is used, the data collected, and then the data has been validated, then the data collected has very little, if any, real use.

For example, the Germans and Japanese used torture extensively during World War II and yet they still lost. Also, torture was used widely centuries before to discover witches and agents of Satan, and even though quite a few people confessed to being such thing, however no actual supernatural beings were ever found.
 
TraneWreck said:
This just isn't accurate. There are centuries upon centuries of data demonstrating that torture is not an effective means of information gathering:


https://www.scientificamerican.com/...or-400-years-that-torture-doesn-rsquo-t-work/




I think the moral side is a sufficient argument, but the empirical data almost unanimously supports the fact that torture is not a reliable information gathering technique.
Click to expand...

Tony Stark said:
KSM gave the CIA accurate information on his first day in custody before he was tortured. The CIA assumed he was lying. When they tortured him, he frequently gave false confessions.

The detainee who provided the most accurate information about the courier that led the CIA to bin Laden did so without being tortured. Detainees that were tortured withheld or falsified information.
Click to expand...

Just a quick thanks to both of you. Facts do seem to get in the way.
 
The Inquisitors had a saying, "They always talk after the Boot." I'm not going to describe the Boot.

But I really like "contorting with the devil." Much better than old prim "consorting." Once again, a non-native speaker advances the English language!
 
TraneWreck said:
.....

I think the moral side is a sufficient argument, but the empirical data almost unanimously supports the fact that torture is not a reliable information gathering technique.
Click to expand...

Another argument is purely practical. The U.S. can't demand that its own troops and diplomats be treated humanely when captured by foreign powers if the U.S. tortures its own prisoners.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
Another argument is purely practical. The U.S. can't demand that its own troops and diplomats be treated humanely when captured by foreign powers if the U.S. tortures its own prisoners.
Click to expand...

Also an excellent point.
 
Bob001 said:
Another argument is purely practical. The U.S. can't demand that its own troops and diplomats be treated humanely when captured by foreign powers if the U.S. tortures its own prisoners.
Click to expand...

Thanks much.

I have said basically the same thing several times myself, but it has no impact on the pro-torture people.
 
Ziggurat said:
This is nonsensical. Torture can and often does work. It's a fantasy to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...

Can you provide a single example of torture being used to acquire accurate information? Just once, throughout the history of mankind?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom