Purportedly an accurate representation of how modern "waterboarding" works, courtesy of the cable channel Current TV (of which Al Gore is a major partner).

While it's a controlled demonstration, it's still quite disturbing - but important to see, IMHO. Viewer discretion is advised, as they say.

Could be worse, I had to sit through Hostel last week...now that was torture.

Upvote... not because I'm against the tactic, but because this actually portrays the tactic realistically. Using this tactic and weighing it against the threat (in limited circumstances) of horrific acts of terror, I don't have a problem with it and no sane person should. The jihadists don't care about your human rights, but that doesn't give us the moral opening to trample on their human rights. However, if it is beyond a reasonable doubt that this or that particular jihadist has information about an active terror cell, then I think there is the moral latitude to suspend consideration of his human rights for a period of time until the actual lives and limbs of the innocent are secured.

Derschowitz makes a good point about how it should be authorized, I think that's the way to go.

peretz, it's not only a question of protecting our own guys from torture, it's about the quality of "information" received during torture. Your hypothetical assumes:
1. the person in question is actually a "jihadist"
2. that they have relevant information
...and that certainly was and is not the case at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo.

It's been said that some of the "intelligence" the Bush administration used to justify the Iraq war was obtained through torture. That didn't turn out too well, did it?

peretz:
" I don't have a problem with it and no sane person should"

You're entitled to your opinion, and should express it. But don't question my sanity if I disagree with you. If you are right, a simple statement of the facts should be enough to convince the majority of the people of it. Calling people who disagree with you insane is unnecessary and wrong.

peretz,

What makes up better than them if we don't see the problem with torture?

no sure... that doesn't look like torture at all.
/eyeroll


someone waterboard bush and see how he feels about it. and then have him authorize it.

coersive interrogation, my ass...

Very good interviews.

The point needs to be made more that if we refuse to enforce the Geneva convention our leaders MUST outline what rules we ARE following. Otherwise its fair to assume they can be doing anything at all and just paying lip service with, "oh, thats not torture as we define torture; we're just scaring/humiliating/depriving them a little, and fishing for any info they might have".

theo47,

I agree, they need to be an actual jihadist and have relevant information, which is exactly what I said: "However, if it is beyond a reasonable doubt that this or that particular jihadist has information about an active terror cell, then I think there is the moral latitude to suspend consideration of his human rights for a period of time until the actual lives and limbs of the innocent are secured."

I think there was a need to come up with some sort of justification for Iraq. There was justification, but perhaps not rising to the level that required an invasion. But I think that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were strategic and that they were both an absolute necessity to create strategic depth against Iran. My estimation of the situation goes like this:

1. 9/11
2. World terrorist threat assessment is updated and given top priority.
3. At the top of the threat chart is Iran, the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world run by armeggedon-scenario death-cult religious fanatics.
4. Iran has modern and very effective weaponry and is seeking the nuclear edge.
5. Iran has a 500,000-man standing army and another 700,000 in reserve.
6. Immediate invasion of Iran is not even an option on the table, because the only route of invasion would be through a small littoral region - a clear lack of strategic depth.
7. Additionally problematic is that fact that the states on both sides of Iran (Iraq and Afghanistan) are both hostile as well, though significantly less of a threat. But if Iran is the first invasion target, all three states coalesce into a single fighting force.
8. Decision is made to take down the two lesser threats first, and simulateously create strategic depth for an invasion of Iran.
9. Invasions of the two lesser threats has to be "sold" to the people, but more importantly, "sold" to the Iranians - gambit would not work if Iran saw the invasion of its border countries as an attempt to surround them.
10. Afghanistan had actual jihadist training camps and was a clear staging ground for terrorists - easy sell.
11. Iraq was largely contained and weak, but was a necessary sell.
12. We now arrive at the enpoint of the overall strategy and have Iran surrounded.

I don't know if an invasion of Iran will occur or not, but if it is necessary, there are now three very large fronts from which to attack. At the minimum, there is at least some containment on Iran, similar to how the Marshall Plan contained the USSR. The key difference between the USSR and Iran is that the USSR were not religious fanatics bent on bringing about their version of armageddon, so in the case of Iran, I'm not sure that containment of any sort will be effective.

ultimateforce,

Ultimately it doesn't matter whether we're better than them if we're dead. We're not talking about virtues and morals, but rather, survival.

Oh, and I forgot to add...

It's not just a hypothetical. It has yielded tangible results and the prevention of several attacks, and that's just from the one case that we know of: Kaled Sheik Mohammed. On the moral question, would it have been better to refrain from the "coercive interrogation" and let the attacks happen?

What is more moral, preventing the murder of hundreds or thousands or refraining from coercive techniques like this one?

Had the attacks not been prevented and you learned that there was a KSM type that had information that could have stopped the attacks in advance, would you or anybody else be content with the argument that the attacks could not be prevented because we wanted to maintain our sense of moral superiority and refrain from the use of coercive interrogation?

And we only know about KSM because it was leaked. How many other attacks were prevented due to the use of coercive interrogation on other jihadis that we don't even know about?

Again, we're not talking about people arrested on suspicion - we're talking about jihadis that have been captured on the actual battlefield.

peretz, i'll start with your ignorant comments at the word "jihadist."

From wiki:
"jihadist... from the Arabic root ǧhd ("to exert utmost effort, to strive, struggle"), which connotes a wide range of meanings: anything from an inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect faith to a political or military struggle."
Essentially, it is a struggle with faith, not necesarily violent. By using the term jihadist, you are giving legitimacy to to the extremists and insulting the rest of the muslim community.

from http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=613_0_26_0_C30 :
"the term in Islamic law that describes the activities of al Qaeda more accurately than then term "Jihad" is "hirabah", which has a more general meaning of "sinful warfare"."

Next, your "sane person" comment has already been addressed, so i'll leave it alone.

Next, torture seems ethical until it is applied to you. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be tortured under any circumstances(excluding you being some sort of masochist.) However, your standards for others being tortured is relatively low. What if someone thought torturing you would reveal a terrorist plot?
If you look at the history of a country like Uruguay or Brazil from the 1970s, you will see that torture doesn't stop with "enemies." Once that line is crossed, any and everyone who doesn't hold military power is susceptible to the use of torture. It becomes a means of control, rather than a tool.
Besides, torture rarely, if ever, reveals information that is useful. If you are sticking needles underneath someone's fingernails, they can say pretty much anything you want them to say, but not always the truth.

Perhaps you should try to understand the concept/philosophy of ethics before you go and make outragous statements that you don't even understand. I understand it's easy to repeat what you heard bill o'reilly say combined with some facts you learned in honors history in 12th grade and pass it off as your own, but it really makes you look lazy.

Last, your invasion plans for Iran left out this:
13. Completely bungle the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and get bogged down in a land war you can't win, allowing Iran to pretty much do as they please because they know the US can't invade. Oh, and make sure you alienate the entirity of western civilization so you can't call for back-up.

In short, torture = bad, and should never be an acceptable form of action under any circumstances.

oh yea, good video by the way.

Two important quotes that I think need to be considered...

"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own."

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

- Thomas Jefferson

*dead

The link to this video has been flagged as dead. Fix it within 7 days or it will be discarded (dead called by gold star member wildmanBill)

Discarding this video. It was flagged as dead but not flagged undead within 7 days.

*save
*dead

A new code can be found here
http://www.videosift.com/video/Getting-Waterboarded

Only published videos may be flagged dead - ignoring dead request by Fedquip.

I find meatbag Fedquip to be an inadequate command-giver - ignoring all requests by Fedquip.

*save

Saving this video from the discard pile and sending it back to the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, October 31st, 2006 6:48am PST - save requested by Fedquip.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by deedub81.

deedub81 has fixed this video's dead embed code - no star awarded because deedub81 was awarded too recently.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by jonny.