Christopher Hitchens gets waterboarded.

T

tuaamin13

Member
Feb 29, 2008
35
0
6
Hitchens has previously said waterboarding was not torture, so Vanity Fair asked him to write an article on it... after he experienced it for himself. Gotta respect him for that big time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlSFTqGIyKY

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/video/2008/hitchens_video200808
 
I know what they could do. Use explosives to blow a hole in the prisoners cell then send someone speaking there language to apear to rescue them. Then they could get all the information out of them that way.

That video wouldnt of been as if the men didnt have baraclavas and that music wasnt playing.
 
If waterboarding is not torture is the US government going to compensate and apologise to the families of Japanese who were were convicted of torturing American GIs in WW2? Plus that was just with a wet cloth, imagine it with your head wrapped in cling film (saran wrap) to cover your nose an interrogator kneeling on your chest gently bouncing to screw up your breathing, and a funnel pushed through into your mouth and a little more slope on the board, or warm salty water, or icy water, or you are naked to remove your dignity further.

In the video clip that was level 1, South Korean cops used to do that to young weed smokers in the 70s and 80s to make them grass up their dealers.
 
I was just about to say the same thing. The towel and slope on that board are the bare minimum of what that style of torture is capable of. Cling wrap, steeper incline, someone on your chest and funnel in your mouth would be the truest form of hell and terror.
 
He knew that someone would care if something happened to him. Can you imagine if didn't know where you are, how long you've been there, how much longer you're going to stay, if you'll receive treatment, when it will happen again ect.
 
I'm guessing they would probably go into this having faced sensory deprivation or similar techniques too.

I'm not sure what's worse as a torture, pure pain (some of the medieval or Japanese WW2 'tricks') or something than induces pure panic like this. Either way Jack Bauer has made people think it's alright!
 
True, many of our soldiers go through Water boarding as part of their training. We actually torture our own soldiers!
 
I have two problems with that video:

1) "Disorientating" -- are we sure that's a word?
2) After experiencing water boarding, Hitchens says that it doesn't just simulate the feeling of drowning, it actually is drowning you slightly. Isn't that exactly what you'd say if it simulated the feeling of drowning?

Not that I'm trying to excuse anything. . .
 
very interesting video.

The ticking bomb scenario is a scary one. The limits of common decency can get erased VERY quickly.
 
Actually, I think it is. Drowning is actually suffocating. When water starts to go down your throat your windpipe constricts causing you to suffocate.
 
The good guy bad guy concept doesn't apply tragically. Perspective plays a big part in what people find acceptable. A person sitting at home watching something on CNN is going to have a lot more sympathy for a suspected terrorist than an Infantry soldier who watched a 9 year old walk up to a gate and explode because someone strapped a suicide vest to the kid.

Is the American government the good guys? Depends which end of the political spectrum you're on and if any of your buddies have gotten killed by socoiopaths salving their conscience with religous certainty.

Is torture morally acceptable? I dunno. It's horrible if they do it someone innocent. It's also horrible that decent, innocent men and women going to work or market in Baghdad get killed because some nut job thinks he can make a point by killing them.

Is the possibility of torturing the wrong person worth the possibility of stopping one of those attacks? I'm a soldier not a philospher. But it's something to keep in mind when making a judgement call on something like this.
 
you are mistaken, drowning is when it's in your lungs. With salt water it's asphyxiation with fresh it's blood cells rupturing.

From Wikipedia, I know it's not perfect but at the last survey it was at least as accurate as Britannica.

drowning is often associated with aspiration of water into the lungs, the cause of death is not due to either hypoxia or pulmonary edema. When fresh water enters the lungs it is pulled into the pulmonary circulation via the alveoli because of the low capillary hydrostatic pressure and high colloid osmotic pressure. Consequently, the plasma is diluted and the hypotonic environment causes red blood cells to burst (hemolysis). The resulting elevation of plasma K+ level and depression of Na+ level, due to the hemolysis, alter the electrical activity of the heart. Ventricular fibrilation often occurs as a result of these electrolyte changes. Additionally, if drowning occurs in very cold water (
 
No, drowning not just water in lungs.

Drowning is either asphyxia caused by the airway closing, or hemolysis (assuming the section you posted is true as it seems to be disputed). Both are drowning but in neither case is death caused [merely] by water in the lungs.

The article also says:





Also: http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic744.htm
 
Fair enough but suffocation by a wet cloth over your face isn't drowning, I thought dry drownings were much rarer that that. The whole idea of the tilt board is to stop water entering the lungs and I supose dry drowning is technicaly possible from it.
 
That's the point - it is drowning. Your assuming drowning = water enters the lungs. That's not true.

The same thing happens when someone drowns in a lake and when someone is waterboarded... water enters the airways, which then automatically constrict (to stop water entering the lungs), and this causing suffocation, and then unconsciousness. The longer one remains in this state, the longer the body/brain does without oxygen, which results in death. Once the person is unconscious (obviously this doesn't apply to waterboarding) the airways usually open up again, allowing water into the lungs, but the damage would already have been done (unless they get medical aid).
 
It's also only drowning if you die, it's near drowning otherwise, anyway we are arguing semantics/medical stuff when the real argument is is this torture (IMO yes it is), is it wrong (IMO yes it is), Is it necessary (IMO no it's not, but by **** am I glad it's not my call). We can disagree about the definition of the cause of death but I think the point is the moral implications of the practice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Week 16 fantasy wrap: Le'veon Bell tops Mostly NFL Notes
Replies
0
Views
84
admin
A
A
LA Lakers DJ gets the beach volleyball party started in Rio
Replies
0
Views
126
admin
A
A
Candice Wiggins says 98 percent of WNBA is gay, claims she was bullied for being stra
Replies
0
Views
138
admin
A
A
Week 10 fantasy wrap: Ezekiel Elliott tops Mostly NFL Notes
Replies
0
Views
132
admin
A
A
Russell Westbrook erupts again, but comes up short late as Hawks hang on
Replies
0
Views
157
admin
A
Back
Top