About a year back now, one of our regular commenters asked us to honestly consider whether waterboarding was torture, and thus morally indefensible, or was simply a pressuring technique that was safe and useful for interrogating terrorists. You may recall Waterboarding is a technique use in Guantanamo Bay, among other places, where the subject is exposed to a stream of water which fools the body into thinking it is drowning, without actually stopping the airflow or threatening life or limb. John McCain has been unapologetic in calling it torture, while other high political officials see it as more like locking a prisoner in solitary confinement - difficult for the subject but ultimately humane.
At the time, we had some discussion and overall I think there was no resolution - it was simply beyond the experience of any Mod-Bloggers. Most of us have never been arrested, much less exposed to pressure techniques or torture. Now, however, The Straight Dope has up a posting from one of its members who has exposed himself voluntarily to two common waterboarding techniques under controlled conditions to see what happened. The verdict? Torture, pure and simple.
It seems that there is a point that is hardwired in us. When we draw water into our respiratory tract to this point we are no longer in control. All hell breaks loose. Instinct tells us we are dying.Normally, I would be tempted to dismiss this as unproven and likely written by a partisan looking to make a point. But as I read through it, it really comes across as someone who tried it with no preconceptions - an idiot Mythbusters fan who thought it would be fun to prove it for himself. And I must say, he has just about convinced me that waterboarding is torture and morally indefensible.
I have never been more panicked in my whole life. Once your lungs are empty and collapsed and they start to draw fluid it is simply all over. You [b]know[b] you are dead and it's too late. Involuntary and total panic.
There is absolutely nothing you can do about it. It would be like telling you not to blink while I stuck a hot needle in your eye.
At the time my lungs emptied and I began to draw water, I would have sold my children to escape. There was no choice, or chance, and willpower was not involved.
I never felt anything like it, and this was self-inflicted with a watering can, where I was in total control and never in any danger.
And I understood.
Waterboarding gets you to the point where you draw water up your respiratory tract triggering the drowning reflex. Once that happens, it's all over. No question.
8 comments:
It still doesn't answer the question though really. It makes the subject feel like they are dying (which would be a horrible experience) but it isn't actually putting them in any actual danger. You can argue psychological damage is done, but then again, it is a "near death" experience that makes them see clearly the truth and what is important.
So the question still comes up, is it torture when it doesn't actually put the person in danger? Where is the line drawn? What about the person in solitary who slowly feels he is abandoned? Is that less torture because it takes longer?
And the big question... is giving a person a near death experience (while he is in no actual danger) worth the information he has that may save thousands? He gives us the info, we don't actually kill him or cause him bodily harm, seems like an equitable compromise.
If we had been able to waterboard someone and gotten information that would have saved the twin towers, would that have been worth it? As it is, this isn't far off the mark, there has been information received from waterboarded terrorists that stopped the bombings in London and other places.
Where is that line drawn?
I'm asking more as a devil's advocate, but it is an honest question.
Nick,
There is a line. As some used to say about pornography, "I may not know what it is, but I know it when I see it." And Waterboarding clearly crosses the line from the description given in the article. It is one thing to to apply pressure - carrot and the stick - but it is another to plug into the most animal parts of our nature and risk pushing us into psychosis. An example of the line is solitary confinement. Leaving someone alone, but feeding them is one thing. It is acceptable psychological pressure and not torture. But total sensory deprivation (locked in a dark room with no sound and no light at all is the other side of the line. The average person after a day or so of confinement like that simply goes mad as the animal parts of the brain begin filling in the gaps in perception.
At least that is the way I see it. The illustration given in the article makes it pretty clear.
And is it morally defensible to rob another human being of his humanity in order to save a life, two lives, or ten thousand lives? That decision is between you and God. But the God of the Bible would seem to say that there is no act by an enemy so awful so as to justify giving your own soul in return to stop it.
- Nomad
I had written a whole host of problems with your reasoning, but I decided against it:)
Waterboarding is torture because it is the intentional infliction of mental suffering to extract information. Intent is the operative word. It would not be torture if it happened accidentally (i.e. the guy thought he was being killed because shots were fired outside his building because another prisoner escaped and they were shooting him down).
The reason it is morally wrong is because of that, plain and simple. All the talk and argument about depriving of humanity and various levels and solitary confinement etc has nothing to do with it.
Neither does the subjective experience of a person who submitted himself to it.
Many things that are done by countries, including ours, that you could argue were/are fine under what you are using as the torture line, but they are in fact torturous.
The reason to decide against waterboarding has nothing to do with how bad it is. It has to do with who we are as a country and what we stand for. We can lock up the terrorist, we can ask him questions, we can give him incentives, we can probably even go so far as to inflict some mental or emotional uncertainty as to the safety of his family or friends or suggest that his cohorts would kill him because they think he talked, but intentionally causing him to feel he was unsafe from our hands, that he would be killed, beaten, or actually beating him or causing him to think he is being executed (waterboarding), is wrong.
It has NOTHING to do with how bad the torture is or how much it deprives someone of their humanity, it has to do with how good we are.
I think that is what bugged me. You are using a slippery subjective post-modern thought process.
I don't think I was clear... it is the INTENT to cause the harm that is the problem and that defines torture, not how bad the technique makes someone feel.
Nick,
Frankly, I think we simply disagree on this. If I hit you with a car and you die, I am liable and morally culpable, even if that was not my intent. This is why the law has "criminally negligent homicide" on the books. If a "mental pressure" technique is capable of driving someone to madness, then it is wrong to use it even if you happen to not drive someone to madness.
That is the way I see it. Reasonable people can disagree. But be sure I'll be voting according to this new understanding.
- Nomad
Urg... and another addendum... The problem is the INTENT with the COERCION factor. Punishment (spanking a child or confinement of an adult or something) are intentional, but they aren't to COERCE someone into something, they are punishment for something (this is also why the death penalty isn't generally considered torture).
And there are lines to be followed in punishment (eye for eye, not life for eye or eye for life) and other requirements (the punishment is not to be administered in anger, it is a corrective action, not a simple vengeance action etc.) which are for another discussion.
I really don't see the problem you seem to have, this "difference of opinion". I just told you I agree with you on this, I just don't like your reasoning.
You seem to not be reading what I wrote... I just SAID... you can't intentionally use any form of coercion that will cause someone to feel mental or physical harm!
A "mental pressure" technique would FALL UNDER THAT CATEGORY.
And negligence has nothing to do with this... your analogy is way to simple, you didn't take into account that negligence requires a duty (law) that you didn't follow in the first place, and that the person you hit was performing his duty.
It is not as simple as you seem to want it.
Look, we agree on this, I just don't want to use a subjective standard.
Wow... I read this and was at first thinking, well, as long as they don't use saran wrap... then I realized that it's not a question of using or not using saran wrap, it's triggering the hardwired instinct that's the torture. I had seen video before of waterboarding, but it didn't make as much sense to me as the text description. Thanks for posting.
Post a Comment