Is waterboarding torture?

[Grubendol]

And those who were presented with this information in the security committees did not leak information. It came from other sources.

As for the Press. It's the only industry specifically protected in the Constitution and laid out to be completely independent from the government. It's job is to call the government to task when it does things wrong. THAT is true patriotism.

[1968]

I'm not sure what that meant (from 1968).

I was replying to your comment in which you said, "I would have framed the poll differently; just two options". I was clarifying why I framed the question the way I did (i.e. in order to learn how others in this forum would describe waterboarding). I believe the poll you suggested would seek to learn slightly different information, although it could present a false alternative to some.

[rinselberg]

Thanks 1968. Would you care to expand on that "false alternative" that you just posted? Not sure what you mean. Sounds like it could take this onto another interesting track ...

[1968]

Thanks 1968. Would you care to expand on that "false alternative" that you just posted? Not sure what you mean. Sounds like it could take this onto another interesting track ...

What would someone check if they believed waterboarding was torture, that it was OK to waterboard, and that the government should announce whether or not they waterboard?

[rinselberg]

If it's "OK" (in someone's view) to waterboard a detainee, then waterboarding is not (in that person's view) a "torture".

If waterboarding (in someone's view) is a "torture", then it cannot be "OK" (in that person's view) to waterboard a detainee.

That's how I would approach it.

Waterboarding (in my view), although certainly torture-like, is not literally "torture", because it's reversible. Stop waterboarding the detainee, short of actually drowning him (her), and the detainee returns (more or less) to their previous or baseline physical condition.

Whereas, removing their fingernails, one by one, with the intent of causing unendurable pain, is literally "torture", because - at least until the fingernail(s) grow back - the detainee has been physically harmed.

Stretching them with a medieval-style rack is "torture", because after the detainee is "racked", he (she) will not return to their previous physical condition. They'll be permanently crippled. Unless the racking is stopped well short of inflicting unendurable pain.

We can take it forward from here ...

It's not perfectly consistent with my previous posts on this topic, but I think this is the best way to analyze it.

I'm not concerned about the detainee having nightmares afterwards, or post traumatic stress, or anything like that.

If a detainee dies of a heart attack during the extraordinary stress of a waterboarding - well, that shouldn't happen. I believe the two al Qaida detainees that were waterboarded by the CIA were medically screened to rule out that possibility. And if it were to happen: just one more of the countless collateral damages of war ... the "Global War On Terror" war ... the "first war of the 21st century".

[1968]

If it's "OK" (in someone's view) to waterboard a detainee, then waterboarding is not (in that person's view) a "torture".

If waterboarding (in someone's view) is a "torture", then it cannot be "OK" (in that person's view) to waterboard a detainee.

That's how I would approach it.

Waterboarding (in my view), although certainly torture-like, is not literally "torture", because it's reversible. Stop waterboarding the detainee, short of actually drowning him (her), and the detainee returns (more or less) to their previous or baseline physical condition.

Whereas, removing their fingernails, one by one, with the intent of causing unendurable pain, is literally "torture", because - at least until the fingernail(s) grow back - the detainee has been physically harmed.

Stretching them with a medieval-style rack is "torture", because after the detainee is "racked", he (she) will not return to their previous physical condition. They'll be permanently crippled. Unless the racking is stopped well short of inflicting unendurable pain.

We can take it forward from here ...

It's not perfectly consistent with my previous posts on this topic, but I think this is the best way to analyze it.

I'm not concerned about the detainee having nightmares afterwards, or post traumatic stress, or anything like that. And if a detainee dies of a heart attack during a waterboarding - well, that shouldn't happen. I believe the two al Qaida detainees that were waterboarded by the CIA were screened medically to rule out that possibility. And if it were to happen ... another one of the many collateral damages of war. The Global War On Terror war.

I'm not sure what to add that hasn't already been discussed. Perhaps the poll should have first asked, "How do you define 'torture'?" It's not clear to me that it makes a difference that whatever harm is done is physical or mental, or if that harm is reversible or irreversible. I will admit that I have not put too much thought into my definition of "torture", however, it would probably end up similar to how Justice Stewart described pornography: I can't define it but "I know it when I see it."