"Conservative radio hosts gets waterboarded, and lasts six seconds before saying its torture.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3889739


He volunteered and could stop it anytime he wanted to. This is like comparing having sex to being raped.

For him it was a bet; that he lost and a publicity stunt, in spite of the pain and fear he may have suffered for all of six seconds and his come to Jesus moment, this wasn't real torture; to him.

The same can't be said for those prisoners under the complete power and control of supposedly one of, if not the most advanced civilization(s) on the planet.

Of course, it was still good that he realized it IS torture.

It is a step in his education. Now if he wlll only admit that all the other "enhanced interrogation techniques" are all also torture, he will be a better person.

Hell is to good for the torturers.

I contend you can't by free will experience a perceived abuse and make a claim one way or the other as how it applies to those in captivity.

This same principle applies to running around the house naked or having your clothes taken from you for days, weeks or months at a time in a prison, cold temperatures, hot temperatures, being put in a box in a mock burial with an insect.

I've heard too many radio or television personalities diminish the psychological and physical impact of those tortures because to that free person, such acts may not seem as severe.

I believe that was this man's ultimate goal, so if he can climb in to a box for a mock burial and come out after a while saying no harm no foul, that's not torture, it wouldn't be any more valid than his water-boarding escapade.

It was a BRILLIANT TACTIC and I'm surprised so few have noted it.

"We go on five. 1, 2, I lied." SPLASH!

That stripped Mancow of his mental prep and removed his "safety net" at the last second. BRILLIANT!

:thumbsup:

The point I was trying to make however is, that some mistreatment may be tolerable to some individuals and unbearable to others and this should be acknowledged whenever the media tries to white wash what has transpired over the past eight years with publicity stunts.

This man couldn't handle water torture as I imagine the vast majority of humans can't but could he handle so called lesser tortures and if he or some other publicity hound could, would they use that to erode the definition of torture?

I believe they would and this is what I'm concerned about as it would all be based on a false premise.

so it works in a antiseptic stunt for our reality TV boneheads at home.

I'm just amazed at anyone being stupid enough -- in public!! -- and this is the second man -- to be all macho about this and not really understand what it is or what happens!!!!!!! What the hell?!

The tactics that constitute torture -- this kind of near drowning, slamming heads against walls, hanging people by their wrists with their feet in the air, sleep deprivation, sensory manipulation of light and sound -- no one can experience those things as "mistreatment". There are baseline limits to what a human body can withstand.

And that's why the Republicans' claims that they are mistreatment or simply an "enhancement" of "interrogation techniques" is so hollow.

let alone reality.

There is no other conclusion one can reasonably come to.

The two parties are not flip sides of one coin.

I'd guess, yes!

lol

is enough for me. It's true that it isn't anything like what Gitmo detainees have gone through, but I won't quibble over a PR win for the anti-torture folks.

Of course you're right about his being able to stop it so it can't possibly be compared to what someone who is in the control of captors goes through. However, I think you're too dismissive of the value this little experiment has.

To a prisoner with a phobia about insects or a deeply ingrained religious belief as compared to those free people who aren't afraid of insects, will media personalities try those experiments next in the hope of justifying torture?

Subtle points don't go over too big here. How funny the same cast of characters show up to shoot down your point by missing it on purpose so they can make theirs.

We all probably agree on more of the whole issue than not. But jibing the OP is just SOooooooooooo entertaining. :sarcasm:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

undergoing enough physical or psychological pain to be willing do anything to make it stop--and in only six seconds!!! THAT'S the desired effect--therefore it IS torture.

:headbang:
rocktivity

he volunteered to be waterboarded.

He didn't volunteer to be tortured.

What we saw was the difference, and he chose not to be tortured when he realized what it was................

with what I pointed out to you.

It's a matter of language, intent, and, if you will, nuance.

He volunteered to be waterboarded.

He did not volunteer to be tortured.

Can you see the difference?

If you can't, I don't know how to say it any more simply..............

IMHO your point is not inconsistent with Uncle Joe's so telling the OP "you're not paying attention" is an odd way to start.

If I understand the OP's point it is that a heavily controlled media stunt "experiment" can only approximate the actual experience.

The stupid jock's intent was to prove this wasn't torture but all he proved was he's a stupid jock (oh wait, that's my point, not the OP's)

Anyone with half a brain who understand what the waterboarding process is, acknowledges it is torture.

Only macho morons who get paid to be jackasses on the air for a living feel a need to publicly expose their ignorance by submitting to a process they did NOT understand, in order to prove that it doesn't do what it does.

Amazing :wow: Talk about nuance.

Your point is a semantic one.

Yeah, the guy was so macho and ignorant that he agreed to be "that thing where you splash water on my face cuz that's not torture."

What he experienced was "that thing where you pour water into my nose and mouth and my lungs fill up and I can't breathe and I'll die if you don't stop and I hate to say this, I hate to say this, but it's torture."


"He volunteered to be waterboarded." He had no clue what that actually entailed.

"He did not volunteer to be tortured." Yes he did. He just was an ignorant ass who didn't know what he volunteered for in order to prove it wasn't torture.



"I'll volunteer for that wet boardy thing cuz it's not torture"

"I didn't volunteer to be tortured so you can stop now"

:wow: :rofl:

and it was a publicity stunt. Then you claim he volunteered to be tortured, which is putting the semantic cart before the horse, and doesn't add a thing to what I posted.

It turned out to be quite the educational and transformative experience for the guy and it earned $10,000 for a good charity, courtesy of Keith Olbermann.

I'm very glad he did it. So, I'm certain, is Sean Hannity...........

Arguing about this is as stupid as he is.

why you took issue with my post. I wasn't responding to you; you just jumped in.

So, your arguing with me has ended, simply because you weren't making any sense...............

I began: "IMHO your point is not inconsistent with Uncle Joe's so telling the OP "you're not paying attention" is an odd way to start."


Now you say "took issue with my post."

Can't you see any points of agreement or is it all a battle, all the time? Can't you read what I wrote for it's own sake, without this bullshit?

:thumbsdown:

the arguing was over?

Have a good one...............

I said it was stupid.



And it's unnecessary.

I will not grant him either explicitly or implicitly being tortured by water boarding anymore than I would subjecting him to a mock burial, being put in box with an insect, covering him in human feces as a case of proving something to be torture or not, if he volunteered and was allowed to stop it, it's not torture.

Here are the points. I'm trying to make.

1. Water boarding was and is called water torture, there is a historical precedence to it, we prosecuted and executed some Japanese for this offense during World War II.

2. Therefore when this man volunteered to undergo water boarding he did volunteer to under go water torture but in his case it wasn't torture in the truest sense of the word in spite of his ultimate claim because he volunteered and he was allowed to stop it.

3. I believe this man knew upfront it was torture, but as his sympathies lay with the torture advocates, he believed his testosterone laden machismo would allow him to deal with it long enough to prove otherwise. Six seconds and a flying plastic cow later he failed making further promotion of water boarding as not being water torture impossible.

This may sound like semantics to you but I believe it to be critical that we dismiss the validity of any and all publicity stunts in proving torture is or isn't torture and whether we agree or disagree with the ultimate conclusion of the stunt. To do otherwise will surely lead to the fuzzing up of the picture regarding the definition of what torture is while leading our nation down a dangerous and immoral path. If you grant validity on water boarding/torture stunts, other stunts on other tortures will follow some may succeed and some may fail, but they will all be based on an inherent false premise. Having power and control; during publicity stunts is not torture and shouldn't be used either explicitly or implicitly to determine what those having neither go through.

He considered the situation where he was in complete control to be torture.

Sadly, conservatives have zero empathy. They are incapable of even imagining how another human being feels.

:yoiks: :hide:

One can only imagine what the real interrogation would be like.

If Mancow thinks his comfortable, laughing and joking stunt was torture, bump it up by an order of magnitude, rinse and then repeat.

imagine what it was for the prisoners.

I still would love to see that Sean Hannity, Rush, Georgie Porgie or Dickhead Cheney show the rest of us how they can look at it as enhanced interrogation. Sure, folks--the former VP-who?* would make an excellent example to the rest of us exactly how he came to that conclusion. After all, we've seen the fucker far more in the post VP days than in the past 8 years. Since 9/11, he's been on the down-low. Now he's so monstrously obsessed with the next president, sometimes I think he's going to break a blood vessel in his forehead!





*VP-who?: The man who managed to remain as reclusive as he wanted, barely spoke out, and held more than his share of the power behind the so-called "throne" of the presidency. Cheney is, by all manners of history, the one VP with the most Power, and the most contacts with the political Mafia.

for no good reason.

He experienced controlled experimental waterboarding, enough to prove to him waterboarding is torture.

He was not tortured.

As long as he had control, it was not torture. It was extreme physical discomfort, it was pain, and it was a sense of drowning, but as long as he could stop it, and he knew he wasn't going to die, it wasn't torture.

Torture is all about a loss of control. This is why torturers, like the US military, go to great lengths to put the victim in a powerless condition. They strip them naked, control the temperature, interrupt sleep cycles, restrain them, and induce sensory deprivation -- and then put them through physical ordeals, some of them life threatening, which the victim is powerless to control. That is what makes it torture -- the powerlessness. As long as you have a "safe word" or a toy cow to stop the process, it's only an S&M scenario, not torture.

This right-wing Yahoo underwent some physical distress, which he couldn't tolerate, and he crumpled in seconds. Imagine if he hadn't been able to stop it until he told his torturers what they wanted to hear.

He was tortured, he just volunteered to be tortured (just as some of the SERE training is torture though our troops voluntarily go through it.)

It isn't as extreme torture as the detainees are put through, it isn't the same fear and pain because he knew he could stop it, he was free to stop it.

:kick: