Don't Try This At HomeFollow

It's an interesting read, but I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that his experience was allready the consensus view of the experience. Are there people somewhere arguing that it's not unpleasent? I think the arguments tend more towards "it's not permenantly damaging and rarely results in injury"

Interesting, but not scientifically valid.

Everybody knows terrorists' anatomy is different to that of good honest law-abiding americans,and Muslims can breathe through their toenails (hence the sandals).

(Can't say I believe the OP, but well-written)

I think everyone in the Bush Administration should follow this person's example, with a couple exceptions.

Firstly: They wouldn't get to do it on themselves. Instead, Katrina refugees will be administering the waterboarding.

Secondly: It would be show live on Pay Per View. As capitalists, it would be silly not to charge to watch it.

Did the op state if he intended to do anything with this new-found knowledge?

My 30-Day free trial at Straight-dope expired..

It isn't relevant what you personally think about torture. The real question is whether we're violating the terms of the Geneva Convention. I'm not sure where you think that your feelings should enter into it at all.

Reterming people as "Enemy combatants" is just another way of attempting to avoid both national and international laws. No wonder our international relations and legitimacy in the world is down the *******.

The thing is, I do not fundamentally disagree with this.

I wouldn't disagree with calling torture reprehensible. I would agree that committing acts of torture should be a criminally punishable offense and if we caught someone doing it they should be prosecuted for it.

I would also volunteer for the job and take the consequences happily if it gained information that saved American lives.

Who made that point? He said that it was a horrible experience and shouldn't be done by a moral, civilized nation. Obviously, if anything, having it done against your will would make it more so.

I could see your point if he had said "It wasn't bad at all" but he didn't and I have no clue where you're coming from.

There was no question posed in Joph's OP, so I will comment on a free thinking basis.

The fact that the man would rather have his fingers smashed with a sledgehammer makes me want to try this, since there's no permanent damage if the victim does not go unconscious.

The definition of a prisoner of war must be expanded in our minds to include people other than an army of a country that has had war declared upon them. Why? Because now, we don't wage war on countries, we declare war upon lifestyles and ideologies. If one captures terrorists in a war on terror, are they not prisoners of war?

I guess I would question the definition of torture. If you call it any act against a prisoner that causes measureable physical trauma, that would allow things like Electroshock and other interesting, yet hardly Physically damaging methods to be used.

You also can't simply rely on a "mental trauma" definition, because capture and interrogation in its own right is somewhat traumatizing. The degree of mental trauma experianced is something that is entirely subjective and case specific.

There is a very fine line in the art of interrogation. If you push things too far, you'll get garbage information along with anything good, and in a time critical situation you'll end up wasteing time rather than gaining any insight.

From what I have seen, waterboarding looks like a rather mild form of intensive interrogation compared to Sodium penthol, the ol' 12 volt battery7, jumper cables, and wet sponges trick, or rubber hose beatings, etc.

No human being should be put through an act that would make them say or think just kill me instead and mean it.

You mean like going to a Dane Cook concert?