Comments (38)

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 7:00 PM:

Senator Biden:

Is the use of cellophane for less than 10 seconds, where no water enters the mouth or nose, torture?

one note jake wrote on October 30, 2007 7:13 PM:

learn a new tune, Jake... it's getting old

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 7:17 PM:

As soon as I get an answer, I would be happy to move on.

theswan wrote on October 30, 2007 7:45 PM:

jake, if you don't know the answer, you never will. That dumb, ha?

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 7:47 PM:

For the record, my answer is "no" -- still waiting for anyone (NOT on the "Ignore List" to agree or disagree).

J.A. wrote on October 30, 2007 7:51 PM:

For the record, my answer is "yes", now will you shut the hell up about it?

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 7:59 PM:

J.A.:

Are you Joe Biden (D-Capital One)? If not, no.

CT Hankster wrote on October 30, 2007 8:36 PM:

Jake D.

What is it about contemporary conservatives that explains your affinity for sadism?

Just wondering.

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 8:47 PM:

Who says I have an affinity for sadism?

AC wrote on October 30, 2007 8:52 PM:

Jake, on a scale of 1 to 10, how pissed off would you be if a US citizen or soldier was subjected to waterboarding during captivity?

I don't know where you get your "cellophane" and "less than 10 seconds" specifics. Is there some manual for waterboarding out there?

How much worse would 15 seconds be? 45 seconds? Burlap instead of cellophane? And if this were done once every hour 24/7 would that still be OK with you? Every 10 minutes?

Do you really think that this technique is used on it's own?

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 8:57 PM:

Of course I would be pissed -- I'm sure there are other uses, but for right now, I'm seeing if anyone will agree that 10 seconds alone is not torture -- here's a good recap of what I know about waterboarding in the public domain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#Contemporary_use

AC wrote on October 30, 2007 9:10 PM:

Jake, it's all about context. It's one thing to voluntarily hold your breath for a period of time, or to take an elbow to the nose while wresting your buddies. It's something else altogether if you're being forced to hold your breath, or if someone whacks you in the nose outright.

What I meant by "used on it's own" is that these techniques are not inflicted in isolation. It's not like you go in for your 10 seconds under the saran wrap and then they let you go, right? It's part of an ongoing process with a timeline that the subject doesn't know.

Both the individual acts (your 10 secs.) and the cumulative effect are abuse.

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 9:14 PM:

Thanks for the answer, AC. Anyone else think that the use of cellophane for less than 10 seconds, where no water enters the mouth or nose, is torture?

v. popvli wrote on October 30, 2007 9:33 PM:

AC may be on to something. Stress positions are used, so why not leave the detainee strapped to the waterboard all day, carrying out this 10 second treatment of Jake D.'s every 5 or 10 minutes, 24/7? Feeding time would be a good opportunity to interrupt with a treatment, b/c you might be able to get the detainee to choke or gag up food due to the inclined heels-over-head position, and cause post-traumatic stress whenever they might eat in the future. That would certainly be effective. But Jake D. wouldn't think of this as torture. Would he?

i feel sick for even having to think up such a horrible hypothetical. jake d., i don't savor rolling in the mud or trolling my mind through the gutter to show you that you're wrong. please think hard about both your rhetorical and serious questions before posting them. you're causing us all to be dehumanized in composing and reading the rebuffs to your apologist attempts to whitewash the high crimes and misdemeanors of the bush administration.

Uncle_Meat wrote on October 30, 2007 10:14 PM:

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 9:14 PM:
Thanks for the answer, AC. Anyone else think that the use of cellophane for less than 10 seconds, where no water enters the mouth or nose, is torture?

For what other purpose could such a technique possibly be used?

And no, I don't want to know about your bedroom behavior..

pete b wrote on October 30, 2007 10:27 PM:

Anyone else think that reading Jake D's inane horseshit for less than 10 seconds is torture? No water entered my mouth or nose.

Edgar Ant wrote on October 30, 2007 10:39 PM:

Jake D,

The Senate Judiciary Committee asked Attorney General designate Mukasey his legal opinion about waterboarding: Is it torture? Wickipedia introduces its piece on waterboarding with the following passage:

"Waterboarding is a form of interrogation consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water and induce the sensation of drowning. Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and/or intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe death is imminent while leaving no physical evidence of torture."

Jake D, you seem fixated on the question, "Is the use of cellophane for less than 10 seconds, where no water enters the mouth or nose, torture?", which you imply is waterboarding. From where did you get the idea that this is what waterboarding is, and did that source limit waterboarding to that technique, and that alone? Is it possible that you cherry picked the least offensive part of a larger discussion of waterboarding? It seems clear to me that you have (repeatedly) attempted to equate your definition with the whole of what waterboarding is - what Americans have done or are doing to other people in our name?

Jake D.: Assuming I'm correct that you support the use of waterboarding by Americans, do you approve of "interrogation which consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water and induce the sensation of drowning"?

BJ wrote on October 30, 2007 11:24 PM:

What is the definition of Troll???

Dan D wrote on October 30, 2007 11:48 PM:

The use of any form or level of discomfort or pain to coerce cooperation or testimony is wrong and should not happen. The mere fact that we must engage in a semantic debate over whether a technique is torture shows how the US has jumped the shark.

Jake D: If the person feels like they are drowning, even for 1 second, it is torture.

Ebu wrote on October 31, 2007 2:08 AM:

Here's the definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_Internet

Johann wrote on October 31, 2007 7:29 AM:

For all of the above posters:

If I place cellophane over my nose - it is not torture.

If someone else places cellophane over my nose, they had better have me tied up and unable to respond physically.

If I am tied up and that cellophane is kept there until it becomes the least bit uncomfortable for me, I identify it as torture.

George H. wrote on October 31, 2007 7:53 AM:

Read this post and then reflect on why Mukasey must not be confirmed after his lame response.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/

And don't feed that rat-bastard troll.

ihatebeets wrote on October 31, 2007 8:57 AM:

What the marquis Democrats are saying is all well and good. I still see a 56-44 confirmation. Some Democrats are too weak to vote against Mukasey.

Michael wrote on October 31, 2007 9:14 AM:

ihatebeets, unfortunately, I believe that you are correct. It really is a travesty. When will dems start to do what they were voted in to do, stop the insanity?

Anonymous wrote on October 31, 2007 9:44 AM:

yo jake, I don't know if it is torture

let us have the home address of your children, and we'll go try it out on your children and see if it's torture

now, here's the deal

if you consider the above statement to be a threat to your children, then you are definitly talking about torture

in fact, unless you are willing to bring your children to us for this treatment, it is torture

kinda easy to define torture now, isn't it

if you don't want your children to be treated that way, it's probably torture

drindl wrote on October 31, 2007 9:46 AM:

'Anyone else think that the use of cellophane for less than 10 seconds, where no water enters the mouth or nose, is torture?'

What the hell is this guy babbling about? Some of these R's sure do get particular about bondage materials and practices...

will o dwisp wrote on October 31, 2007 10:07 AM:

People like Jake D sound so loud and brave and yet effectively admits that the "terrorists" have him so damn scared he dosent consider torture out of the question any more.
It's sickening -I remember when our country condemmed others for committing torture -the Japanese, the Nazis, the Vietcong, the Russians, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussain -etc. -and now we've got thousands of guys like Jake D -here in America- saying it's ok to torture after all. It's disgusting

Jake D. wrote on October 31, 2007 10:27 AM:

Wow! You guys are really riled at a simple question (and, no, repeated 10 second sessions are not within the scope of my question). I'm simply asking if the least offensive form of waterboarding is "torture" (I agree with Mukasey it is repugnant -- war is hell, unfortunately -- so much for posing hypothetical questions). Don't worry, though guys, because Bush is still going to save your butts whether you like it or not.

will o dwisp wrote on October 31, 2007 10:46 AM:

Chicken

Jake D. wrote on October 31, 2007 11:01 AM:

Egg.

Alguien wrote on October 31, 2007 11:29 AM:

Jake D. wrote on October 30, 2007 7:00 PM (and a million times before):

"Is the use of cellophane for less than 10 seconds, where no water enters the mouth or nose, torture?"

I have a VERY SIMPLE question for you, dear Jake D. (a.k.a broken record)

WHO (other than YOU) defined waterboarding as "the use of cellophane for less than 10 seconds, where no water enters the mouth or nose"?
Every definition I have read up to now (many of which have been posted here) differs significantly from your own (e.g. none of them EVER mentions the use of cellophane) so, could you PLEASE give us, the "wussies", the original source for YOUR definition of waterboarding?

[I am starting to think you have some sort of kinky fixation with cellophane...!]

Jake D. wrote on October 31, 2007 11:36 AM:

Alguien:

Yes, I can give you a source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#Technique

The word "cellophane" was also included in at least one of the Senate letters full of questions that Mukasey just provided very good answers for.

Alguien wrote on October 31, 2007 12:09 PM:

Thanks, for the "enlightement" Jake D,
but, from what I could extract from your source, waterboarding is a broad term that encompasses an ample spectrum of harsh interrogation techniques that range from your beloved "use of cellophane to cover the prisioner's mouth and nose" on the lighter end to some truly pleasant experiences like:

" ....a rag is then forced into the mouth, and several pitchers of water are poured onto the rag. The interrogators periodically remove the rag, and the person is seen to gasp for breath"

OR

..."plastic wrap is placed over the correspondent's face, and a hole is poked into it over his mouth. Water is poured into his mouth through the hole, causing him to gag. It could lead to asphyxiation"

Your source also mentions that "CIA officers who subject themselves to the technique last an average of 14 seconds before caving in".

So, as Edgar Ant inquired [on October 30, 2007 10:39 PM] so wisely (and you never dared to reply):

"Is it possible that you cherry picked the least offensive part of a larger discussion of waterboarding? It seems clear to me that you have (repeatedly) attempted to equate your definition with the whole of what waterboarding is - what Americans have done or are doing to other people in our name?"

The answer is YES!
As the good registered-independent-but closet-republican boy that you are, you cherry-picked the lighter side of waterboarding to justify all the abusive treatment of detainees imprisoned illegally by the US (and labeled as "enemy combatants") because, according to you, that little paragraph proves that waterboarding is not torture...

Just like Bush and Cheney with the "evidence" of WMD in Iraq to justify the war, right???

GAME OVER, Jake D.

Jake D. wrote on October 31, 2007 12:14 PM:

I already stated I was simply asking if the least offensive form of waterboarding is "torture" -- and, I answered Edgar Ant's question on a different thread, so I'm not sure how you can declare VICTORY on that one -- if it makes you happy, though, game over.

Alguien wrote on October 31, 2007 12:16 PM:

By the way, Jake D., nothing in your source says anything specific like "the use of cellophane for less than 10 seconds, where no water enters the mouth or nose".
So my next question is...where did you read this "less than 10 seconds" thing???
Is it another of your "personal contributions"???

Anonymous wrote on October 31, 2007 12:26 PM:

Jake D.
What about this question by Edgar Ant:

Jake D.: Assuming I'm correct that you support the use of waterboarding by Americans, do you approve of "interrogation which consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water and induce the sensation of drowning"?

And by the way...could you please elaborate on this part of your post:

"Don't worry, though guys, because Bush is still going to save your butts whether you like it or not."

Save our butts? From whom?? Al_Qaeda?
How?? Waterboarding a few detainees???
Dream on, Jake D. [And start writing you letter to Santa, while you are at it!]

P.S: Winning an argument with you doesn't make me happy. It only makes me very sad to see how low can an apparently thinking person sink in order to defend the indefensible.

v. popvli wrote on October 31, 2007 3:44 PM:

mr. dort,
if you're not willing to consider that interrogation sessions last hours and may employ various "enhanced interrogation techniques (that aren't torture because they last 10 seconds or less)" in combination over the course of those hours, then i don't see where you have an argument at all. interrogation isn't a one-minute long affair where you ask the detainee a few questions and top it off with 10 seconds of plastic-water-face if they don't answer to your satisfaction - followed by your shouting "next!" interrogation lasts until the interrogators are convinced that the detainee knows nothing, or that he will not confess under any duress, or until a confession is obtained. the briefness of any interrogation technique that is in any way inhumane doesn't matter if it is used repeatedly in the context of coercing information. why would they quit if they fail to elicit information on the first try?

getting slapped in the face isn't torture; but it is if you're doing it to elicit a response to a question. being cold or hot isn't torture; but it is if the length of time you're doing it depends upon my cooperation with an interrogation. sleep deprivation and stress positions are fun for some people; but, without consent, they are torture if...

see the point? these 'enhanced techniques' will continue to be employed on a person until he answers or convinces them he doesn't know. i've experienced all of the above 'enhanced techniques,' but not in the context of detainment and obtaining information, not completely out of my control. you may have a point that a one-shot or briefness standard may apply and somehow minimize the moral failings of an individual technique such that it falls out of the realm of torture. but i'll wager that these 'enhanced techniques' are employed repeatedly and in combination until a person meets one of the previously outlined conditions. what kind of interrogators do you think they are? "well, jim, he lasted 10 seconds. i guess he's telling the truth. now let's go back to nicely asking him where the anthrax is."
your briefness standard doesn't matter if the techniques are repeated over and over (maybe every day for years, let's see, 2001 was 6 years ago?) in the context of coercing information. when does interrogation ever stop unless the interrogators are satisfied? what interrogator quits after the 1st try fails?

AC wrote on October 31, 2007 8:12 PM:

Torture makes us less safe.

What are we, Libya, China, Egypt, Syria? We want to join this club?

Fuck, no.