Having studied medieval and renaissance torture techniques, I can tell you right now that if it wasn't damned effective, they wouldn't have bothered with it back then. And yes, somehow, this sort of thing was deemed highly effective!
Besides, isn't there some UN resolution about no drowning or simulated drowning?
Mukasey says he doesn't know enough about waterboarding to specifically comment on it. I say, give him some firsthand experience! And for that matter, every other public official who has spoken in support of it. If it isn't torture, if it doesn't constitute a horrific trauma, then what objection could they possibly have to going through it? They have all the advantages over the prisoners. No questions to answer, knowledge that they aren't REALLY going to be drowned. A school nurse to provide aid if needed. Friends and loved ones in the room with them to show support. A sure knowledge that the ordeal will be over within 30 minutes, and that they will then go home with absolutely no further consequences.
Did you see Keith Olbermann's special comment last night? He was talking about an official--State or Justice, I don't remember which--who DID exactly that in 2003 (I think), and made a report. Definitely torture was his conclusion. Bush fired him.
Comments 11
Reply
Besides, isn't there some UN resolution about no drowning or simulated drowning?
Reply
Reply
It's springtime, for Hitler Dubya
And Germany America!
Reply
Waterboard them all.
Reply
Reply
http://www.alternet.org/rights/66954/
A little on Khmer Rouge waterboarding:
http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2006/09/this_is_what_wa.php
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment