I should probably say that the video might not be for everyone. So just a disclaimer.

The sad thing is that it takes this kind of experience to convince someone that controlled drowning is torture.

Yah, I hate the debates on this. Either just admit you're going to use wirecutters, or agree you're willing to take the consequences of not doing everything. This edge case crap bugs the hell out of me. There's no "almost torture."

We're an enlightened nation. Word of mouth dehumanizing of "the enemy" is getting old.

Given the correct circumstances, I can also see where torture may not only be necessary, but conveniently utile. Unfortunately, information extraction is not generally one of them. As others have mentioned, the quality of information one gets through this process is pretty limited.

I guess I see torture much like I do weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, or genocide. If your continued survival requires it, deal the death and receive the consequences later. That said, one must always be cognizant of the consequences. It just appears to me that torturing a bunch of hajis we picked up in an indiscriminant sweep because other hajis from 5000 miles away flew planes into some buildings seems like a tragic case of overpaying. The cost to our influence far exceeds whatever utility we may get out of the torture we inflict.

Then again, Bush was always a master at buying high and going bankrupt.

The problem I have with these reporters trying out waterboarding to see "if it is torture" is that it kind of suggests it's not. Only the masochistic and insane would willingly subject themselves to actual torture. I believe them when they say it's extremely unpleasant but you don't see reporters driving bamboo stakes under their nails. That said I think it's pretty safe to define torture as anything designed to make a person do absolutely anything they can to make it stop.

Name one? And please, no "ticking bomb" scenarios, that only works on TV.

OK, I'll buy that, though I don't think that's the best way to get a defeated population to behave. Typical fear vs. respect argument at that point, though.

And the experience shows that a population might respond by putting on explosive vests.

Christopher Hitchens is a drunken attention-mongering asshole who knows how to write. He's on the short list of people responsible for the Iraq war (relax, not the shortest list, not the shorter list, just the short list) and for him to come out at this point and say "water boarding is bad" is a day late and a dollar short.

I hope you're not making these statements just out of desire to reject whatever point the liberals happen to have.

The goal of war is not to kill someone, but to achieve the intended political and/or economic objectives by military means. Just to kill someone would be a goal of not war but genocide. Killing, torture, and mistreatment of POWS and non-combatant civilians is not a war, but a war crime. Sovereign signatories to the international conventions on warfare believe that a significant amount of difference between these activities does exist.

You're missing the point.

Torture isn't for interrogation. It rarely if ever works for those purposes.

Torture is a tool of terror and domination. Properly and judiciously used, it can instill tremendous fear in the population. Whether not that fear is politically advantageous is entirely a different question.

Take this example, for instance. Let's say you are fighting for America's independence from England. It is early on and the population of the colonies is pretty ambivalent to your cause. They view the rule of the Crown as onerous, but still see themselves as English. Moreover, they see your claptrap about "all men being created equal" to be dangerous and borderline heresy.

You, however, notice that most folks only seem willing to go with the program if the Brits are able to maintain order. You know they can't in the long term because of their ongoing conflict with France and the lack of sufficient manpower in the colonies. Without the support of Tories and willing collaborators, you are sure the Revolution will succeed against the hated British.

Someone then posits that the way to properly convey the message that the British are NOT in control is to capture Tory community leaders and pour hot tar all over their bodies -- a process that will be extremely painful and possibly fatal. Moreover, he extols the necessity of burning their property and terrorizing them into leaving the colonies. Those that voice their opposition to your methods or message are dealt with similarly.

Since you lack the military capability to stand up to the British army, these terror tactic become the primary method of imposing your political will.

Just a hypothetical in time for our most important national holiday.

I think that is largely because our political circumstances have changed. Though it may not be political necessary or even useful for us to utilize torture at this time in history, it may actually be both to other entities now or (as I illustrated above) even our nation in a very different time.

We have, however, spent a sizable fortune teaching client states the not-so-gentle art of torturing for exactly that purpose.

Who put that crazy nonsense into your head? The only damage you try to minimize is that which your side takes, history has repeatedly shown this to be the way war is waged. An enemy which is not crushed is only going to rise again when you turn your back.

mind arguing against what I said, instead of trying to insult me?