6 ms·

I like Hitchens, however, the waterboarding I saw in the video does not match the description of waterboarding on Wikipedia: "which involved stretching cellopha

I like Hitchens, however, the waterboarding I saw in the video does not match the description of waterboarding on Wikipedia: "which involved stretching cellophane over his mouth and nose and pouring water on his face to create the sensation of drowning". I was under the impression that in Hitchens' case there was no cellophane over his mouth and nose. Also the inverted (head is lower than feet) placement of the person was not done either, as Hitchens seems to be on a level surface. The reason for being inverted is supposed to be both a loss of control, plus it is easier to stimulate the gag reflex.

gruseom 18y ago
Good points (though I suppose they didn't use cellophane during the Spanish Inquisition either). Even more than that is this: flooded more with sheer panic than with mere water, I triggered the pre-arranged signal and felt the unbelievable relief of being pulled upright and having the soaking and stifling layers pulled off me Real torturers don't do pre-arranged signals. This is a huge difference. It means that real waterboarding and what Hitchens endured aren't even in the same category. Hitchens' experience would be better described as a kind of lower bound for what people being waterboarded go through. And he does in fact say so in the final paragraph. Edit: interestingly, it turns out that he didn't give the pre-arranged signal. He thought he did, but what actually happened was that he lost consciousness.
- dkokelley 18y ago
  He lost consciousness? I thought he said he practically threw the metal pieces to the ground, to the extent he could even though his hands were bound.
  - gruseom 18y ago
    I was completely convinced that, when the water pressure had become intolerable, I had firmly uttered the pre-determined code word that would cause it to cease. But my interrogator told me that, rather to his surprise, I had not spoken a word. I had activated the "dead man’s handle" that signaled the onset of unconsciousness. I interpreted this to mean that he lost consciousness and that the (what shall we call them...) administrators were the ones who made the decision to stop. Reading it again, though, I see that's not obvious. I confess I haven't yet found the stomach to watch the video. Perhaps it clarifies things? Edit: perhaps his meaning was that he felt himself blacking out, thought he gave the spoken signal, but in fact gave a nonverbal (but still pre-arranged) signal. In any case, the important point is that there were agreed-upon signals to stop the torture, whether he used them or not.
    - andreyf 18y ago
      I haven't yet found the stomach to watch the video You're in for a disappointment, the video is a lot less frightening than they make it seem. It would be laughable, if the topic wasn't so serious.
    - dkokelley 18y ago
      I'm not sure he could have spoken the word, with the cloth and water over his face. He may have been holding his breath during that time. He may have thought the word, but I really don't think it was possible to speak in that situation.

gruseom 18y ago

Good points (though I suppose they didn't use cellophane during the Spanish Inquisition either). Even more than that is this: flooded more with sheer panic than with mere water, I triggered the pre-arranged signal and felt the unbelievable relief of being pulled upright and having the soaking and stifling layers pulled off me Real torturers don't do pre-arranged signals. This is a huge difference. It means that real waterboarding and what Hitchens endured aren't even in the same category. Hitchens' experience would be better described as a kind of lower bound for what people being waterboarded go through. And he does in fact say so in the final paragraph. Edit: interestingly, it turns out that he didn't give the pre-arranged signal. He thought he did, but what actually happened was that he lost consciousness.

dkokelley 18y ago
He lost consciousness? I thought he said he practically threw the metal pieces to the ground, to the extent he could even though his hands were bound.
- gruseom 18y ago
  I was completely convinced that, when the water pressure had become intolerable, I had firmly uttered the pre-determined code word that would cause it to cease. But my interrogator told me that, rather to his surprise, I had not spoken a word. I had activated the "dead man’s handle" that signaled the onset of unconsciousness. I interpreted this to mean that he lost consciousness and that the (what shall we call them...) administrators were the ones who made the decision to stop. Reading it again, though, I see that's not obvious. I confess I haven't yet found the stomach to watch the video. Perhaps it clarifies things? Edit: perhaps his meaning was that he felt himself blacking out, thought he gave the spoken signal, but in fact gave a nonverbal (but still pre-arranged) signal. In any case, the important point is that there were agreed-upon signals to stop the torture, whether he used them or not.
  - andreyf 18y ago
    I haven't yet found the stomach to watch the video You're in for a disappointment, the video is a lot less frightening than they make it seem. It would be laughable, if the topic wasn't so serious.
  - dkokelley 18y ago
    I'm not sure he could have spoken the word, with the cloth and water over his face. He may have been holding his breath during that time. He may have thought the word, but I really don't think it was possible to speak in that situation.