Has anybody ever died from waterboarding?

[DrZoidberg]

Sweden has a weird legal system where you can be tried for assault and rape even if they "victim" claims it was consensual. Now a friend has been roped into a legal case following a BDSM scene involving waterboarding. The cops found a video he took of him doing this to his girlfriend.

None of the involved were new to this and communication was top notch. I´ve seen the video and I know both of them very well. The "victim" has maintained throughout all interrogations that it was consensual and that she liked it. In spite of this, this is still going to court.

What I need help with is finding proper medical information and resources on the relative physical harmlessness of waterboarding. It needs to be proper medical texts since it´ll be presented in court.

The mental trauma does not apply, since the "victim" doesn´t report any. Quite the contrary. She is quoted saying she was in "ecstasy" following the event. Yes, she is a masochist.

Any help would be much appreciated. Please help some BDSM practitioners stay out of jail. He faces up to two years in jail. Minimum sentence one year. Yes, in spite of this crime not having any victim.

 

[beero1000]

Waterboarding is torture because it simulates the feeling of drowning by ... suffocating the victim with water. I wouldn't hold out much hope for the 'it's not really dangerous' defense.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Waterboarding is torture because it simulates the feeling of drowning by ... suffocating the victim with water. I wouldn't hold out much hope for the 'it's not really dangerous' defense.

The forensic report only just got released. The government experts say it´s completely harmless physically. That, btw, is why it is a popular method of torture. The damage is "only" mental. But the mental damage can be quite severe. But in this case trying to prove mental damage on a victim who claims she´s fine, I imagine is a bit of an uphill struggle.

 

[beero1000]

Bullshit. A quick search of the internet yields  waterboarding:

There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water

Waterboarding can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage, and death.[1] Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years.[2]

Victims of waterboarding are at extreme risk of sudden death due to the aspiration of vomitus.

... the psychological effects can last long after waterboarding ends (another of the criteria under 18 USC 2340), and that uninterrupted waterboarding can ultimately cause death.[1]

Congestion, sometimes of the heart or lungs, sometimes of the brain, not unfrequently [sic] ensues; and death, in due season, has released some sufferers from the further ordeal of the water cure.

Alleg stated that he did not break under his ordeal of being waterboarded.[122] He also stated that the incidence of "accidental" death of prisoners being subjected to waterboarding in Algeria was "very frequent".[39]

 

[thebeave]

Even if there is a risk of death from waterboarding, how is it different than other forms of risky, thrill seeking entertainment people willingly participate in? Auto racing, skydiving, mountain climbing, etc.

On another note, after reading this, it really is no surprise that Sweden is the rape capital of the world. Consentual sex between two sober adults results in a rape charge?!

 

[Keith&Co.]

He also stated that the incidence of "accidental" death of prisoners being subjected to waterboarding in Algeria was "very frequent".[39]

Why is 'accidental' in quotes?
Is it suggesting that the practice is very likely to bring about unplanned terminations or is it suggesting that the waterboarding deaths are really abuse, not accidents?

 

[beero1000]

Why is 'accidental' in quotes?
Is it suggesting that the practice is very likely to bring about unplanned terminations or is it suggesting that the waterboarding deaths are really abuse, not accidents?

No clue. It's just another piece of evidence that blocking airways with water can lead to death (purposefully or accidentally).

I don't think the guy should be convicted of anything, but IMO the 'waterboarding isn't dangerous' argument isn't the way to go.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Why is 'accidental' in quotes?
Is it suggesting that the practice is very likely to bring about unplanned terminations or is it suggesting that the waterboarding deaths are really abuse, not accidents?

I think it's suggesting there was no intent to kill.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why is 'accidental' in quotes?
Is it suggesting that the practice is very likely to bring about unplanned terminations or is it suggesting that the waterboarding deaths are really abuse, not accidents?

I think it's suggesting there was no intent to kill.

If there was no intent to kill, that would be an accidental death. Not an 'accidental' death.
I fear that a lawyer using eagle claws during his summing up may alienate the jury.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

At the end of WWII, the US executed a few Japanese soldiers for waterboarding US POWs, so those Japanese guys died because of it.

I googled around, but I couldn't find the name of a single person who actually died from waterboarding. The CIA did manage to "lose" a few detainees over the years, so it's possible that some of them were killed during a waterboarding treatment.

It does seem like the kind of thing which could easily kill somebody if done improperly, so the whole "it's not dangerous" argument will probably get laughed out of court and undercut any other defenses being made. Your friend would likely be better off to ignore that and focus on the "it was consentual, so why are the courts involved in this" type of argument.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I think it's suggesting there was no intent to kill.

If there was no intent to kill, that would be an accidental death. Not an 'accidental' death.
I fear that a lawyer using eagle claws during his summing up may alienate the jury.

So what is the intent if a procedure could, as in maybe, but probably not, kill? An 'accident'?

That's how it reads to me.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If there was no intent to kill, that would be an accidental death. Not an 'accidental' death.
I fear that a lawyer using eagle claws during his summing up may alienate the jury.

So what is the intent if a procedure could, as in maybe, but probably not, kill? An 'accident'?

That's how it reads to me.

The intent is to torture. I thought that was pretty clear.

 

[Horatio Parker]

So what is the intent if a procedure could, as in maybe, but probably not, kill? An 'accident'?

That's how it reads to me.

The intent is to torture. I thought that was pretty clear.

The question you raise pertains to intent to kill. We're talking about the ones who die. All are tortured, but only some die.

If it were a risky surgical procedure to save someone's life as opposed to risking someone's life to obtain information, it would be an accident, not an 'accident'.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Bullshit. A quick search of the internet yields  waterboarding:

Waterboarding can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage, and death.[1] Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years.[2]

Victims of waterboarding are at extreme risk of sudden death due to the aspiration of vomitus.

... the psychological effects can last long after waterboarding ends (another of the criteria under 18 USC 2340), and that uninterrupted waterboarding can ultimately cause death.[1]

Congestion, sometimes of the heart or lungs, sometimes of the brain, not unfrequently [sic] ensues; and death, in due season, has released some sufferers from the further ordeal of the water cure.

Alleg stated that he did not break under his ordeal of being waterboarded.[122] He also stated that the incidence of "accidental" death of prisoners being subjected to waterboarding in Algeria was "very frequent".[39]

I have the forensic report in front of me. If it´s done taking some precautions it´s harmless and in the video they could clearly see that they took all precautions. So completely harmless. Deaths from waterboarding follow when people don´t take necessary precautions, which... arguably.. isn´t waterboarding at all. Either you do it properly or you are in fact just drowning somebody.

The psychological effects obviously don´t apply since she´s into this stuff. Immidiately following the waterboarding she has sex with her boyfriend and has an earth shattering incredibly strong fountain orgasm. Also... evidence of her not suffering mental trauma.

If I understand the psychological mechanics of waterboarding, it´s about exploiting our instincts to avoid drowning by manipulating our sensory inputs. All perfectly harmless.... at least physically. Psychologically it´s like being on the brink of drowning for an extended time, with all the death anxiety and panic associated with it. If this girl hadn´t felt safe around her boyfriend no way would it have turned her on. She knew he would have stopped if she would have panicked for real.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Even if there is a risk of death from waterboarding, how is it different than other forms of risky, thrill seeking entertainment people willingly participate in? Auto racing, skydiving, mountain climbing, etc.

On another note, after reading this, it really is no surprise that Sweden is the rape capital of the world. Consentual sex between two sober adults results in a rape charge?!

Sweden isn´t the rape capital of the world. It´s just manipulating statistics. Here´s a good article about it by a sex researcher:

http://www.lauraagustin.com/is-rape-rampant-in-gender-equal-sweden

Because there is shame involved in reporting rape, it makes comparing numbers between countries impossible. A high rape statistic probably just means that that country has less of a stigma surrounding being the victim of rape. Which is a good thing.

 

[skepticalbip]

I don't have any answer for you but I am just shocked to hear there is such a law. My being unfamiliar with the Swedish judicial system doesn't help either. Many states here recognize jury nullification as proper. My state even has it in the state constitution - jurors are expected to not only decide on the case but to decide whether the law itself should exist. The jury can all agree that the accused did what the charges say but also agree that the law is absurd so return a verdict of "not guilty".

 

[J842P]

I've got to say, this lends credence to Derec's claims regarding Sweden's rape laws.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't have any answer for you but I am just shocked to hear there is such a law. My being unfamiliar with the Swedish judicial system doesn't help either. Many states here recognize jury nullification as proper. My state even has it in the state constitution - jurors are expected to not only decide on the case but to decide whether the law itself should exist. The jury can all agree that the accused did what the charges say but also agree that the law is absurd so return a verdict of "not guilty".

The logic behind the law is that it should be pointless to threaten rape victims. If there´s nothing the victim can do to stop the process there´s no point in threatening her to withdraw her report of the crime. This was a problem prior to the law being passed. I used to think it was a good idea, until now... when I´ve realized the bizarre effects it can have.

Technically they´ve moved rape from the individual to the state. So if you rape somebody the plaintif is the government. The victim is reduced to a witness.

 

[untermensche]

Has anybody ever died from having their fingernails ripped off?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Has anybody ever died from having their fingernails ripped off?

So what´s the argument? If a person enjoys having their fingernails ripped off they should be prevented from doing it... because why? This is analogous with getting a tattoo. Do you think it should be illegal to get a tattoo or to tattoo someone? Should smoking be illegal?

This entire case rests upon waterboarding being so dangerous that it should be illegal to perform or to be willingly subjected to. Ie, is wanting to be waterboarded analogous with trying to commit suicide?