General Question

hiiiiiiii's avatar

Is water boarding torture or enhanced interrogation?

Asked by hiiiiiiii (121points) May 22nd, 2009
Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

58 Answers

b's avatar

Enhanced interrogation IS torture.

jrpowell's avatar

Same shit. Different branding.

And it is wrong.

PandoraBoxx's avatar

It depends. Are you Dick Cheney or Carl Rove?

oratio's avatar

No, it’s just an involuntary participation in an induced near death experience. It should be perfectly legal. Clears the nostrils too.

hiiiiiiii's avatar

I just seen this link

AstroChuck's avatar

The problem is we give these methods of torture such innocuous names, such as “water boarding,” as if it was some kind of summer watersport. We need to call a spade a spade. Calling it “controlled drowning” or something similar might open people’s eyes as to what we’ve been doing to these detainees.
Water boarding is torture and torture is never warrented.

b's avatar

@hiiiiiiii Ahh, those silly conservative talk show guys.

mammal's avatar

could water boarding be considered as recreational as snow boarding or surf boarding?

oratio's avatar

@AstroChuck That was kind of my point with my comment. If you give it a new definition you can make it sound kind of something else. Instead of calling someone a cleaner, you call him a floor manager.

You can justify things easier by making it look less harmful or justified. The term pre-emptive war is another definition that makes little sense. Attack someone so that they cannot attack you.

DarkScribe's avatar

Back in the witch burning days, were they burning them alive or “Warming the Cockles of their Hearts”?

pikipupiba's avatar

It is torture. A VERY mild form of torture. So mild it’s almost not torture. And before anyone responds saying otherwise, just google medieval torture devices.

Its use can be justified. Defending our national security, saving even one American life, and even simply because you ‘were trying to kill us two seconds ago but now we are detaining you and we think you need to be taught a lesson’ are all great reasons to waterboard.

Anyone who disagrees i would really like to see a response.

oratio's avatar

@pikipupiba So would raping and killing your family in front of you – without injuring you – be. I would consider that torture.

You don’t consciously think you are dying. You know it’s torture. It’s your body telling you it is dying. Over and over. Uncontrollable panic and fear is the result. How is that not torture? How is a method of breaking down a person mild? Why make excuses for torture?

skfinkel's avatar

Given that apparently people will say just about anything to avoid the experience of drowning, it is not only torture, but—in spite of what our notorious past VP Cheney says—completely useless. An activity, therefore for sadists.

And now we find that anything we learn from individuals under the ruse of this kind of torture is “tainted” and these people can’t even by tried in our courts. So, either we set them free (how can we do that??) or keep them in prison forever (thereby taking our own sense of justice and humanity down a few notches).

tinyfaery's avatar

If you don’t think it’s torture let someone do it to you.

b's avatar

@pikipupiba Torture is wrong and un-American. Period. Torture does not make our coutnry safer, it just makes more enemies of the US and provides fodder for terrorist cells to swell its ranks. Torturing our captives makes us just as bad as what we are fighting. This erosion of our values is the only victory the terrorists have ever had against our country.
Also, you can never trust information gathered from torturing someone. They will say anything just to make it stop.

aprilsimnel's avatar

If someone kept partially drowning me and then pulling me back from the brink, I’d tell them anything they wanted just to get them to stop.

So how does torture elicit valid information again?

FrankHebusSmith's avatar

Yah that’s kind of the kicker here, it’s a form of torture that’s used to procure false confessions. That’s all the Chinese, the NAZI’s and whoever used it for. Cuz after a few hits of water, you’ll tell the guy you’re the Queen of England if it’ll make em stop….

You use waterboarding when you KNOW what you want the person to tell you, not when you want to know something they do but won’t tell you.

So, why are we using it again? (oh yah, to make a fake tie between Al Queda and Iraq… I forgot).

pikipupiba's avatar

@b So if we stop water boarding, terrorists won’t hate America?

pikipupiba's avatar

@oratio I said it was torture. Read before speak.

oratio's avatar

@pikipupiba I know you did. Very mild. Almost not torture. And justified. If you turn it around, then what you are saying is that it’s ok for your enemies to torture americans. At what moment is it ok to side-step american values, the very values you are fighting for?

pikipupiba's avatar

The fact that the person in custody is a terrorist at all is enough to warrent the death penalty. Water boarding is merely a way of (trying) to extract any useful information. While i agree it will produce more false positives than useful intelligence, ANY info is worth investigation, especially after seeing what terrorists are capable of.

1. detainee lies to stop water boarding
2. We investigate. Find out they lied.
3. Detainee is still a terrorist. Lower than dog poop on my shoe. We water board more.
4a. Suspect knows nothing. Keeps lying. Sad? No! Still a terrorist! (repeat from 1)
4b. After lying repeatedly, finally tells truth to make it stop. (continue to 5)
5. We investigate. Suspect told truth. Water board more! (still a terrorist! ) (repeat from 1)

In the end, we might only save a few lives, but it doesn’t matter! Terrorists have NO rights! The more they suffer, the better.

(keep in mind, i am talking about confirmed terrorists)

@oratio Sorry, misread you response. I should read before i speak. Sorry.

oratio's avatar

@pikipupiba If a person can be proven without a doubt he/she is guilty of terrorist attack – planned or carried out – they are to be punished under proper law. They have been proven to have innocents, and children in there, and others are actually P.O.W.‘s. America offered rewards for terrorists, and sure enough, people rushed to hand other people over.

But of course there are really bad people in there. The question is about if america can justify using torture in any form. If it cannot be justified that Americans get tortured, how can we justify it at all?

Does it work?

■After Abu Zubaida was subjected to waterboarding, he gave up false leads and names to make the horrendous torture stop, sending CIA agents around the globe, chasing ghosts, shadows and false leads, spending millions of dollars and wasting years of valuable time in the process.

bea2345's avatar

Water boarding, by whatever name, is torture. That one’s enemies do it does not make it right for anybody. @pikipupiba, you astonish me. How do you establish without due process, whether anybody is a terrorist? (That’s what due process is all about: getting at the facts). At one time, in the Middle Ages of Europe, Christians believed that one literally went to Hell if one died with a lie on one’s lips. It is for this reason so many innocents went to the pyres rather than admit to being witches, maintained heretical beliefs in the face of torture – think of the Albigenses. That belief is very nearly dead nowadays: what price torture?

pikipupiba's avatar

@bea2345 Catch them in the act.

dalepetrie's avatar

1) Yes, it is torture. I would consider myself tortured if some did something to me that made me feel like I was drowning, and you would too. As for mild, I can’t really imagine a more painful way to die than drowning. If you think it’s not torture, tell you what, we’ll simulate your drwoging and see if you come away with the same opinion.

2) Doesn’t matter if it saves American lives, simply because there are plenty of non-torture methods which would yield the same results, they might not be as easy, but they exist.

3) Let’s say you DO save American lives, why are people fighting for America in the first place if not for our American ideals, one of which is “WE DO NOT TORTURE”.

pikipupiba's avatar

@dalepetrie and @oratio No, “WE DO NOT TORTURE” is not an American ideal. It is an idealist ideal, like “no more wars”, “no more terrorists”, and “unicorns for all”.
Water boarding is not killing. It poses no real danger. And like I said before, say its not mild after googling “medieval torture”. (as you will undoubtedly see, SEVERE torture involves EXTREME life long physical and emotional damage, not EXTREME discomfort and fear for the duration of the treatment)

pikipupiba's avatar

@oratio So the CIA wasted millions of dollars? Where is the cut-off? How much is too much? What is a human life worth to you?

oratio's avatar

Wasting money was not really the heart of it. It is a huge waste of many resources and when it comes to money I am sure they could use that for something that actually saves lives. Which this clearly didn’t. How much an American life is worth is a question that might be better answered by the Katrina victims of New Orleans.

♦ What makes it ok to commit a crime against someone who is a suspect of crime? You seem unconvinced that there are actual innocent people sitting there, year after year. The evidence against many of them doesn’t hold up in court.

When one starts to discuss who is most unethical those values America stands for are negotiable and relative. Then they lose meaning.

Well, we have no idea if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed actually is the “Mastermind” behind 9/11, since he confessed to it during 183 waterboardings in one months time. That’s approximately six(6) times per day. He might be guilty. Maybe not. Who knows? Certainly not CIA.

♦ The risk from getting killed by terrorists for americans are almost non-existent compared to the danger of driving, eating fast food or walking in the wrong neighborhood at certain times.

You say ”If it’s only to save one American life”.

What these arguments usually means is:
Let’s torture people, who might be guilty, in case it might save someones life, who might be American?

Why not torture drug dealers and every heavy criminal in the US that might have information that would save American lives? If that would work you would save many more lives than torturing terrorist suspects.

Why didn’t the FBI torture Timothy McVeigh?

Cause it’s unethical, against american values and law and you don’t torture your own citizens. If you don’t agree to torture American criminals that might have vital information, you make yourself quite guilty of hypocrisy.

▬ Is it ever ok to torture Americans?
▬ Is it ok for foreign agencies to torture Americans?
▬ Is it only ok to torture foreigners?

My guess it is ok to torture foreign people only.

One has little credibility in criticizing others for breaking the Geneva convention, when oneself does it.

If Americans do it it’s ok?.

■ The Japanese and the Germans were condemned and executed for similar reasons after WWII. There is great hypocrisy in that.

But. it. doesn’t. even. WORK! That’s the biggest joke of it all. Why even defend it?

This is something even the CIA themselves are saying. If they think so, why can’t you?
One can only guess why they did it in the first place.

Maybe they were out of options and had pressure to come up with anything. Reminds me of the reasons for invading Iraq.

dalepetrie's avatar

Well, I disagree, I think torture has no place in a Democracy and therefore I think “we do not torture” IS an American ideal. By your logic that no harm comes in the long run, we might as well do everything BUT kill. Problem with that is, you can get anyone to say whatever you want them to say if you torture them…the info is not as good and therefor it makes us LESS safe, not more. And even if it didn’t my point is, why fight for a country with no morals?

augustlan's avatar

Torture. Period.

Saturated_Brain's avatar

Simulated drowning… Gee… If it’s not torture it’s a sad sad world we live in.

bea2345's avatar

It is on occasions like this that I am most thankful for the institution of a free press (even if it does stink sometimes).

Jack_Haas's avatar

It depends on who you use it on. Just like prison can be hell to an innocent used to live a free and comfortable life, but heaven to a gang banger who sees his stay there as a vacation and an opportunity to earn prestige among his peers.

Taking a latte from a Westerner is torture because Western societies have been sissified to an extreme. Here, words hurt people. Try to explain this concept to the average middle easterner. As Ann Coulter would say, waterboarding is what they do on a first date. Actually, men casually do far worse to their women, once they got married, just to “educate” them. To say that their cultures are brutal is a euphemism. Add religious fervor and you can see why the actual debate over waterboarding can only be cause for joy and mockery in the conservative muslim world.

Note that by waterboarding I’m referring to the very mild version used by the US government. Waterboarding as it was used by the Japanese and others is sadistic regardless of your culture. Ann coulter makes this necessary distinction and brings some much needed perspective here:


tinyfaery's avatar

Ann Coulter is a crack whore. I can’t help but laugh and ridicule when anything comes out of her mouth.

AstroChuck's avatar

I can’t believe someone is quoting Ann Coulter as some pillar of propriety. Ann Coulter is the enemy of reason.

tinyfaery's avatar

My thoughts exactly @AstroChuck.

dalepetrie's avatar

Yes, your credibility goes out the window when you quote a woman who thinks women shouldn’t have the right to vote (but who then tries to vote twice)

cak's avatar

@pikipupiba we get it, medival torture was horrendous, but it doesn’t lessen other forms of torture. I suspect if you speak to a person that has experienced waterboarding, that fear of drowning, is very terrifying.

DarkScribe's avatar

@AstroChuck Like a lot of Journos, I am on her mailing list – just for the fun of it. Have been for several years. She is becoming more rabid with every passing month.

I have always wondered something about her. If she ever managed to get anyone into bed – would they get splinters? I suspect that she is still a virgin – that much bile would demolish anything ever erected.

helilover's avatar

Its torture, but we’re speaking here in terms of degree. In my opinion “waterboarding” is at the bottom of the scale. Someone posted the question of whether or not only foreigners should be tortured. YES! Does this make it right? No. I think in terms of the dangerous times we live in. Our ideals say no torture, but guess what? Our enemies want us to keep thinking that way! Other countries may torture Americans but maybe not for the right reasons. We do it for safety reasons. Others may use it to gain power or advantage. Torture is wrong, but we do it out of necessity.

dalepetrie's avatar

Only problem is, intelligence obtained by torture isn’t worth a shit. You torture someone, they’ll tell you whatever you want them to tell you. Why sell out our values for no purpose?

helilover's avatar

I disagree. It has helped to some degree however small. Why bother to detain them if there isnt some small possibility of getting information?

DarkScribe's avatar

@dalepetrie _Only problem is, intelligence obtained by torture isn’t worth a shit. _

You seem to lack much understanding of either torture or the psychology behind it. Do a little research.

helilover's avatar

I resent the fact that we’re apologizing to the world for using these techniques. We’ve already apologized for being “arrogant”. Whats next, apologizing for being Americans?

dalepetrie's avatar

@DarkScribe – I have done PLENTY of research by some very respectable military intelligence officials who will tell you that intelligence obtained by torture is worthless…it is tainted, and it takes nothing more than 2 brain cells to rub together to understand that someone will tell you whatever you want to hear to stop being hurt.

DarkScribe's avatar

@dalepetrie I have done PLENTY of research by some very respectable military intelligence officials who will tell you that intelligence obtained by torture is worthless…it is tainted,

Yeah – right.

That is why it has been used for millenia – because it doesn’t work.

They might absolutely love to tell what you want to hear, but unless they KNOW what you want to hear they can’t. Think about it logically.

oratio's avatar

@DarkScribe I think that mostly they don’t ask a person “Tell me all that you know!”, but ask certain questions. Even leading questions.

“Where is Osama Bin Laden?”
“What was your part in the planning?”
“What’s you next target?”.

I think that interrogators mostly don’t know what people know or if they know anything at all. If you torture a person you will surely sooner or later get answers to every question, since “I don’t know anything!” or “I have told you all I know!” is not the answer they are looking for. Then you have to find out if you got the truth, some truth in a mix of lies, or only lies. The case with Abu Zubaida shows where that can lead.

Break people so that they don’t care if they live or die, and you will have probably have different answers than if they think they are going to live or even go free.

Even though we have done so for thousands of years doesn’t mean it’s effective. If that would be the case, every superstition would have merit and ancient medicine would be used in the hospitals. We don’t use herbs against cancer these days.

DarkScribe's avatar

@oratio Ok, this is how it works. Psychologically, once a person is broken, they will do pretty much what they are told. It is NOT a matter of torturing someone in one or two sittings and forcing them to fess up to stop the pain, it is a matter of completely breaking them. During the Korean war the techniques learned there were the beginning of modern EFFECTIVE torture. It often took weeks to break someone, but they all broke.

If they don’t have time to break them they use techniques to check veracity – asking lots of questions over and over again so that the person being tortured can’t possibly recall a series of untrue details. They also compare notes if torturing several people. Mostly they ask questions that they already know the answer to until they are sure that they are getting the truth.

It is idiocy to say that torture doesn’t work when it has been successfully working for centuries. Sure, they’ll try to lie, but a skilled interrogator expects that and keeps going. Eventually they will all break, that was the basis of the cyanide capsules issued in the war.

I have never been tortured, but a part of my military training was about torture, how it worked, and what to expect if captured.

dalepetrie's avatar

@DarkScribe – I’ll resist taking you to task for calling me a liar, I’ll leave it up to your conscience to decide whether or not to apologize for being a prick.

And just in case this one gets flagged, I’ll post my rebuttal in another post.

dalepetrie's avatar

The VERY FIRST hit on Google when you search for “torture efficacy” is this article. It explains EXACTLY why torture doesn’t work, it talks about how it HASN’T worked throughout history and it points out two VERY important things.

1) When you torture someone who DOES have information, it has been shown that you are no more likely to get honest answers than you are by not torturing.

2) When you torture someone who does NOT have information, they WILL tell you whatever they think will make you stop torturing them.

But let’s for a moment consider that point #1 is false, because your mind is made up and you’re going to accuse anyone who says otherwise of being ignorant. The problem is with point #2. I don’t think you can POSSIBLY make a case if you have ANY understanding of human psychology WHATSOEVER that point #2 is not true (if you can’t concede that, then there’s no point talking to you, because you live on some fantasy planet where whatever you think is true and everything else is false).

So, let’s assume 1 is false and 2 is true. Well, you’re an investigator, you have NO WAY to know for sure who is telling the truth and who is telling you waht you want to hear…can’t be done. And the volume of false information will ALWAYS overwhelm the volume of good information, making all the intelligence worthless.

I have done a lot of reading, a lot of listening to expert lectures on public radio, etc., and one thing I’ve found that many people who have gathered intelligence for a living agree on. It is not as easy to obtain intelligence without torture, but the extra effort that one puts into non-torture interrogation methods will ALWAYS produce higher quality results, and it will do so without selling our soul.

With that, I’ll leave you to your God complex.

pikipupiba's avatar

@DarkScribe You’re right! Thank you!

@dalepetrie You are describing a VERY bad interegator. You must EXPECT lies. Only a moron would expect truths right off the bat. Good thing you don’t torture people…

tinyfaery's avatar

I think dale is pretty glad he doesn’t torture people.

oratio's avatar

Me too. I am relieved to hear that Dale doesn’t torture people.

augustlan's avatar

I’d be very disappointed in Dale otherwise.

aprilsimnel's avatar

If Dale tortured people, I’d have to stop the world and get off. :(

dalepetrie's avatar

I think if I WERE to start torturing people, I’d have to start with those people who thought it was OK to torture people.

As for expecting lies from people you’re torturing….DUH. You expect lies no matter HOW you interrogate someone. That accusation makes me think you didn’t bother to read the article I linked to. This is not a problem of a “very bad interrogator”’s a problem in that most people are no better at spotting lies than they would be if they just guessed yes or no, and police and interrogators often fare worse than laypeople in this respect. From the article:

For about 40 years, psychologists have been testing police officers as well as normal people to see whether they can spot lies, and the results aren’t encouraging. Ordinary folk have an accuracy rate of about 57 percent, which is pretty poor considering that 50 percent is the flip of a coin. Likewise, the cops’ accuracy rates fall between 45 percent and 65 percent—that is, sometimes less accurate than a coin toss.

Why does this matter? Because even if torturers break a person, they have to recognize it, and most of the time they can’t. Torturers assume too much and reject what doesn’t fit their assumptions. For instance, Sheila Cassidy, a British physician, cracked under electric-shock torture by the Chilean secret service in the 1970s and identified priests who had helped the country’s socialist opposition. But her devout interrogators couldn’t believe that priests would ever help the socialists, so they tortured her for another week until they finally became convinced. By that time, she was so damaged that she couldn’t remember the location of the safe house.

In fact, most torturers are nowhere near as well trained for interrogation as police are. Torturers are usually chosen because they’ve endured hardship and pain, fought with courage, kept secrets, held the right beliefs and earned a reputation as trustworthy and loyal. They often rely on folklore about what lying behavior looks like—shifty eyes, sweaty palms and so on. And, not surprisingly, they make a lot of mistakes.

The problem is this. Look at Gitmo. Out of 775 prisoners, 420 were released without charge and another 80 will probably be let go. That means 500 out of 775 were people who were not of any value, didn’t do anything wrong, were essentially gathered up incorrectly. Of the remaining 275 who have been or will be charged with crimes, certainly not all of them had a great deal of useful information about high value targets In other words, if you tortured all of these prisoners, at least 2 out of 3, and probably more like 9 out of 10 would have no valuable information for you. But 100% of them would tell you something, anything, to get you to stop fucking torturing them. That means 90% of your information would be shit.

Now I can hear your mental gymnastics from here, “But they DIDN’T torture EVERYBODY, just the HIGH VALUE suspects.” OK, but if we’re so great that we can determine who’s guilty BEFORE we even interrogate them, why are we rounding up 2 innocents to every one guilty suspect? Hell, not even 2 innocents to every one guilty person, 2 people who were released without charge to every person who stands trial! Surely we won’t get a 100% conviction rate! Face it, knowing who has the information is guesswork. You are BOUND to get some people who have nothing of value to tell you, and yet, we’re starting from an assumption that it’s OK to torture the few people we are going to torture because they WILL have valid information. You’ve already prejudged that what they tell you will NOT be a lie if you torture them. It’s a recipe for BAD intelligence.

Now yes, they’re not stupid enough to believe in all the lies, but they’re going to have to take time investigating each piece of information they get. Therefore, they’d be wasting 90% of the time they could spent on actually protecting us if they tortured everyone! The actual amount of time wasted is certainly less, but still logic dictates that doing this actually makes us LESS safe. Add to it that if the interrogator does not know when to stop, does not know when the lies stop and the truth begins, the person could be too damaged to be of ANY use. Consider that if they didn’t torture, yes, they’d still get lies, but most of that crap from those who were tortured who had nothing to offer would be gone, the lies would be much easier and faster to sort through, and we’d be able to take action on the good information all the more quickly, and we’d have people who were still of value to us, rather than humans who were completely ruined, used up and no longer of any value to us.

And again, look at the article as to how effective torture is as an information gathering tool After describing in detail how even the Nazi Gestapo had little success with torture compared to other methods of intelligence gathering it points out this historical perspective:

…between 1500 and 1750, French prosecutors tried to torture confessions out of 785 individuals. Torture was legal back then, and the records document such practices as the bone-crushing use of splints, pumping stomachs with water until they swelled and pouring boiling oil on the feet. But the number of prisoners who said anything was low, from 3 percent in Paris to 14 percent in Toulouse (an exceptional high). Most of the time, the torturers were unable to get any statement whatsoever.

And such examples could be multiplied. The Japanese fascists, no strangers to torture, said it best in their field manual, which was found in Burma during World War II: They described torture as the clumsiest possible method of gathering intelligence. Like most sensible torturers, they preferred to use torture for intimidation, not information.

As one of the pro-torture voices on this thread pointed out, waterboarding is a “mild” form of torture, and though I consider no torture to be mild, I have to agree that it’s at least less damaging in terms of permanence than the methods used by the French in the 18th century, and yet even methods FAR more severe than what we’re arguing about here produced almost no actionable intelligence. It would seem that the only “VERY BAD interrogators” are the ones who rely on strong-arm tactics which have been proven ineffective throughout history, which are brutal and inhumane, which leave people stripped of every defense they’ve built over their entire lives, every social construct, every self protection mechanism, leaving them mentally no more than a frightened animal cowering in the corner, rather than relying on psychological tactics which are much harder to master, but which produce better results 100% of the time, at a fraction of the cost to one’s humanity.

And don’t lose the perspective of why many of our enemies are our enemies in the first place. They believe that Americans are a bunch of fucking hypocrites who do what they want wherever they want in the world without regard to how it impacts others. The whole fucking reason Al Quaeda came after us in the first place is that we went into Afghanistan in the late 80s to push back the Russian invasion when it suited our purposes, but when we got what WE wanted, we showed that we didn’t give fuck all for the people there, it was all about how it affected US, so we dropped the ball and left the rebuilding to guys like Bin Laden…who then saw us become all interested in the sovereignty of Kuwait in ‘91 when our gas prices started to go up, but ignore the genocide in Rwanda. They see pictures of our top guys shaking hands with Saddam in the 80s, selling him weapons, then when he threatens our oil supply, he becomes our enemy. So, guys like that who think (not necessarily incorrectly I might add), that the American government is full of fucking hypocrites who say one thing but do another, and think we are therefore evil and should be destroyed….you REALLY think it’s going to make us any less of a target for the fucks when we say that America takes the moral high road and believes in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, and writes into its Constitution that cruel and inhuman treatment is a no-no, then decides that we’re just not going to apply those same standards to the rest of the world?

That is antithetical to what America has always stood for, it’s NOT OK, and any justifications you can make for it are nothing more than your overinflated sense of self worth telling you that you’re better than the other people on this planet. FUCK THAT. You have NOT proven that torturing people makes us any safer than not torturing people, there is NO WAY to make that OK, no matter how much you want to believe that you’re just doing it all out of self defense and the noblest of intentions…it’s a lie, you’re lying to yourself if you believe that…it doesn’t work any better than other methods we have, it never has, it never will, it’s a primitive tool that needs to be relegated to the trash heap of history, it’s a lazy shortcut taken by those who believe in brawn over brains, and it is incontrovertibly wrong by any reasonable standard, PERIOD.

Erulin's avatar

Seeing as how Japanese officers were put to death for War Crimes over waterboarding American P.O.W.‘s in the second World War I’d have to say that inventing new terms like Enhanced Interrogation is a very very weak way to distance yourself from what 65 years ago “WAS” concidered Torture…

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther