Waterboarding?

[Mike Wooldridge]

Is waterboarding (http://people.howstuffworks.com/water-boarding.htm) torture? Should it be used by the US and the allies?

[Hans Deventer]

Is waterboarding (http://people.howstuffworks.com/water-boarding.htm) torture? Should it be used by the US and the allies?

I have to admit I prefer a president that discusses the meaning of "sex" over one that discusses the meaning or "torture" :basic04

[Billy Cox]

Is waterboarding (http://people.howstuffworks.com/water-boarding.htm) torture? Should it be used by the US and the allies?

I suspect that many less controversial methods of interrogation would, in public opinion, be considered unacceptable. So I don't think it matters what I think - I cannot have an informed opinion.

US interrogators prefer waterboarding because it rarely causes any physical harm.

If we want to talk about moral high ground, I doubt that there is a convincing case for waterboarding as an interrogation technique.

[Gina Stevenson]

Have to sheepishly add a "duh!" here. My sports repertoire in years past mainly being of the water variety [still love to swim], I saw this and tho't of the board people sit on as they're pulled across the water. My tho'ts: "Liked skiing much better than these boards!" :o

Then, upon opening the thread, I recalled hearing of this on the news recently. Oh, well ............. :rolleyes:

[Dave McClung]

Is waterboarding (http://people.howstuffworks.com/water-boarding.htm) torture? Should it be used by the US and the allies?

The problem we have when discussing "torture" is that the commonly used definition leaves what constitutes torture in the eyes of the beholder. I can tell you from personal experience that one can survive very painful experiences without having permanent physical or mental injury.

When I went through POW surival training, I was never subjected to waterboarding, but I know people who were. From what I know, it is less painful than some of the other options commonly used.

The worst thing that they did to me was put me in a wooden box that was 24" X 18". It was really, really uncomfortable. I don't know how long I was in the box, but the worst part of the experience was not knowing how long I would be in the box.

Some of my friends were put into a hole filled with water. Their arms were tied behind them and the hole was filled with water to the point that they had to stand on their tip toes to keep there nose above water. The were left there until they could no longer keep from breathing in water.

I was deprived of sleep for many, many hours. I was placed in a solitary cell with a sand bag over my head. From time to time the guards would jerk the door open. If I was touching the walls or didn't have the bag over my head, I was punished. While the guards never actually carried it out, they often threatened to put me "in the hole" or "back in the box."

For hours on end, the only sound was a baby crying. The baby would sob to the point of choking. The choking would continue until it sounded like the baby died, but a few seconds later it would start up crying again. To this day, I have an emotional reaction to a baby's uncontrolled crying.

I don't know why "waterboarding" has become the point of controversy. The real question is whether or not it is legal for a government to make terror suspects very uncomfortable in order to gain information that saves the lives of others. If it is, then the particular technique that is used doesn't really matter. It it isn't, then all such techniques should be outlawed.

It seems to me that the line could be drawn at several different levels:

1. Permanent Physical injury
2. Permanent Mental injury
3. Temporary Physical injury
4. Temporary Mental injury
5. Extreme Physical discomfort
6. Extreme Mental discomfort
7. Mild Physical discomfort
8. Mild Mental discomfort
9. No Physical discomfort
10. No Mental discomfort.

If I were the one making the law, I would allow the government to go to level 5. The government should be able to make a terrorist extremely uncomfortable as long as they don't injure him or her.

By that standard, waterboarding would be legal. It causes extreme discomfort, but does not injure the subject.

[Bruce Carriker]

I got to go through the POW training thing, too. But in that circumstance, you KNOW that nothing bad is going to happen to you, that there are medics right there if something somehow should go wrong, and that everybody involved is ultimately on the same side. So, as uncomfortable as some of it was, I don't think I can really give an informed opinion on the subject, based on my training experiences.

However, although I would not vote for him, I do have a great deal of respect for John McCain. He HAS been tortured by the enemy. So, when he says that waterboarding is torture, I'm willing to accept his opinion as being more valid than what anyone here can offer...unless we have some former POWs I'm unaware of.

[Diane Likens]

I do not and cannot condone waterboarding, generally speaking. Unfortunately we are now dealing with a much different kind of enemy. Sometimes our protectors have to speak to the enemy in language the enemy can understand and will respond to -- this is a plain and ugly truth.

It is very sad, but oh so true.

[Bruce Carriker]

I do not and cannot condone waterboarding, generally speaking. Unfortunately we are now dealing with a much different kind of enemy. Sometimes our protectors have to speak to the enemy in language the enemy can understand and will respond to -- this is a plain and ugly truth.

It is very sad, but oh so true.

So, instead of holding ourselves to the highest possible standard, we accept the lowest depths to which our opponents might stoop as the standard for our conduct? In how many other areas of life do we adopt this modus operandi? Maybe we should adopt 90-100 hour work weeks and virtual slave laborers who are literally chained to their work benches, so that we can compete with China. As John McCain has said many times, it's not about who THEY are, it's about who WE are.

Besides, it is widely believed that information received through torture is highly unreliable, because you reduce the prisoner to saying anything just so the torture will stop?

[Ryan Scott]

So is it really prohibited by the Geneva Convention? If so, I think I'd be against us doing it.

[Bruce Carriker]

So is it really prohibited by the Geneva Convention? If so, I think I'd be against us doing it.

Pre-emptive war is a violation of international law, too. That didn't stop us...didn't even slow us down.

[Bob Wright]

Dave, you certainly are bringing back some memories. I went through the mock POW camp, and I did my share of time in the box. You can't stand and you can't sit; it's not my kind of place. I personally think waterboarding is an acceptable practice, especially when it will save lives. It is extremely effective, and I think compared to what we think of as traditional methods of torture, it isn't really that bad. It makes them "think" they are drowning, but when it is over, how are they harmed? I would think we would only use that with high value terrorists that have very important information that might save the lives of a lot of people. Why would we want to tie the hands of our people, by taking away this technique? The Geneva Convention applies to soldiers not terrorists.
Just my two cents worth.

[Hal Paul]

For a variety of reasons, I won't comment in detail on this thread, but I think this article (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/)is relevant to the discussion. I also think it bears relevance to this quote (http://www.naznet.com/community/showpost.php?p=141776&postcount=1)from Bono that Hans posted earlier today. (yesterday for him)

[Mike Wooldridge]

Has the information obtained from techniques such as waterboarding proven to be credible?

[Gina Stevenson]

Has the information obtained from techniques such as waterboarding proven to be credible?

I'd guess it might just depend upon how fearful---or not---of water the one is who is chosen for this treatment ... maybe? After all, if they're sure they're not going to be drowned, but know it to just be another part of the "interrogation procedure," then some may withstand it without divulging much, if anything.

[Hans Deventer]

I'd guess it might just depend upon how fearful---or not---of water the one is who is chosen for this treatment ... maybe? After all, if they're sure they're not going to be drowned, but know it to just be another part of the "interrogation procedure," then some may withstand it without divulging much, if anything.

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/04/video-steve-harrigan-gets-waterboarded-on-fox/

[Billy Cox]

From what I understand, it is not mind over matter. Your body (including brain) has a hardwired response to the perception of drowning.

[Charles W Christian]

Dave, you certainly are bringing back some memories. I went through the mock POW camp, and I did my share of time in the box. You can't stand and you can't sit; it's not my kind of place. I personally think waterboarding is an acceptable practice, especially when it will save lives. It is extremely effective, and I think compared to what we think of as traditional methods of torture, it isn't really that bad. It makes them "think" they are drowning, but when it is over, how are they harmed? I would think we would only use that with high value terrorists that have very important information that might save the lives of a lot of people. Why would we want to tie the hands of our people, by taking away this technique? The Geneva Convention applies to soldiers not terrorists.
Just my two cents worth.

Does it really save lives?? My dad was a POW in Viet Nam for awhile. He does not like to talk about it, and I have only gleaned snippets over the years from him about those experiences. However, to say that it just "makes you a little uncomfortable" as Dave suggests, or that it will somehow "save lives" sounds like empty political rhetoric to me, and not facts.

Here's an ABC report from a couple of years ago that casts doubt about a) the effectiveness of waterboarding, and b) its embrace by key members of the intelligence community. I hate to complicate this highly charged issue with facts, but .... http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866.

Here's another fact:
We're Christians! We seem to slip into the "well, this is the real world," kind of mode when we talk about military and politics, but aren't the Gospel and the Kingdom of God all about the "real world?" If that is true (and I believe that it is), I think this kind of approach to an enemy in battle is self-defeating. It makes us as a nation weaker, not stronger. And, it often illicits confessions that really are more about what the torturer wants to hear, rather than "the facts that save lives." Many Viet Nam vets eventually signed confessions after having the hell beat out of them (and worse). This doesn't make them so. Your flippant comments somehow came across offensively to me, and I guess that's just my problem. But your ignorance of the facts, even while describing the harsh memories of going through POW training today, seems to point out some logical "holes" in your arguments!

Dave, how does waterboarding NOT violate the list you propose? Tests and even govt. testimony seem to indicate that it does more than just make these folks feel a little uncomfortable! It inflicts severe, and perhaps deadly, physical harm by slowly killing its subject and then (hopefully) stepping in at the last minute. Come on.... Aren't you guys just playing "eye for an eye", and/or just defending a very broad "ends justify the means" kind of posture? It seems that way to me, and again, it seems to turn the CIA and the U.S. Military into criminals -- or at best, the kind of "warriors" that this country has (at least in theory) set up to be the "bad guys."

Sorry for the rant....

God bless,
Charles

[Dale Cozby]

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Would we consider this torture if used upon our own personel held by the enemy?
If the answer is yes,.....

Just how reliable would information be if I was facing being drowned? Real or imagined....it still feels real and has real psychological effects that would lead the majority of people to say whatever to avoid a cruel near-death by drowning.

How many Catholic inquisition "confessions" were obtained by torture?

I believe more truthful information could be achieved through use of drugs and sleep deprivation than inflicting mental terror in the form of water boarding/torture. better to have someone in a mental fog than coming out of a mind bending terror of a near death drowning.

[Charles W Christian]

Some "great moments in waterboarding" for those who are still unconvinced:


--In 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

-- On September 6, 2006, the United States Department of Defense released a revised Army Field Manual entitled Human Intelligence Collector Operations that prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel. The department adopted the manual amid widespread criticism of U.S. handling of prisoners in the War on Terrorism, and prohibits other practices in addition to waterboarding. The revised manual applies only to U.S. military personnel, and as such does not apply to the practices of the CIA. However, under international law, violators of the laws of war are criminally liable under the command responsibility, and could still be prosecuted for war crimes.

--In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognized "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record, and critics of waterboarding draw parallels between the two techniques, citing the similar usage of water on the subject.

--Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, told me that he had treated a number of people who had been subjected to such forms of near-asphyxiation, and he argued that it was indeed torture. Some victims were still traumatized years later, he said. Mayer, Jane (February 7 2005). "Outsourcing Torture". The New Yorker.

--A former senior official in the directorate of operations is quoted (in full) as saying: "'Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see.'" Another "former higher-up in the directorate of operations" said "'Yes, it's torture'". At pp. 225-26, in Stephen Grey (2006). Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. New York City: St. Martin's Press.

I accessed most of this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

In addition, the Ghost Plane book was the subject of a recent Frontline World on PBS, and has influenced an upcoming movie about rendition (the shipping of prisoners by the U.S. to countries that knowingly use torture). The movie is coming soon: http://www.renditionmovie.com/

===========================
Usually I don't get so "political," but for some reason this topic has really gotten under my skin!

Again, we are Christians, and we tout our human rights, etc. We apply it to others but not to ourselves far too often. The Biblical word for that is hypocrisy.... (hypocitos -- having two faces, basically)....

CWC

[Charles W Christian]

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Would we consider this torture if used upon our own personel held by the enemy?
If the answer is yes,.....

Just how reliable would information be if I was facing being drowned? Real or imagined....it still feels real and has real psychological effects that would lead the majority of people to say whatever to avoid a cruel near-death by drowning.

How many Catholic inquisition "confessions" were obtained by torture?

I believe more truthful information could be achieved through use of drugs and sleep deprivation than inflicting mental terror in the form of water boarding/torture. better to have someone in a mental fog than coming out of a mind bending terror of a near death drowning.


I agree with you here, Dale. In fact, the use of a form of waterboarding dates back to ... the Spanish Inquisition. It was called [I]tortura agua[I],or water torture. It was also used by the Japanese during WWII on American soldiers, and the U.S. declared this practice to be torture and a category of war crime!

Also, psychological studies have shown -- even among the military -- that a combination of elements, some of them relying upon trust between the captor and captive are the most effective long-run sources for information.

CWC

[Charles W Christian]

Dave, you certainly are bringing back some memories. I went through the mock POW camp, and I did my share of time in the box. You can't stand and you can't sit; it's not my kind of place. I personally think waterboarding is an acceptable practice, especially when it will save lives. It is extremely effective, and I think compared to what we think of as traditional methods of torture, it isn't really that bad. It makes them "think" they are drowning, but when it is over, how are they harmed? I would think we would only use that with high value terrorists that have very important information that might save the lives of a lot of people. Why would we want to tie the hands of our people, by taking away this technique? The Geneva Convention applies to soldiers not terrorists.
Just my two cents worth.

Sorry to keep harping on this, Bob, especially since I don't really know you, but....

Using your logic in this paragraph, why would we want to tie the hands of our folks by not allowing them to just electroshock them? How about if they brought in the children of the terrorists and started cutting them until the terrorist said something? Why would we want to take this effective tool out of their hands, Bob? You see my point?? Some tools aren't really good tools to start with and need to be discarded. If we throw out any semblence of the Geneva Convention, then we are making a statement about who we are. If we want to stoop to the lowest common denominator, then we are actually NO DIFFERENT than the "terrorists" we say we want to fight against!

Remember, Bob -- being a Christian does not stop at the church door on Sundays. You probably know this, but it doesn't sound like it from the argument you're making above.

Just my observation.... apologies in advance for offence....

Charles

[Gina Stevenson]

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/04/video-steve-harrigan-gets-waterboarded-on-fox/


Thanks, Hans. Though I couldn't see the video [in many minutes, it loaded about 3-5 seconds of it, played it, then stopped again, so I quit it. However, the Wikipedia link someone posted showed a picture of how it's done. Think I misunderstood it here; it does look more dangerous than I tho't when first hearing about it.

[Hans Deventer]

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Would we consider this torture if used upon our own personel held by the enemy?
If the answer is yes,.....

Just how reliable would information be if I was facing being drowned? Real or imagined....it still feels real and has real psychological effects that would lead the majority of people to say whatever to avoid a cruel near-death by drowning.

How many Catholic inquisition "confessions" were obtained by torture?

I believe more truthful information could be achieved through use of drugs and sleep deprivation than inflicting mental terror in the form of water boarding/torture. better to have someone in a mental fog than coming out of a mind bending terror of a near death drowning.

Dale, since these moments are sparse, I never let an opportunity slip to express my agreement with a post you have written. So this is one!

[Ian Gentles]

It all seems rather nasty and not proven as affective to me. Torture me and i will tell you anything you want, I got a good imagination. So doubt this is very affective. As a christian could never do it to another!