You have some good ideas, but to me the country will continue to wallow.

Look at the death penalty, 3 strikes rule, and even sex with a minor. It seems the more we define a rule or law, the more wiggle room either side will take.

Look at the young man back east that spent 2 years in prison(of a 10 year sentence) for sex with a minor when HE was a minor.

I think that although it seems good, someone somewhere will think that the case in front will rise him to the top, then the very intention of the rule(definition) or law will cease to exist.

Again there are tons of examples that support me(sadly) Scott Peterson getting the death penalty in a state that performs abortions, needed 2 deaths to get the death penalty...and all the sudden the unborn(or fetus) now has worth.

OJ Simpson...reverse the challenge and attack the credibility of the other side.

Prisoners at Gitmo...challenge that their religious rights have been violated...

I must be old fashioned, because I really think that the solution is not in the laws, but in regulating the attorneys and the wayward agenda setting judges.

Just my thoughts.

The real, 100% unadulterated panic that occurs when a person is involuntarily deprived of oxygen for any amount of time is torture.

Torture is not so much what is done but the reason it is being done. Thus, the "deliberate infliction of injury or extreme pain" for the purpose of amusing oneself is torture, doing the very same thing for the purpose of gaining information to save lives is not torture and is OK by me.

As for what is and isn't allowed, I'd rather our side err on the side of doing too much rather than too little. Unlike the adage relating to criminal law that it is better for 10 criminals to get away than it is for one innocent to be jailed, here it is better for 10 terrorists who don't know anything to be worked over than let the one with information sit smugly in his cell awaiting the results of the terrorist attack.

Yes, there ought to be rules for establishing just when these tactics are permissible in order to make sure that coercive interrogation tactics are being done only the right way and at the right time to the right people. But in no way should these tactics be taken off the table. They are a weapon that, if used properly, can be very helpful and just as I would never want to take a soldier's rifle away from him, I want to give our intelligence folks every weapon possible that helps them do their job. If ripping someone's fingernails out can prevent the attack that kills my family, friends and neighbors, then someone is going to have to learn to live without fingernails.

I know this runs counter to all the bleeding hearts here, but I guess I'm just one of those who is less concerned with being nice to terrorists or worrying about what our so-called allies think of us than doing what is necessary to prevent terrorist attacks from killing Americans.

"I transmit herewith the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. ..."

"The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment...."

"By giving its advice and consent to ratification of this Convention, the Senate of the United States will demonstrate unequivocally our desire to bring an end to the abhorrent practice of torture..."
Ronald Reagan 4/88

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_n2137_v88/ai_6742034

Even Reagan supported a ban on torture AND cruel, degrading or inhuman practices. Waterboarding is clearly cruel if not torture.

Let's compare two forms of "simulated drowning. In one, a clamp is placed on the nose and a seal over the mouth. The person is then placed under water for x minutes (x being a variable depending on the person but intended to invoke the bodies reaction/fear of drowning but not sufficient to actually drown or cause brain damage). So your objection to waterboarding alowing some water to enter the lungs has been met and the simulation of drowning is achieved to encourage the asking of questions.

But if I was subjected to this, I would know absent a mistake, no matter how much I felt like I was drowning, they would pull me out in time. Would this make it less likely it could break me? Since the idea is to get the person to talk, not to subject them to distress for the sake of distressing them, this would seem to render the reason for doing this moot.

Now consider the waterboarding. My understanding (not having participated in either role) is that this can be continued for quite some time with the brain gibbering that the person is drowning. Further, you can talk to the person receiving this treatment, so as to apply psychological pressure at the same time. At the same time, my understanding is that it would be very hard to accidentaly drown someone doing this. Contrast this to the other method where accidental drowning is possible.

The only difference between these two methods is that the first won't put water in the lungs, but may cause death by accident. The second may put water in the lungs, but is not likely to cause death by accident. As a third example, imagine putting a plastic sheet over the persons head to deprive them of oxygen, same issue. So are you sure that water getting in the lungs in non-lethal amounts is the right dividing line.

I agree that evidence obtained directly from torture should not be allowable in court. But I would go a step further. The "rigorous questioning" should ony be allowed in national security situations. Every event should be recorded and shown to the congressional intelligence oversight committee (sans staff). Congress critters can never reveal the names, information obtained, etc. If they think the administration has gone to far, they can resign their seat, not be elgible to run in the next election cycle and then speak out (though still not reveal information that could harm national security). This would prevent people taking political cheap shots. If it is serious enough to complain about, then show that you are willing to make a personal sacrifice to bring the point out.

Your idea of a review runs the danger of prejudiced views tainting the review. As an example, imagine each death penalty being reviewed by a panel of anti-death penalty people. Or alternatively, the death penaltys being reviewed by a "kill them all and let God sort them out" type. Neither is going to get you a truly effective review.

I agree that we should have clear regulations on this. The one question is that by clearly stating how far you are willing to go, you hand the enemy a trainng manual outline for what they need to train the agents to resist. I would suggest that you set up the regulation and present them before the congressional intelligence committees. Again, they can vote up or down as a committee on each item. After the votes, they can resign and complain about specific methods publicly or it is allowed.

Putting a gun to someone's head would not cause pain or injury -- as long as it isn't loaded and no one pulls the trigger -- but it's still a form of torture to me.

I don't see how you can define a gun to the head as torture, but involuntary deprivation of air is not. Assume it's your best friend promising that you won't be killed, and you believe him 100%. Which would you rather he do... hold a gun to your head, or forcefully hold your head under water past the point when your body requires air?

Now, as far as waterboarding goes, I tend to lean towards, "not torture" in that it doesn't significantly harm the body (as I understand it anyway), but freaks you out instead (HUGE psychological response). In that case, it's an interrogation technique.

For other forms of "torture", as in the ones that cause/caused all the hubbub in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, I hold an even lower opinion of the techniques.

I have a hard time believing some of the things done in those facilities consitute "torture" when I was subjected to many of the same techniques in my own training for the US military. Sleep deprivation? Check. Stress positions? Check. Doing things that are degrading and/or emotionally taxing? Check.

And I'm no worse for it.

So if we use similar techniques to toughen up our own troops and sailors WILLINGLY, it hardly rises to the level for being deemed "torture".

My $0.02 anyway.

Even Reagan supported a ban on torture AND cruel, degrading or inhuman practices. Waterboarding is clearly cruel if not torture.

Interesting point, Barney. I disagree with Reagan, not for the first time, because that sets the bar far too high, and enshrouded in vagueness, for reasonable expectations of interrogation and intelligence gathering.

Assume it's your best friend promising that you won't be killed, and you believe him 100%. Which would you rather he do... hold a gun to your head, or forcefully hold your head under water past the point when your body requires air?

Also a very good statement, Brian. In my case, I'll take the "holding head under water." Any gun is considered loaded, and only pointed at something you want shot, because even with an expertly maintained and held weapon there is always a chance of an accidental firing. The potential for drowning is much lower risk, and CPR is much easier to perform than gathering and replacing scattered brain matter and skull fragments.

Brian,

Waterboarding is not being dunked. It is completely sealing off a persons access to air by closing off their nose and throat. It's not "holding your breath." You can't prepare for it by taking a deep breath.

Waterboarding is not being dunked. It is completely sealing off a persons access to air by closing off their nose and throat.

Most (~100%) versions of the technique do not close off a persons nose and throat, they immerse them in water.

It is certainly unpleasant to undergo, panic-inducing, and, most of all, disorienting. But none of those conditions make it a form of torture.

Brian,
Waterboarding is not being dunked. It is completely sealing off a persons access to air by closing off their nose and throat. It's not "holding your breath." You can't prepare for it by taking a deep breath.

Uh, yeah. I didn't say it was being dunked, nor that it was "holding your breath". I said "forcefully hold your head under water past the point when your body requires air". Did you mean your response to be directed at someone else, or did you just not bother to read my comment?

Most (~100%) versions of the technique do not close off a persons nose and throat, they immerse them in water.

And being immersed in water doesn't close off your nose and throat from a source of air?

It is certainly unpleasant to undergo, panic-inducing, and, most of all, disorienting.

More or less so than having a gun held to your head, which Jay believes is a form of torture?

It should probably be said that coercive interrogation (even the sorts that everyone agrees on aren't torture) shouldn't be used to obtain confessions. I realize that this is what was alluded to by saying the information shouldn't be admissible to court, but, sans confessions, I don't see why any information obtained legally shouldn't be information relevant to a court trial.

We occasionally hear about criminal trials where improper confessions, because the questions ranged to cases the person hadn't been arrested for or mirandized for, weren't admissible even when the confession was freely given and the victim found buried where the guy said he buried her. I think that's silly, too.

But in the case of national security and interrogating terrorists (who really *don't* have the same legal status as uniformed combatants) and eventually having some sort of trial for the terrorist... why not admit information given during interrogations? Not as confessions but as "this is how we knew to go here and this is what we found"?

In a sense that would even lend a certain amount of openness to the process, an element that "no admittance" I feel would constrict. I'm concerned that keeping the results of interrogation out of the legal process would put interrogation in a dark and secret place and that this would be bad.

Just no confessions. People can be made to confess to *anything*. They can't be made to know information that they didn't know.

Allow me to agree with Steve Sturm. Let us err on the side of America NOT being terrorized instead of erring on the side of terrorists and allowing them to terrorize America through death and mayhem.

If waterboarding works (however one describes it), I say go for it. Yeah, I know, Sen McCain and Lindsay Graham say it's torture so it must be bad.

Not in this veteran's view. I was not a POW, but I was a bit more than a judge advocate.

Fine, call it torture. However, it produces results and does not kill or cause permanent physical injury, so it should be ok to use on terrorists. Is there a good reason to not use it on terrorists?

More or less so than having a gun held to your head, which Jay believes is a form of torture?

Less so, Brian. Much less so, in fact.

And being immersed in water doesn't close off your nose and throat from a source of air?

Strictly speaking, at no point are your nose and throat closed during waterboarding. They are removed from a source of air, which is what you were trying to state, but your statements are not 100% accurate. People holding their breath do tend to close their mouths, but that is not what you stated.

And yes, it's nit-picking, but it gave me a good starting point to rebut your initial statement.

To torture or to not torture. It all comes now to this--if it means protecting the life of my kids, guess which way I go. And it will not be with milk and cookies. To hell with what some "foreignor" thinks.

Re: McCain's torture. He claims absolute moral authority because of his experience. But, unless I'm mistaken, he wasn't tortured because he had secrets to share, but rather as an intimidation tactic and because it was fun (to his captors). I'm not advocating doing what was done to him, but the sadistic treatment he was given doesn't give him credibility to speak on all things related to prisoners any more than Scott Beauchamp's experiences give him the moral authority on how one should deal with burn victims in a war zone.

In fact, his experience keeps him from looking at this as one should, and has led to him taking some rather stupid and harmful positions, just as his experience as being one of the Keating Five has led him to do some rather stupid things in campaign finance...

Waterboarding is not immersing a person in water.

It's not a breath holding game.

It is sealing off a person's airway with a wet cloth pressing down into their throat while their nose is sealed off from air. The absolute panic of facing death involuntarily ensues.

A few thoughts on:

1. "the deliberate infliction of serious bodily injury or extreme pain"

I would add "for the sole purpose of permanent disfigurement and degradation." Classic torture scenarios are generally played out purely for sadistic purposes. The victim is tortured in such a way as to ensure that he is permanently physically and psychologically degraded to a state of being less than human, and to ensure that all who see him afterward instantly recognize the extent of this degradation. Blindness, severe burns, mutilation, and amputation work well to achieve this gruesome goal.

2. Voluntary versus involuntary participation

In my opinion, the terrorists held at Gitmo are there "voluntarily"; after all, they willingly joined a terrorist organization, willingly planned and carried out acts of terror against civilians, and willingly took up arms against the United States military. As far as we know, no one in Gitmo is simply an innocent bystander who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. (I am not saying that the process is 100% mistake-proof, just that we try very hard not to make those mistakes, even at the risk of our own personnel.)

I find it amusing that these "holy warriors" who have pledged their very lives in the service of Allah seem to be such wimps, particularly considering the shockingly cruel punishments and tortures that they themselves inflict on their own prisoners.

3. Safety of the prisoners

I would say that the prisoners in Gitmo are probably safer than most of our domestic prison inmates. Really, has there ever been a group of prisoners with more watchdogs and advocates monitoring even the most minute details of their treatment than the Gitmo detainees?

4. Trustworthiness of information

Jay Tea is correct in suggesting that information gained through coercive or enhanced interrogation techniques should never be entered directly as evidence in civilian or military criminal proceedings. We're smart enough to know when they are bluffing and when they are not. When no useful information is recovered, enhanced interrogation should cease.

We should also remember that al-Qaeda trains its members to scream "torture! torture!" and to magnify the smallest infractions into major scandals (e.g. the "Koran flushing" episode) while they are being held in detention. A-Q knows that such claims will immediately turn terrorists into victims and uniformed military into villains. It is an obvious PR stunt, but this fact seems lost on the Gitmo apologists.

Barney, there's one little detail to those conventions you mentioned:

Further, both the ICCPR and the UNCAT prohibit cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (CID). Here, however, there is an important qualification. In consenting to both treaties, the Senate added a caveat: CID was to be understood in the U.S. as the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited under the aforementioned Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. That is, CID would be controlled by governing American constitutional law -- not what activist NGOs, international law professors, and foreign regimes decided terms like "degrading treatment" might mean.

Source

In other words, Barney, the Constitution is the test of "torture," not the treaties. And as Mr. McCarthy outlined in the linked article, the courts have had some rather... um... "liberal" interpretations of just what that entails.

Sorry to blindside you with this article; I read it in formulating my piece, but didn't actually link to it or cite it. It's slightly unfair to use it now, but I honestly didn't think it would become so relevant.

J.

"...there should be some sort of investigation by a disinterested party or body after any 'rigorous interrogation' case." Sounds nice in theory, but any such review panel will undoubtedly become political, and pacifists will seek to place people on it who believe any discomfort at all constitutes "torture". (Maybe the judge who decided making convicted criminals sleep on mattresses placed on the floor was unconstitutional would be a good candidate.) The Left has had decades of practice in corrupting such "independent" power structures.

Imagine having your throat and nose completely sealed off at the same instant you breathe out.

It is sealing off a person's airway with a wet cloth pressing down into their throat while their nose is sealed off from air. The absolute panic of facing death involuntarily ensues.

First off, as the cloth technique is only one of several, you are still somewhat inaccurate in your statements. Second, even your description of that technique is inaccurate, as the cloth is placed over the face, covering the mouth and nose, not pressed "into the throat."

"Absolute panic at facing death" would describe a conscious judgement, not an involuntary reflex.

Imagine having your throat and nose completely sealed off at the same instant you breathe out.

Interesting. I'm imagining it done to a terrorist cell leader for information on his contact network and operations. He's likely to give up useful information, and he remains alive and well in a secure facility.

No down side, really.

The first item that needs to be addressed is what is the precise method of 'waterboarding' that we are talking about. I have read of several descriptions here in the responses. If you look at Jay's earlier article, it talks about a couple of DU'ers who tried it multiple times. If it is so horrible, once would have been enough. But, perhaps the 'method' they used isn't even close do what we are talking about here. So a balnket definition that 'waterboarding is torture' may not apply.

Second, what is 'degrading' or 'cruel' to one person, may not be to another. Calling somebody a 'queer', or even a "momma's boy', may hurt somebody's feeling and be considered 'degrading' to them, but to another it isn't. Vague terms make for horrible rules.

When you have a set of ambiguous parameters, the range of reactions can be vaired based upon how one wants to interpret those parameters.

I'm all for any form of 'encouragement' offered to jihadists that will help keep our troops, and our homeland safe.

If cutting off the supply of air is torture, than shouldnt all abortion clinics, and George Tiller's torture chamber, be shut down way before Gitmo?

It is interesting that a few people here have commented that it would be okay to torture a few terrorists that didn't know any vital information to get at the one who does. What about a few innocent people to get at the one terrorist? There have been a number of cases of our government using extraordinary rendition on the wrong people. And these people end up in a place where the United States lets other people do the torturing for us. I think it is probably the same with many torture advocates that as long as someone else is doing the torture it is okay by them.

I am continually surprised at the people who once thought government agencies were evil incarnate and now that we have a bigger enemy they are showered with trust and good will.

I am continually surprised at the people who once thought government agencies were evil incarnate and now that we have a bigger enemy they are showered with trust and good will.

As you struggle for air, attempting to breathe in, the cloth presses down on your throat.

You cannot tell yourself, or teach yourself, to go without air . . . nor can you tell yourself to be calm and just wait a minute or two because you trust that your captors will lift the cloth and you'll get air . . .

A person being deprived of air will say anything to make it stop, or pass out, or have a psychological break with reality, or die.

Interesting discussion. It is enlightening that we are now defining torture down and seriously discussing what is the least amount/style of torture that is now acceptable in a civilized society.

I have looked at the water boarding issue and decided for myself that it is torture and should not be used. Men of principle have to draw lines and make stands, whether popular or not, whether easy or not. Mine is torture. It is never acceptable, whatever the reason, means or desired end goal. It should never be acceptable for a civilized society.

One of the problems with waterboarding is the assumption that it would be conducted by trained individuals in sterile controlled envrionments, only for eliciting information. Is it acceptable if done by amatueurs in field conditions using dirty/polluted water which could introduce disease into the persons lungs? If torture is condoned for "informational" purposes it would soon be used for punishment, keeping a prisoner(s) in line, general entertainment etc. We have plenty of former POW in the U.S., american and foreign and refugees from cruel regimes. How about we poll them?

If water boarding is not torture and so easy on the body/mind, do we have any volunteers to particpate as the water boardee? Care to be waterboarded, repeatedely until you answer questions to the satisfaction of the facilitator? Not until you think you answered enough, but until someone else that doesn't like you has decided. Care to have it recorded for you-tube?

Volunteers?