(Author’s Note: I am invoking the “special rules” portion of our comments policy for this posting. Comments must be polite, composed, and non-hysterical. This is for a serious discussion on the matter of waterboarding specifically and the nature of torture in general. Empty invective, gibbering tirades, and insulting comments will be unpublished at the earliest opportunity. Repeated offenses may result in temporary or permanent banning.)
This article about the practice of waterboarding has generated a lot of discussion about the practice, as well as just what defines “torture” and how it should be regulated or banned by our government.
My first reaction was surprise. I’d never had any real problems with waterboarding, as I understood it worked by simulating drowning. To my mind, “torture” has to involve an element of severe pain or bodily injury — and as I understood it, the experience of waterboarding tricked the subconscious into thinking one was drowning — but NOT ACTUALLY DROWNING. According to the article, though, it actually involves a partial drowning — water in the lungs and all that.
If that is the case, then I have to admit I was wrong. I’m not so certain, though, because this guy — an old blog-buddy — has some rather unpleasant things to say about the author’s credibility. I put a bit of trust in Boyd’s word, so I have my doubts about Mr. Nance’s description.
The details of that particular practice, however, are a good launching point for a serious discussion, one we ought to be holding: just what defines torture, and what sorts of controls ought to be placed on their use?
I’ve had a few ideas about torture that have been bouncing around in my head. First up, we ought to find a working definition of torture. The elements I’ve always considered part of the definition is the deliberate infliction of injury or extreme pain. In the cited definition of waterboarding, water is deliberately introduced into the lungs — and to me, that’s injury.
I’ll also toss in “reasonable fear of same.” 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.
On the other hand, I have few problems with fear and humiliation. That was the crux of waterboarding, as I understood it — it was spelled out beforehand “you will not die from this,” and repeated as necessary (with the subject not dying as the result). There was no injury to anything beyond the subject’s composure.
I’ve also put a great deal of thought into how to put legal restrictions on these techniques, to put some checks and balances that would act to restrain those licensed by the government to extract information from uncooperative subjects. And I have a couple of ideas that might curb abuses:
First, no information obtained through — well, let’s call it “rigorous interrogation” — can be used directly in any criminal trial. Period. It might be used to develop other evidence, that which can be obtained under more traditional means, but since it’s debatable just how reliable information obtained this way is, let’s just keep it out of court entirely. And if it can’t be verified by other means, then it wasn’t worth that much anyway. This ought to cut back on the “tortured confessions” pretty thoroughly.
Second, there should be some sort of investigation by a disinterested party or body after any “rigorous interrogation” case. The people who decided that “rigorous interrogation” was merited, and those who carried it out, must go before some panel that will review the facts and the decisions — and they WILL have the authority to sanction (or refer to legal authorities) cases where they decide that the decision or conduct was wrong. This will demand that those who are responsible for actually carrying out the “rigorous interrogation” policy will be held accountable for their actions every single time.
This might seem cumbersome, but one of the arguments on behalf of “rigorous interrogation” is that it is so rarely needed. Therefore, there shouldn’t be too much effort to add in a mandatory after-the-fact review for each instance.
Finally, we need to come up with some solid rules on just what constitutes “torture.” This usually provokes the hysteria I warned about in the introduction. “Torture is obscene, and even trying to come up with a precise definition is obscene, and you’re psychotic for wanting to parse the definition!” is a fairly decent summation of the sort of thing I’ve heard before, and don’t really think I need to hear again.
The problem is that we are a nation of laws, of details, of minutiae. Witness the whole unpleasant issue of abortion. We’ve decided that it’s legal based solely on the amount of time that passes from conception, and a difference of a single day can move the action from legal to questionable to illegal. We need to spell out just what is and what is not torture beforehand, or we end up with a situation like so many others — where the rules are hacked out by a series of confusing and often contradictory decisions, and the people we entrust with the responsibility of “rigorous interrogation” end up having to deal with “go ahead and do what you want, and we’ll decide after the fact whether or not it was legal — and punish you if it wasn’t.” And that is just not fair.
So, where do we draw the line? Where do we set the limits? What overarching principles and rules do we set?
Naturally, I think my own ideas are a good starting point — “the deliberate infliction of serious bodily injury or extreme pain.” Humiliation, fear, uncertainty, anxiety — those are all fair game. Breaking limbs, electrical shocks, or threatening to toss someone out of a helicopter from a couple thousand feet in the air — those are way, way out of bounds.
But between those two extremes are a world of gray. We need to shine a bit of light on the matter, to help find the line between the black and the white.
JT, I thank you for a thought provoking post. I will say that there are now two kinds of citizens in the world. Pre 9/11 and post 9/11. When you have a people that would gladly die for their belief in the destruction of this country and its’ citizens, what do you do? How do you protect yourself from such an enemy? I think at times all of us have taken their eye off the ball. We need to do whatever possible to prevent our enemies from killing innocent people.
Now we are talking about sensations, hurt, pain, emotional stress, like it is worse then dying a horrific death. Come on. I know 3000 US citizens would trade their place right now to have water boarding done to them for a short period. I know 3000+ families of those lost that would endure water boarding to get them back.
I say to my government, DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO KEEP IT’S CITIZENS SAFE. PERIOD.
All this other stuff is just white noise.
I did not like spanking my son when he was growing up. I did not like punishing him to teach him a lesson. But I knew it was good for him. I didn’t have to like it. Things are just plain necessary.
Some times I think I am in bizarro world when I read the concerns of how we treat terrorists. It is a new day. A new world. We should adjust.
Now I am getting off my soap box. ww
Jay, if you’re such an independent, how come you are so quick to follow the right’s playbook of dishonestly defaming anyone who questions the policies of the current administration?
I love projection, it makes me laugh.
According to the left, if you dispute their arguments, you’re defaming them. But if they call you a nazi? That’s perfectly okay.
Sorry, I meant to hit “clear” instead of “submit” as I don’t really want to get into side issues with mantis so just pretend I didn’t say that. I will ignore any responses as I don’t want this thread to get sidetracked.
I’ll say, use waterboarding, it’s not torture.
Check out these two Democratic Underground types, they keep trying to beat each other’s time.
It doesn’t sound like torture to me. Unpleasant, yes. Torture? No more than hot and cold rooms, nekkidness, fake, menstrual blood or barking dogs.
I’ll agree with Jay’s bit about mock executions, that’s cruel and unusual. But waterboarding? It’s used to train our troops. Tell me when we start pulling fingernails and I’ll scream “Torture” with the rest of you.
Also, these interrogation techniques aren’t used for confessions or anything, they’re for getting actionable intelligence to stop terrorist attacks.
AFAIK, they are much like the “warrantless wiretaps” in that they are used to get information to stop terrorists from killing people and cannot be used to convict.
There was an article by Gabriel Schoenfeld called “Torture Logic” in the Weekly Standard last Friday. In the article he addresses the question whether or not “torture” is ever acceptable in the war against Islamofacism. He was examining the positions of Dimmie candidates, and was clearly annoyed with the moral grandstanding and hypocrisy of their absolutist positions on the matter unless it helped them:
But what is galling is the sanctimony and the moral grandstanding of those who would ban harsh interrogation methods absolutely–except in those instances when they would authorize them themselves.
I’m all for waterboarding Khlaid Sheik Mohammad, short of causing him physical or bodily harm (though that temptation would be great to resist). I even think the same treatment can be done to OBL’s “chauffeur”; he’s close to bin laden and knows how he moves, what locales he likes to frequent, etc. He may be low level, but he likely has valuable info. As for the “shepherd” caught in the field of battle, probably doesn’t have enough info to even warrant harsh interrogation.
What annoys me greatly about these conversations is when someone says “torture never works” and that the tortured only say what the torturer wants to hear. Rubbish. Look, no one here is a professional, well-trained and experienced interrogator, or probably even knows one, so how can they possibly know that? Pardon the pun, but it beats me.
Yes, I’ve read the Times report where psychologists allege that “harsh methods” (undefined) that involved “pressure and pain” don’t work. I agree with Jay Tea’s definition of torture as “the deliberate infliction of injury or extreme pain”. Is waterboarding that? No. Is loud music that? No. Harsh light? No. Breaking someone’s fingers, denying medical treatment, beatings, slappings,etc.? Yup. Without a doubt.
But to morally grandstand and paint these terroists as somehow being today’s version of Steven Biko, and granting them immunity from harsh interrogations, is preposterous and highly un-serious.
I would object to loud music though. Hearing damage is a bad thing in the long run. Loud enough annoying music (Spice Girls, Aqua, Enya, etc…) is fair game).
Jay, at the risk of being a smart ass, we have a legal definition of torture already.
The CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to which the United States and United Kingdom are signatories, defines it thusly:
The key word is “severe”.
Mantis, I realize what I’ve written about Malcolm can read like baseless ad hominem. And to be honest, my statements have nothing to do with the position Malcolm takes regarding waterboarding. I’ve known him for over 20 years, and in that time, I’ve learned to look with a jaundiced eye at anything he says.
Regardless, I completely appreciate your point. Please trust me when I say my reaction has nothing to do with Malcolm’s politics. I’ve just learned over the years that when Malcolm says something is so, even if I agree with it, I need to find another source to substantiate the information.
I don’t want to argue around and around if waterboarding is/isn’t torture, I understand it is something that most people will decide for themselves and won’t be readily disuaded from, myself included.
Final thought. Would it be okay for the government of Mynmar to waterboard foreign journalists (declared illegal and personna non-grata) in order for them find out where Budhist Monks or pro-democracy leaders might be hiding? Remember, Myanmar is a recognized government and they percieve the pro-democracy movement as a legitmate threat?
All too often is see writers claiming that “torture doesn’t work” according to the experts.
So if a procedure works is must not be torture ?
We are interrogating these guys for information we know they have i.e. names of cell members, unit/cell operational methods, contacts, phone numbers, emails, etc. not for them to admit they are a terrorist (we kind of already know that). Anyone under enough duress would admit to being a terrorist (especially since we don’t march you out and shoot/behead or otherwise kill you).
Since we are at war with these guys as opposed to rounding them up for criminal trials methods that would be morally or legally suspect in a criminal investigation have to be on the table.
I think its simple, the Geneva Convention says we are allowed to executed nearly everyone of the Gitmo guys for being an unlawful combatent. I think everyone of them would opt for waterboarding instead.
For those that claim our servicemen captured by AQ will be treated more severly. Are you kidding me ? Mr. Berg and Mr. Perl might beg to differ.
One of the countries we are occupying, Iraq, is exporting terrorism to Turkey right now.
This brings up a few questions.
Just about everyone I’ve ever heard on BOTH sides of this discussion gets it wrong. Not because they are idiots (in most cases, at least) but because they have no understanding of interrogation.
Any ‘confession’ or information obtained from someone through the infliction of pain or threat of injury/death is highly suspect and useless. OF COURSE most people will tell you what they think you want to hear, true or not, to save themselves pain or worse. And there are those, dedicated and conditioned, who CAN hold out or provide false but believable information. Our own military trains certain of its members in how to do this.
Interrogators know this. The purpose of ‘harsh interrogation’ is not to get them to say what you want to hear in order to make it stop. The purpose is DISORIENTATION. Through stress, fatigue and confusion a person’s will and ability to resist divulging information is compromised. THAT is the purpose of ALL the various techniques. Not to get someone so scared they tell you what you want to know but to get them disoriented to the point that they do so even though they try to avoid it.
? Remember, Myanmar is a recognized government and they percieve the pro-democracy movement as a legitmate threat?
Sorry, I don’t do moral equivalence. You can’t compare dictatorships to free nations.
But to answer your question, yes, I think it would be perfectly okay for Myanmar to waterboard journalists as oppposed to what they usually do to dissidents.
As a matter of fact, I would prefer they waterboarded the monks to what they did, slaughter them like chickens and use the real kind of torture, the kind that leaves the walls splattered with blood.
Myanmar does the real kind of torture, just like China, Iran, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan and all the other totatilarian states out there. If you don’t believe they torture, go there and spout off against their gov’t.
Count your fingers, toes and limbs before you go so you’ll know how many you’ve lost.
Paul,
Thanks for emphasing severe pain or suffering in the definition. That would pretty much put the discussion of waterboarding to rest since from everything I’ve read about it the odds of severe physical pain and suffering etc is small.
what about the sever mental pain and suffering part? Could triggering a persons psyiological reaction to almost drowning be considered severe mental pain and suffering? Even if they know you won’t drown them, they’re body should react like it is being drowned.
Reading through Mr. Nance’s article, I found the final piece in the puzzle as to why I find that Waterboarding isn’t torture.
Mr. Nance states in the 2nd paragraph of point 2, that “Waterboarding… in the American model, occurs under the watch of a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a trained strap-in/strap-out team.”
I ask a simple question? If the health and wellbeing of the detainee being interrogated via waterboarding were NOT paramount… why do they have a doctor, psychiatrist, and team to strap them off (quickly I would imagine) on hand? Of all the people he lists, there’s only 1 person there asking the questions and conducting the “torture”.
I submit that the waterboarding perpetrated by the North Vietnamese to Adm. Stockdale, or Sen. John McCain is NOT the waterboarding we conduct. We use it to gain information and show the utmost care for the health of the subject. The North Vietnamese (and others)? Not so much.
Veeshir,
You are right, I should of not used a moral equivalency argument. I would agree that waterboarding would be a significant improvement over the normal forms of torture used by many countries.
I was trying to illustrate that sometimes methods that are acceptable/not acceptable are a matter of perspective.
Interesting discussion. I have not commented on here for awhile but still read. I have a hard time with the concept of torturing. As was said earlier most of us have a predetermined point of view so we probably won’t dissuade anyone’s beliefs but I view the question as where do we draw the line. Someone said if waterboarding saves one US soldier then it’s ok. Does that put all items on the table? If we are a nation of laws and draw the torture line further and further toward true cruelty then we are no better than governments who condone this activity. If we have sent people to be interrogated by governments that do this does that wash our hands of being animals? The enemy combatants in Gitmo by the way are not convicted so they are not necessarily there by choice.
Does anybody have a link to a reasonably formal or widely accepted definition of waterboarding, and how it should be done in order not harm the subject?
Is the description in Nance’s article accurate?
Oh, hogswallop patrick.
They’re not “enemy combatants.” They’re “unlawful combatants” and should be thankful the US isn’t following through with what they’re legally able to do and execute them.
I was trying to illustrate that sometimes methods that are acceptable/not acceptable are a matter of perspective.
ExSubNuke exploded that theory as well, they don’t do the same things in the same way. Just because I think Saddam’s election was a farce and the vote was a waste of time doesn’t mean I think you shouldn’t vote in America as it’s a waste of time.
Totatitarian societies don’t view the individual as being important (unless you’re the ruler), free nations do.
If it does not intentionally cause permanent injury, as far as I am concerned, it is fair game.
As to the oft quoted definition of torture carried in the UN Treaty, the terrorists are not covered in that definition, as they do not fall into the definition covering armed, lawful combatants.
A jihadist is found in a US city, along with pics of your home, your office, your kids, their school, etc. Also found are some guns, multiple IDs and passports for him, in different names, maps to get up into Canada, a bunch of cash, etc.
Do you ask him liberally, err, nicely, or, do you do what needs to be done to figure out what his intentions are.
Physiological point:
Hypercapnea, not hypoxemia, likely the panic driving stimulus to the individual.
So nix all the arguments about depriving oxygen.
Truly putting water into lungs would cause physical damage unless it was isotonic saline.
“Does anybody have a link to a reasonably formal or widely accepted definition of waterboarding, and how it should be done in order not harm the subject?”
His description (water entering the lungs) is the first time I have heard of that happening. A Fox reporter actually was waterboarded on camera and NO water entered his mouth, let alone his lungs. When our spec ops guys go through the procedure no water enters the lungs. I think that reporter embellished the story to make it sound worse than it is.
“A Fox reporter actually was waterboarded on camera”
If it was voluntary it wasn’t waterboarding.
“if it was voluntary it wasn’t waterboarding.”
Explain please. The procedure is straightforward and apparently not too difficult (see the DU dunderheads). The procedure tricks the brain into thinking you will drown, and whether voluntary or not the result is the same.
It’s treated as being the same if differing methods and health support functions are used.
Yet if the exact same methods (and results) are used (and obtained), if it’s administered to a volunteer… it’s different.
How odd.
Whether it is physical or mental it is torture.
Every time you see an expert on TV discussing interrogation tactics they all end-up saying the same thing that torture leads to unreliable intelligence.
Dems? Unreliable intelligence?
Hmmmm,
Every time you see an expert on TV discussing interrogation tactics they all end-up saying the same thing that torture leads to unreliable intelligence.
“They” who, Barney? Which “experts”? Names, sources, background. Provide them.
I don’t have an issue whatsoever with anything deemed coercive or harshly interrogated someone provided that there is sufficient evidence that the individual knows information or that the person has an absolute connection to a terrorist organization.
I agree with what someone said up above about motive defines what is and isn’t torture. Or at least what should and shouldn’t be allowed. The same act done for different reasons is obviously completely different. Using extreme methods on a person against their will to extract information is not wrong. Possibly bringing harm to one person that has connections to dangerous organizations in order to save many other innocent lives is nothing to be ashamed of doing. Bringing harm to someone for purely personal and sadistic reasons is another story entirely.
What is quite simply amazing to me is that this is even a debate here. I highly doubt al-qaeda is debating whether the latest beheading was taking it a little too far, or maybe that next car bombing with women and children around was immoral.
People too readily grant our enemies a moral equivalence where none exists.
Not to mention i wouldn’t want our enemies to know how harsh or how soft we go on our prisoners. It gives them a chance to prepare mentally, as well as if the measures aren’t all that extreme, they know they can endure it and they won’t be harmed. These people we are dealing with need to be severely frightened into giving up information and when the imagination is running wild at what might happen next, that could be the best tactic at our disposal.
Maybe the right answer to whether waterboarding is/is not torture is to compare it to other common compliance techniques widely used in our society.
If it is about the same or less dangerous, debilitating, painful and mentally stressful than being hit with a taser or sprayed full on with high quality pepper spray, than it might not qualify as torture.
“……..experts on TV…………. torture leads to unreliable intelligence.”
Yeah, except for the data we got from KSM and who knows who-else that have in fact proved to be vital in our war with these fanatics. Those “experts” tend to be State Dept. cronies who are against this administration and the war itself.
What is quite simply amazing to me is that this is even a debate here. I highly doubt al-qaeda is debating whether the latest beheading was taking it a little too far, or maybe that next car bombing with women and children around was immoral.
————————————-
In fact, it doesn’t seem to bother liberal left at all. They were completely silent even when AlQ cooked children to intimidate the parents. That ‘s how much these folks care about torture.
Oh, and KSM dropped the dime on his entire network specifically because of waterboarding. So that proves false the “doesn’t work” argument. And he is no worse for the wear from the procedure.
“Yeah, except for the data we got from KSM and who knows who-else that have in fact proved to be vital in our war with these fanatics.” ken
Ken that is not true or least not supported by know reports. Khalid has confessed to dozens of AQ operations real or imagined. I think he confessed to killing Anna Nicole. His confessions could be used against the prosecution or investigation of the real ring leaders if he is lying.
Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 — long before Abu Ghraib — to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply “not a good way to get information.” In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no “stress methods” at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the “batting average” might be lower: “perhaps six out of ten.” And if you beat up the remaining four? “They’ll just tell you anything to get you to stop.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html
So what, Barney? You don’t seem to understand that the claim of the unreliability of the information gleaned from pressure interrogation is a red herring argument. Sorting through information to discover what is useful and what is not is a common intelligence function.
And your claims about KSM are just fevered inventions on your part.
You are just continuing to embarrass yourself Barney.
From the article below:
“A current CIA official says that KSM actually told interrogators the only reason he confessed was because of the water-boarding.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/how-the-cia-bro.html
If it was voluntary it wasn’t waterboarding.
But you claimed earlier the “absolute panic of facing death” was an involuntary result. How can it be an involuntary reflex, yet a volunteer does not experience this?
I agree with what someone said up above about motive defines what is and isn’t torture. Or at least what should and shouldn’t be allowed. The same act done for different reasons is obviously completely different.
Well, the Bush Justice Department disagrees with you. At least on paper.
“A current CIA official says that KSM actually told interrogators the only reason he confessed was because of the water-boarding.”
————————————-
And that ‘s why liberals are trying to make it “torture” so that we can talk nicely to terrorists again. If we cannot glean any more useful information, we can always blame Bush.
Would this discussion have even taken place 6 years ago? 10 years ago? 15 years ago?
Good Grief people, we are the United States of America. Any 3rd rate country can and maybe does conduct this in the name of “national security.”
Go see the movie “Rendition”
or for real life…
The French in 1957..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXA8ob5jlRc
We all support this..until we all demand it ends..
Our enemies in WW II used it
http://lawofwar.org/what's_new.htm
How long..has this been going on
How long will will pretend it is needed
for “national security?”
Editor’s note: This is precisely the sort of thing I was expecting when I posted the “special rules.” Nogo’s whole statement boils down to “(e)mpty invective, gibbering tirades, and insulting comments.” Note that nogo’s “evidence” is a piece of fiction and similar — similar — techniques. In both cases the subjects aspirated water; in waterboarding (as I’ve heard it defined by most people), no water is inhaled. The differences are significant; a good comparison might be a guy who gropes a grown woman on the subway with a child rapist.
That it took over six hours and nearly 100 comments for anyone to trigger the rules (Tom, LoveAmericaImmigrant, if you wonder where your comments went, they ended up in the bit-bucket) was a very pleasant surprise. My thanks, folks, for a thoughtful and intelligent discussion.)
J.
So, I’ve yet to read or hear fromt anti-torture crowd what are acceptable harsh interrogation methods that can be implemented in order to coerce information from a stubborn subject. Would any of you care to elaborate and what methods might be acceptable, or are you just going to keep spouting your absolutist and untenable rhetoric?
Nogo — try to be a little more concise there. A question for ya – in your world, how would you recommend we deal with people who want nothing more than our destruction?
“If it was voluntary it wasn’t waterboarding.”
I think Franco is on to something! If it’s voluntary, it isn’t torture!
Therefore, we ask the detainees, “Would you rather be waterboarded or shot?“
When they choose waterboarding– no problem! It’s voluntary!
An interesting thread….and good choice of topic Jay.
At the end of the day, I’m with WW and ExSubNuke on this. Historical and legal precedent is important, but we live in a post 9/11 world.
FDR ate civil liberties for breakfast every day in WWII…we are in the same type of emergency today.
Silly debate. The enemy refuses to sign or abide by the Geneva Convention. Therefore, neither should we. They haven’t earned honorable treatment. We should return what they do 100-fold until they’re dead or broken and willing to do whatever we tell them to do. Until Americans start acting like this is a war to the knife, this war will go on forever. Or until the left surrenders us
There is great truth in the old saying that “ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR”. To define war as other than the attempt by one group to totally destroy another is a symptom of the folly of the age. Our enemies have no such caveats in their procedure manuals and to take the “high road” when your sworn and numerous and well funded and savvy enemy does not is suicidal not civilized! the ‘ol Perfessor
Hello. Did anyone read Mike’s comment way above?
Its all about disorganizing, confusing and disorienting the individual to break down their normal defense mechanisms.
It doesn’t make someone hypoxic or deprive them of oxygen.
It doesn’t put water in the lungs.
It works, too.
Now perhaps the naysayers would prefer a TV show “Mission Impossible” scenario to fool and disorient our enemies into giving away their secrets. THAT would be a fantasy that doesn’t come true.
I agree with the sentiment that this is a silly debate. If it involves real torture like pulling finger nails, driving nails into fingers, chopping up fingers, burning, etc…, then we can get worked up about it. Waterboarding? Let the MediaMatters liberals worry about that.