On Waterboarding as Torture archived

>As a former Master Instructor and Chief of Training at the US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, California I know the waterboard personally and intimately. SERE staff were required undergo the waterboard at its fullest. I was no exception. I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people. It has been reported that both the Army and Navy SERE school’s interrogation manuals were used to form the interrogation techniques used by the US army and the CIA for its terror suspects. What was not mentioned in most articles was that SERE was designed to show how an evil totalitarian, enemy would use torture at the slightest whim. If this is the case, then waterboarding is unquestionably being used as torture technique.

[full item here](http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/)

[Torture? You make the call.](http://current.com/pods/controversy/PD04399)

Is "torture" indiscriminately applied?
Maybe the SERE retiree should stick to facts, for his conclusion can not be supported.
Evil, totalitarian, slightest whim - all opinion.
Hey, isn't that the USA, tom?

is this what we have become?

Joel:

What about his conclusions are not supported or valid? Please be specific.

1. He concludes that waterboarding is torture no matter when or how used. He cites the fact that it is controlled drowning by filling the lungs with water and then stopping (hopefully) short of death.

2. He concludes that the number of committed leaders of Islamic terrorism number about 2,000 and that the proper way to deal with them is through our criminal justice system, imperfect as it may be.

3. He concludes that torturing by the US lowers the bar for what will be seen as acceptable to US prisoners.

4. He concludes that by engaging in torture, the US undermines our own basic principles and, in effect, become what we are fighting against.


Mark

Cute use of the word "retiree," as though something about this centuries-old technique has changed in the last couple of years so that it's not the Spanish Inquisition's method anymore.

Your first line is ambiguous -- do you mean the word, or torture itself, is applied indiscriminately.

But if his conclusion that pouring pints of water into a person's lungs so that he starts to drown is in fact torture is insupportable, what pray tell *is* torture?

You know, an honest person can believe that waterboarding is necessary, even a necessary evil. But why do they try and tell us it's not torture? If you think it's necessary to torture someone to prevent the next 9/11 just say so, but please stop the weasel language.

No matter what smart alecky thing you can say about those of us who oppose torture, torture is indefensible. And you don't even try to defend it, because you can't. You're just attacking those who disagree with you, which -- HELLO! -- is not the same thing!

Dems control Congress now. They can pass a law that outlaws waterboarding. They never will because they are afraid of stripping the U.S. of an effective technique against Al Qaida, then having to justify it.

I'll paraphrase Cheney: If it comes down to "dunking a terrorist in water" or risking American lives , it a no brainer.

That is not an issue the Dems want to debate in 2008.

Posted By: vandalayI'll paraphrase Cheney: If it comes down to "dunking a terrorist in water" or risking American lives , it a no brainer.

That is not an issue the Dems want to debate in 2008.

That's the false choice offered by Cheney, et al.

"Hey, we're torturing people. Isn't that great!!!!"

It's a substitute for actually doing something constructive, to protect us.

The Democrats may well chicken out on this, but I trust them more at this point to provide some real security for the U.S., and not the phony kind provided by the current administration.

Well, as you well know, Vandalay, the Dems don't have the votes to do much of anything. I'm sure you're aware of how Congress works.

In any case, at least Mukasey is going to be denied being Attorney General because he is nothing more than a filthy shill for the Bush administration and their wicked intent to drag down America.

actually there already is a law against it. Its the Geneva convention and we are a signee.

And it's a waste of perfectly good water as well.

Congress can clear all this up by passing legislation that says that waterboarding is torture. They have passed other bills that they knew Bush would veto, why not this?

because waterboarding is torture, and no law needs to be passed to make it law. The asswipes in the administration should already know this. Not acknowledging it at the presidential level show what a depraved and disingenuous administration this really is.

Trying to pass of onto congress some useless legistlation in order to show that Bush is somehow not responsible for the torture of people because it wasnt 'illegal' is a smokescreen for their own awful performance.

If only things were as simple as Cheney would like us to believe. First of all not everyone getting tortured is a terrorist, and torturing innocent people does immeasurable damage to our cause. Second of all torture isn't an effective means of getting reliable information. People will just tell the interrogator anything that will make them stop.

From Hoops above, a good point:

"Trying to pass of onto congress some useless legistlation in order to show that Bush is somehow not responsible for the torture of people because it wasnt 'illegal' is a smokescreen for their own awful performance."

Harry S. Truman: "The buck stops here."

George W. (Chimp) Bush's version: "The buck stops anywhere but here."

Sorry guys, from the limited amount of info that is available, waterboarding has been an effective tool. Dems and some Reps in Congress will posture against it, but in the end they don't want to be seen as soft on national security.

Posted By: vandalayCongress can clear all this up by passing legislation that says that waterboarding is torture. They have passed other bills that they knew Bush would veto, why not this?

The obvious answer is that they can't pass legislation to outlaw any and all possible practices that would be torture. Another very possible reason would be that such a law might be interpreted by our crack legal minds at the DOJ as carte blanche to do anything that isn't specifically mentioned in the legislation. They'll claim it gives a free pass to anything else they can come up with. Hypothermia? Hey, not torture! Chained naked to a wall by your wrists for two days? No problem. It's not waterboarding, so it can't be torture!

Did one ever stop to think that "the limited amount of info that is available" about waterboarding could be merely biased, managed information, contrived and parcelled out to try to mitigate protests against waterboarding?

Who issued the limited information? How dependable is the source? Why would it fly in the face of the experience of intelligence and military officials and officers from a number of countries who question its usefulness and its power to produce real results and true, actionable information?

Posted By: vandalaySorry guys, from the limited amount of info that is available, waterboarding has been an effective tool. Dems and some Reps in Congress will posture against it, but in the end they don't want to be seen as soft on national security.

Pardon my French, but that's merde de taureau. The only "limited amount of info" is some Administration shill saying, "Trust us, it's been useful."

The Administration has long since lost the ability to use "Trust us" as a valid argument.

It's a political loser for Dems. They will only grandstand about it, but not seek to outlaw it.

Posted By: vandalayIt's a political loser for Dems. They will only grandstand about it, but not seek to outlaw it.

In other words, "It doesn't matter if it's torture, it doesn't matter if it doesn't work, and it doesn't matter if it's part of a strategy which makes us less safe - the Republicans should use this issue as a way to win elections, no matter what."

Or, as Rudy says, "GO TORTURE!!!"

Or, as Mitt says, "DOUBLE GITMO!!!"

Makes ya proud, doesn't it?

its a false argument.

Torture is against the law. The attorney general nominee has waffled about whether it is torture or not and for that he wont be confirmed The justice department can already prosecute this if they are willing.

In other words, "It doesn't matter if it's torture, it doesn't matter if it doesn't work, and it doesn't matter if it's part of a strategy which makes us less safe - the Republicans should use this issue as a way to win elections, no matter what."

Nohero, if you could prove any of that , you would have a point.

To Vandalay:

Once again, who issued the limited information that you refer to above?

Posted By: hoopsits a false argument.

Torture is against the law. The attorney general nominee has waffled about whether it is torture or not and for that he wont be confirmed The justice department can already prosecute this if they are willing.

Hoops, perhaps it's time for Congess to hold hearings , instead.

Posted By: vandalayIn other words, "It doesn't matter if it's torture, it doesn't matter if it doesn't work, and it doesn't matter if it's part of a strategy which makes us less safe - the Republicans should use this issue as a way to win elections, no matter what."

Nohero, if you could prove any of that , you would have a point.

To the contrary: John McCain says that it's torture; defenders of the Administration can't prove that it works; and there's no proof that they've made us safer.

The only defense for it that's been posted here is, "The Democrats won't touch it because of politics."

I'd say that I do have a point.

Vandalay, maybe you should include McCain with the "Libs" on this? Isn't he opposed to waterboarding?

Not to call waterboarding torture reminds me of "1984", where the "facts" change daily. For God's sake we hung people for doing this after WWII, but they were mostly gooks, so they don't count? Right? Everyone knows that the Muslims are a bunch of inhumans? right? Same thing for the blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Irish? Right? Waterboarding will get the truth out of them.

All of the above ethnicities have been, at one time or another, in our history viewed as some form of subhuman excrement by either a majority or a large minority of our population.

I know that one trip to the waterboard will get anyone talking, even Joel. However, the boardee will probably be telling you want he/she thinks you want to hear.

And what is that limited information? Seriously, name one example of when the US waterboarding was produced useful intelligence.

Innie and Katie, the Khaleed Sheik Mohammed example may or may not be true. Brian Ross did a report on it. The limited info also applies to those who oppose it. Can you name instances where waterboarding was even actually used.

Bobk, I said some Reps.