Waterboarding Is Torture, Says Ex-Navy Instructor (SERE)

The Washington Post ^ | Nov 9, 2007 | Josh White

[Secret Agent Man]

Do you know what the policy is now? Do you know how restrictive it is?

If not, then how do you know it’s not good the way it is now? If you do know the policy then tell us what it currently is.

I can tell you from what I have heard from the military folks talking about it, it is very selectively used, it is used on a very small percentage (in the 1-2% range) of people, the people they select are because they are known to be high ranking folks who have a lot of info, or key info - not the run of the mill average terrorist fighter. My primary source for this was believe it or not, a Charlie Rose interview with a US general (also a lawyer) who was involved in this process in Iraq for several years and was involved with developing this policy. Over this time they refined the process and refined the selection process so that it would only be done on the potentially best candidates for info.

[PLMerite]

“So you are using an entirely fictional scenario...”

Duh.

But one that is entirely possible. If you had Khalid Sheik Mohammed in custody on September 10, 2001, and you knew something was going to happen the next day, what would you have done to make him talk?

These are things that need to be thought out and decided. If you expect to say “no torture” to make yourself feel better now, don’t wring your hands and ask “why, why, why?” if something bad happens because of it.

[Wonder Warthog]

"George Orwell, please call your office."

Sorry, but wrong. The laws against torture were passed LONG before this issue came up. If anything they are likely to be MORE lenient that laws passed today. IMO, torture is anything that does physical damage. Waterboarding is a PSYCHOLOGICAL technique that does no physical harm. I've got no problem with it.

[Secret Agent Man]

Yes, thanks for correcting that. Wasn’t gunning for you. :)

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Torture is torture. It's always wrong.

But is waterboarding always wrong? That's the question.

[L.N. Smithee]

Really? I am a devotee of the Ben Frankiln quote on Liberty and Security. He was light years ahead of any of us, regardless of what the international community was like in his day.

I resist the practice of some people to treat the Founding Fathers like demigods. They were flawed individuals, far from perfect. Still, their wisdom is unquestionable, and the survival and thriving of the United States in the same period that has seen European and Asian empires rise and disintegrate is testimony to that.

But are their extra-Constitutional words to be treated as gospel, to be given the weight of Scripture? I think not.

Are you going to address any of the questions?

[Romulus]

Thank you for your observation of nice distinctions. Please explain why someone who incites terror to get his way isn’t a terrorist.

[PLMerite]

“My necessity does not define the law, either.”

This might be a new category for the Darwin Award.

[Azeem]

“If it’s useless than why do we use it?”

Because individually it could be suspect. If two guys say the same thing under duress, that’s called corroboration and makes the intel more useful.

[Secret Agent Man]

“If the question is, what should our government do as a matter of policy, the answer must be very different. Our government cannot allow the emotional response of the individuals involed to set policy for the nation.”

Prove to me that the waterboarding policy has been set totally or primarily because of emotion, please?

[joseph20]

18 U.S.C. § 2340:

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C) the threat of imminent death; or

(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

[arderkrag]

If the question is, what should our government do as a matter of policy, the answer must be very different. Our government cannot allow the emotional response of the individuals involed to set policy for the nation.

Damn right. I'm surprised more supposedly rational people can't grasp this.

[Romulus]

Well, Hillary and a great many other Democrats went along for the ride, so they certainly qualify. But unfortunately it’s the Bush Administration that was driving the bus.

[chrisser]

Start with the Bill of Rights. Read the part with the words "cruel and unusual punishment".

So Constitutional rights are to be extended to our enemies? Silly me - I thought that was a compact between the citizens and their government here in the U.S.

Does the rest of the BOR apply to terrorists too? How about all the other amendments?

Does AlQueda get their own representation in Congress, or can we consider the Democratic party representation enough?

[Romulus]

You can’t change the essence of something by just changing its label. If the law says waterboarding isn’t torture, then the law is an ass.

[DemEater]

“:No problem at all. You simply reward good intel and punish the bad.... and confirm everything.

Very simple.”

Not simple. Some things take months or years to verify. If policy decisions are made based on information gained in this way that can’t be verified(which it often can’t in a short amount of time), the whole policy is flawed.

[joseph20]

Waterboarding is not torture.

There is no "severe physical pain"

There is no "prolonged mental harm"

[Paco]

Actually, my argument is totally emotionless. I WOULD waterboard ONE or a FEW to save MANY. That has no basis in emotion. It’s totally pragmatic. You on the other hand are attempting to take the “moral” high ground with your position. My previous post simply showed your flawed morality. You are against waterboarding because you believe it relects badly on us as a country. No amount of waterboarding would reflect more badly on us than another 9/11 or worse. The fact that you can be so cavalier about sitting by and doing nothing while you put others at risk is the problem.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

When did preventing each and every terrorist act become a requirement for national survival?

At the point in time terrorist acts threaten our national survival.

[SergeiRachmaninov]

Thank you for your observation of nice distinctions. Please explain why someone who incites terror to get his way isn’t a terrorist.

You have mistakenly imagined that I have a desire to dialogue with you. I responded to your post only to ridicule it for the pleasure of the competent people who are posting here.