Posted on 11/09/2007 6:14:39 AM PST by RDTF
A former Navy survival instructor subjected to waterboarding as part of his military training told Congress yesterday that the controversial tactic should plainly be considered torture and that such a method was never intended for use by U.S. interrogators because it is a relic of abusive totalitarian governments.
Malcolm Wrightson Nance, a counterterrorism specialist who taught at the Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) school in California, likened waterboarding to drowning and said those who experience it will say or do anything to make it stop, rendering the information they give nearly useless.
"In my case, the technique was so fast and professional that I didn't know what was happening until the water entered my nose and throat," Nance testified yesterday at a House oversight hearing on torture and enhanced interrogation techniques. "It then pushes down into the trachea and starts the process of respiratory degradation. It is an overwhelming experience that induces horror and triggers frantic survival instincts. As the event unfolded, I was fully conscious of what was happening: I was being tortured."
-snip-
If Mohammed faced waterboarding for 90 seconds, Nance said, about 1.2 gallons of water was poured down his nose and throat while he was strapped to a board. Nance said the SERE school used a board modeled after one from Southeast Asia, though it had leather straps instead of metal clamps.
SERE attendees expect to be released and assume that their trainers will not permanently harm them. Nance said it is "stress inoculation" meant to let U.S. troops know what to expect if they are captured. "The SERE community was designed over 50 years ago to show that, as a torture instrument, waterboarding is a terrifying, painful and humiliating tool that leaves no physical scars -snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
You can’t distinguish between irrational fear and rational fear, then.
Tell me what political agenda is behind this? Seems that it’s hurt Bush a lot more than it’s helped him the last few years. I can tell you all the rats’ agendas and they all think it’s going to help them. Can’t see how this one has helped George any. Seen his ratings? Really helped him get illegal amnesty passed, eh? Yup, real big winner for George politically, here. Congress really working well with him on funding for this, right?
Defending torture in the context of a terrorist who knows where a ticking bomb is is a strawman.
We don’t know if there is a ticking bomb.
We don’t know if he knows where it is.
We don’t even know if he is a terrorist or not.
... so the real world result is that we’re going to torture a suspect to try to find out the answer to all three of these questions.
I always thought a key difference between America and the other godawful organized thuggeries around the world was that we didn’t do that. But that may be a bit too optimistic of me.
I like you guys too much to argue (or agree) with you a lot. And I’ve had my say and then some on this topic. People will have to read and decide the merits for themselves.
So, they are NOT putting panties over the deads of terrorists. We all KNOW that is bad, very bad!
If we must re-post the entirety of the thread in order to post a response, these threads are going to get really, really long.
My statement that my emotions should not be permitted to set policy was in the specific context of the "What would you do if your Mother/Wife/Child was going to be blown up by a ticking time bomb?" question. My response to that question is that I would have an intensely personal and emotional response that would certainly involve the most gruesome form of torture I could devise with whatever materials I had on-hand, but I don't think that my emotions should be permitted to set policy.
To take the separate question of our government's waterboarding policy, I don't think it has been driven by emotion. I think it is a rational policy rationally arrived at.
This is the military, not a domestic law enforcement agency. This is your problem here. The military is not a domestic/civilian intelligence agency like the CIA, NSA, or FBI.
Civillian courts do not run or approve military operations. It’s not their jurisdiction.
Then I would like to see some kind of similar safeguard in the military system. Surely the military can regulate itself, subject to civilian control.
And if you do compromise the "principles of a free society just for survival's sake", then the free society itself survives.
Otherwise, the free society dies, and your whole argument is simply academic. Strict adherence to principles, without consideration of circumstance, is folly.
“Well, I think the record of activities as we know it, if true, is certainly proof that the procedure has not been abused.”
Okay, it is clear that they can never give you enough proof because you will always have doubt about that proof.
You know what pal? Then I want to get rid of all government. I want all our reps and senators impeached and thrown out of office. I want my slimy Gov Doyle booted out of office for his activities that are less than above board. I want all government agencies dismantled.
They will never be able to give me enough proof that the policies they have in place aren’t being abused. In fact, we have news stories all the time in the paper about IRS abuses, law enforcement abuses, judicial abuses (BTW how can we trust the FISA court? They are a secret court, how can we be sure their rulings aren’t tarnished somehow?),
Lets’ just stop doing everything because all policies at all levels have the potential to be abused, we have records of such past abuse occurring, and evne though they have proof that policies are followed, we still must wonder if such proof ‘is really true.’ We need proof that the proof is true. And then we will need more proof that that proof is really true. If, if, if.
What this boils down to is whether or not you trust the proof that was given. It appears that intellectually you admit they used it very selectively, used it properly, and documented that it was done the way they said it was, yet it appears it is not enough for you to trust them without even ‘more proof’ being needed.
So is compromise of principles for survival’s sake. I would rather be shot down and see my society overrun while adhering to principles than abandon them to survive.
Then we’re arguing about nothing because we both want to see it used the way it WAS being used. It was being used very selectively with safeguards in place. It was being well documented and tracked.
Whether it technically is torture or not I don’t care. I think it is, but I think it is acceptable. I can be just as fine calling it a valid interrogation technique if it makes you happy. It may not cross your line as torture but it doesn’t matter.
Of course I would prefer not to use it either but I also like to have people send me money because I’m a nice guy. Deal with reality.
I do not see why you seem so intent on disagreeing. As far as I can see, we are pretty much in agreement on this point.
I did not mean to imply that they were lying about how often this technique has been used. Far from it. My statement was, rather, meant to be an endorsement of their activities to date, and an acknowledgement that they have, according to all available information, behaved responsibly.
Worked for them on many occasions.
My willingness to compromise at least gives "free societies" the opportunity to continue.
Is it better to have half a loaf, or no loaf at all? You have chosen your path, the rest of mankind has chosen theirs.
Well if we aren’t disagreeing, then just agree with me that waterboarding is an acceptable method (when used the way they were using it, on the select few they were using it on) of gathering useful intel from terrorists, and then I’ll say we are good.
The part I was involved in was quite successful. (I never sadi it was in Viet Nam).
Glad we got that cleared up.
Of course, I realize my desires are not going to be codified in law anytime soon. I was offering an opinion. I am not going to storm the Bastille because the government does not agree.
Who's "changing the label"?? I stated an opinion. That which doesn't do physical damage isn't torture--that is a simple and easily verifiable criterion. If you add "mental torture" then literally ANYTHING can qualify as "torture". Which is precisely what the leftists want, and you are supporting.
There's definitely an "ass" around here, but it is neither "the law" or me.
I was waterboarded when I went through SERE training at Little Creek, Virginia. It is cold, extremely uncomfortable, creates panic and coughing, but I and thousands of others have survived just fine. It isn’t torture though and there are no lasting effects.
Only a wuse would classify it genuine torture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.