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

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

[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-

[gridlock]

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.

I will say that since I do not consider it torture, I consider it to be a valid and acceptable method of interrogation, however due to other factors beyond the fact that it is not torture, I would like to see the use of it restricted as much as possible. Since the current policy seems to be to restrict the use of waterboarding altogether, but the insistence that it is not torture preserves the possibility of future use, if necessary, I am satisfied with the status quo.

Is that good enough, or are we gonna have to fight all night?

[arderkrag]

Yes, and they’re paving a road to hell with all their good intentions for the survival of their societies.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

That said, his casual reference in another article attributed to him about being ‘swiftboated’ sent up a red flag with me.

Good work Sherlock. That is always a red flag in my book.

[Romulus]

Tell me what political agenda is behind this?

The itch for regime change in Iraq was documented long before 9/11.

Seems that it’s hurt Bush a lot more than it’s helped him the last few years.

There's no law that says presidents can't self-destruct.

[been_lurking]

Yes, and they’re paving a road to hell with all their good intentions for the survival of their societies.

Mankind must deal with the real world. We cannot survive on platitudes, slogans, and concepts.

[Badeye]

That said, his casual reference in another article attributed to him about being ‘swiftboated’ sent up a red flag with me.
Good work Sherlock. That is always a red flag in my book.

Thanks....I think....(chuckle)

[arderkrag]

We can absolutely survive on concepts. If you disagree, then we’re done here.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

The point is not whether it causes “lasting harm”. It’s whether it causes pain at all.

It's my understanding it doesn't cause pain. Extreme discomfort and panic.....but not pain.

[Mariner]

The physical effects clear within a day or so. That is, provided they don't go overboard and do some drainbamage:)

Our sessions were always supervised by an doctor just in case. I suspect that's the case with it's employment today.

The psychological effect would be tougher to gauge. Anyone who's been there would not want to do it again...ever. I also suspect those who administer it have the same position.

[purpleraine]

Liberals and other weeping Nellies always have that problem.

You hear the same thing from them when we drop bombs and some children die.

These people are moral equivalent people. They see no differenc in Hitler bombing London and us bombing Japan. We're all baby killers, donchano.

[arderkrag]

Really? I’ve heard different. If that’s waterboarding being performed improperly, ok. But it still is in violation of the above quoted code defining torture when it is being performed properly, by your description.

[Romulus]

that is a simple and easily verifiable criterion.

Got it. It all depends what the meaning of "is" is.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

It is our own military who is most endangered when we do not uphold the Geneva Convention fully.

But we do follow the Geneva Convention. Does the Geneva Convention outlaw waterboarding? I don't think so.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

This I will agree with - any information gotten through such means (waterboarding or otherwise) can't be trusted. It's no different than information obtained by pistol-whipping somebody - they will tell you what you want to hear in order to make it stop.

By this logic all coersive methods are a waste of time.

If waterboarding doesn't work we wouldn't use it. Since we use it ...I can only conclude that it in fact does work.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Waterboarding is a PSYCHOLOGICAL technique that does no physical harm. I've got no problem with it.

You're right. It's not torture.

[gridlock]

You're right. It's not torture.

But it ain't a tea party, either.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

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.

Waterboarding should not be called torture.

Torture has a legal meaning and if we say it is legally torture it would place our people from Bush on down in legal jeopardy for war crimes.

Waterboarding is probably the most effective method of interrogation IMO.

If you know of a more effective method I'm all ears.

[George W. Bush]

Does the Geneva Convention outlaw waterboarding?

Yes. And any such coercive means. As I understand the Conventions, you cannot demand any more information from a POW than their name, rank, and serial.

The Geneva has never been adequately enforced but the vast majority of professional soldiers are smart enough to uphold it in broad terms. It's in their own self-interest and that of their own troops.

The Geneva Conventions are a series of four treaties starting in 1929 and three additional protocols from 1977-2005. You might want to read some summaries of these laws with their listed sources

Geneva Conventions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Torture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Unlawful combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These help explain the unlawful/unprivileged combatant issue, the use of torture or coercion, and many other related matters.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

terrorist acts threaten our national survival.

Context is important.

Reread my post.

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

You changed the meaning of my post.

[21stCenturyFreeThinker]

So, what is the background on this? To whom (if anyone) does this fellow give his political donations to?

So his donations, if any, mean he's not entitled to a respected opinion? His experience lends weight to his opinion. How much weight you give it is up to you.

I’d say that the question is far more relevant when facing a civilized enemy than an un-civilized enemy. Our enemies have no rules and consider us to be less than animals.

I'm trying to remember which rules of civilized warfare Germany and Japan respected. They chopped of heads, gassed people, and used chemical warfare on entire cities in China. All as a matter of government policy. Doesn't sound to civilized to me.

We still beat them without having to stoop to the same level of barbarity.

Firebombing Germany and the Atomic bomb were as close as we came. Both were inflicted on people who we had no control of and legitimate military targets.