I'm unsure of the way it is being conducted in theater, but by doctrine the technique is applied under the supervision of a physician, who monitors the subject's vital signs and keeps track of how much water they aspirate. Doctrine also requires the subject be informed prior to the start of the interrogation that they will not be in danger of death or serious bodily harm. I wouldn't have a problem if American servicemembers were subjected to a waterboard during interrogations, so long as the enemy adhered to similar guidelines. We do it to each other during training quite often, actually.
Ugly is as ugly does. The Spanish Inquisition often had doctors in attendance, to keep the tortures within official guidelines and so forth. One of the more effective "procedures" was suspension for hours or days in an uncomfortable position above a pointed object, which the victim was lowered unto if they fell asleep. The doctor made sure that the point did not do "lasting physical harm" , and so the whole thing was not officially "torture" at all. But it was very good at eliciting confessions. They do like to play with definitions, these kinds of people, don't they? Any torture that succeeds in thoroughly breaking the victim will do long term or permanent damage, both physical and psychological, in the process. We all know that, I hope ? Doctors in the West have a long and disturbing record of abetting torture, by keeping the victim from suffering serious bodily harm so they can suffer more pain and misery. They also have been implicated in evaluating the medical status of torture candidates at Gitmo et al, to provide the torturers with refined methods and avenues for causing pain and misery that take advantage of the victims particular vulnerabilities. Having a doctor in attendance might just mean the victim has been given a shot that prevents the formation of normal pain-dulling or fear-dulling chemicals, so that the victim suffers more intensely from less damaging abuse. And that's if "doctrine" is followed. We have no oversight, no means regulation, and no redress of violation, of this "doctrine" in actual employment. There were doctors present at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Gitmo, et al. They have never been prosecuted. There is a movement among US medical organizations to revoke the licenses of doctors complicit in torture - it's a violation of the Hippocratic Oath, as well as other standards of medical practice. So far, no official word. And none of this fine language bureaucratic coverup (so reminiscent of the Gestapo, the Stasi, the Argentinian generals - - - ) can improve the info gained, reduce the impact of official torturing on every aspect of law enforcement and political cause, or get back the lost opportunities of legitimate interrogation and reputations for decency. The very fact that Americans are discussing whether water torture is "really" torture is one of the most mind-boggling things - - what kind of cartoon fantasy world have we fallen into, as a public ? You have never been water tortured even once, let alone "quite often". Quit fooling yourself about training exercises.
I'm with you. I don't really consider it "torture" if there's not permanent damage. Gouging out someone's eyes, culling off body parts, whipping them to death/near death, burning them. That's torture.
How do you know what training he's undergone? I saw a former CIA agent on the news the other day who is now against waterboarding. He said it was quite effective and that they did it to each other during training. He went on to say he couldn't stand it more than a few seconds during his training exercise.
And since applying electrical current to the victim's teeth and genitals doesn't cause "permanent damage", would that be OK with you ? How about rape and sexual humiliation - unde a doctor's supervision, of course. Permanent damage, there? How about that microwave heat-pain device they just invented - causes the pain of burning, without the burn. Is that torture ? Does a lifetime of memory problems, insomnia and depression, continual nightmares, post-traumatic shock stuff in general, count as "permanent damage" ? Do you think you will get anyone who is or might be on the receiving end of US "interrogation" to agree with your definition ? Do you think renaming the pain and misery as non-torture will reduce the rate of false confession, or increase the level of respect and trust granted US agencies ? Just how evil a fool do you want to appear to be ?
Yes, and if its not "really" torture then why nor use it when trying to get a murder suspect or just a suspect of a crime to admit to the crime?
"mock" executions are banned by geneva convention. It was torture during WWII, and NAM...and not now cause the 'mericans do it?
Electrical currents to the teeth and burning sensations induced by microwaves? So long as they aren't causing notable permanent physical damage, I'm still ok with it. Just show me that the individual with all their teeth and not covered with scars or blinded from their ordeal. As for insomnia and depression, you just described the better part of the species. Even PTSD is acceptable so long as the person isn't left rocking back and forth in the corner for the rest of their lives. The better part of people coming back from war get it, people in even moderately stressful or dangerous jobs get it. Hell, I have seen former highschool students walk away with it. Like piling a bunch of male naked Iraqi prisoners on top of each other? In such a case, I would probably laugh. It sounds like a rather mild fraternity initiation. Even from the most pragmatic viewpoint, actual rape in any setting is bad. It is impossible to keep discipline among one's own troops when they are allowed to do such things... and there is the risk that they might take a liking to the act and commit it elsewhere. Particularly stateside. The military must always remain coldly disassociated from both their enemy and their surroundings and must not be allowed to degrade into a mob. They are a legion from the west, not a vandal hoard. Oh, I'm sure I would hate being at the recieving end of such things. That is, after all, kind of the point. Within remarkably little time the interrogators would know everything I know about anything. I would rather we be known as dreadfully effective SOBs than incompetent saints. In any case, interrogators are specifically trained to weed out instances where somebody says something because its what they think the interrogator wants to hear. False confessions are universally worthless. What they are looking for is connections, names, descriptions, places, enemy tactics and tricks of the trade, everything. If you can't tell us those, what good would a confession be? I don't particularly care how I am percieved. Think of me as the devil himself if you like.
Obviously, you should only use these methods when you're pretty damned sure the guy knows something. The fact that you can get someone to admit to being a witch clearly shows that torture, or similiar methods, should never be used during routine interogations. They'll admit to anything to stop the nontorture. We don't want admissions of guilt. We want actionable intelligence. Stuff we can verify. If we caught Osama or one of his known henchmen, anything goes. Any of the methods you listed would be fine with me. But by no means would I approve of just picking up random guys and torturing them. Known terrorists? Fuck em, they deserve whatever they get.
So you got a chuckle out of Abu Ghraib, did you? Stephen Miles reports listening to the tapes of children screaming and crying, apparently tortured in front of their parents to get the parents to talk, in Abu Ghraib. He remarks that the pictures of the women abused have not been released, or the worst of the pictures involving men either. Aside from the known deaths, no permanent damage, as far as anyone has bothered to record - perfectly acceptable to people like Clockwood. One way to make sure that your torture operation does no permanent damage is to refuse to record any of it. Then it doesn't exist. And a glimmer of light dawns in the fog. Too bad this kind of thinking wasn't in vogue before Gitmo was set up, etc. Those mercenaries and contractors, the torturers of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and Bagram and a dozen others, they are all coming home. With their experience and qualifications, they will be welcome in police forces and prison systems and security firms throughout the US. With their likely rate of mental issues, they will be overrepresented in the homeless shelters and mental hospitals, as well. And if they are ? Your standards of permanent damage are flexible, we see. Not really standards at all, in practice - since the severity of long term damage is hard to predict. And you are just fine with torture - extreme pain and misery, inflicted by professional torturers on suspects and so forth pulled off the street - as long as it doesn't scar physically. And you intend to fly my country's flag over your torture prisons. Great. Dreadfully effective at what? Getting info? Any good interrogation setup that works the population for allies will leave your torture rack in the dust. Intimidating the populace, making yourself despised and hated but feared throughout ? That's a possibility. Was that your goal? So far, the introduction of torture into US intelligence operations has earned them the reputation of incompetent SOBs among some. But that is actually a compliment: it's base on the assumption that intelligence gathering was the purpose. Then torture is not your means. And the converse holds as well: people who torture are not looking for actionable intelligence, but confessions and breakdowns. At least, that has always been true in the past, of the kinds of regimes that establish official torture agencies.
If we have some al Qada terrorist in custody, how do you suggest we get him to talk? What about the old "ticking bomb" scenario? Would you be in favor of torturing a guy who knows the location of a nuke hidden in Los Angeles and due to go off at any time? Or is your sense of propiety more important than millions of lives?
Except that never happens. We should be following the Geneva Conventions, which specifies that not only can't we use abuse to get them to talk, we must treat them humanely at all times- no solitary confinement, no stress positions, no loud music or constant light. They must be fed and treated well, as if they were a prisoner in our own penal system.
The former CIA guy I saw on the news said that info they'd gained via waterboarding allowed them to foil several terrorist attacks.
The same guy that said there were no tapes of that torture in the first place? They are liers, and thus have no credibility.
Tortured Iraqis would have said what the torturers wanted to hear. Why do you think we had all those ridiculous terror alerts?
Because keeping people in a constant state of fear and the spectre of external threat is a great excuse to slowly erode personal freedom?
