Hitchens' voluntary waterboarding

Waterboarding is Torture… Period

by Malcolm Nance

I’d like to digress from my usual analysis of insurgent strategy and tactics to speak out on an issue of grave importance to Small Wars Journal readers. We, as a nation, are having a crisis of honor.

Last week the Attorney General nominee Judge Michael Mukasey refused to define waterboarding terror suspects as torture. On the same day MSNBC television pundit and former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough quickly spoke out in its favor. On his morning television broadcast, he asserted, without any basis in fact, that the efficacy of the waterboard a viable tool to be used on Al Qaeda suspects.

Scarborough said, "For those who don't know, waterboarding is what we did to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is the Al Qaeda number two guy that planned 9/11. And he talked …" He then speculated that “If you ask Americans whether they think it's okay for us to waterboard in a controlled environment … 90% of Americans will say 'yes.'” Sensing that what he was saying sounded extreme, he then claimed he did not support torture but that waterboarding was debatable as a technique: "You know, that's the debate. Is waterboarding torture? … I don't want the United States to engage in the type of torture that [Senator] John McCain had to endure."

In fact, waterboarding is just the type of torture then Lt. Commander John McCain had to endure at the hands of the North Vietnamese. 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.

The carnival-like he-said, she-said of the legality of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques has become a form of doublespeak worthy of Catch-22. Having been subjected to them all, I know these techniques, if in fact they are actually being used, are not dangerous when applied in training for short periods. However, when performed with even moderate intensity over an extended time on an unsuspecting prisoner – it is torture, without doubt. Couple that with waterboarding and the entire medley not only “shock the conscience” as the statute forbids -it would terrify you. Most people can not stand to watch a high intensity kinetic interrogation. One has to overcome basic human decency to endure watching or causing the effects. The brutality would force you into a personal moral dilemma between humanity and hatred. It would leave you to question the meaning of what it is to be an American.

We live at a time where Americans, completely uninformed by an incurious media and enthralled by vengeance-based fantasy television shows like “24”, are actually cheering and encouraging such torture as justifiable revenge for the September 11 attacks. Having been a rescuer in one of those incidents and personally affected by both attacks, I am bewildered at how casually we have thrown off the mantle of world-leader in justice and honor. Who we have become? Because at this juncture, after Abu Ghraieb and other undignified exposed incidents of murder and torture, we appear to have become no better than our opponents.

With regards to the waterboard, I want to set the record straight so the apologists can finally embrace the fact that they condone and encourage torture.

History’s Lessons Ignored

Before arriving for my assignment at SERE, I traveled to Cambodia to visit the torture camps of the Khmer Rouge. The country had just opened for tourism and the effect of the genocide was still heavy in the air. I wanted to know how real torturers and terror camp guards would behave and learn how to resist them from survivors of such horrors. I had previously visited the Nazi death camps Dachau and Bergen-Belsen. I had met and interviewed survivors of Buchenwald, Auschwitz and Magdeburg when I visited Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. However, it was in the S-21 death camp known as Tuol Sleng, in downtown Phnom Penh, where I found a perfectly intact inclined waterboard. Next to it was the painting on how it was used. It was cruder than ours mainly because they used metal shackles to strap the victim down, and a tin flower pot sprinkler to regulate the water flow rate, but it was the same device I would be subjected to a few weeks later.

On a Mekong River trip, I met a 60-year-old man, happy to be alive and a cheerful travel companion, who survived the genocide and torture … he spoke openly about it and gave me a valuable lesson: “If you want to survive, you must learn that ‘walking through a low door means you have to be able to bow.’” He told his interrogators everything they wanted to know including the truth. They rarely stopped. In torture, he confessed to being a hermaphrodite, a CIA spy, a Buddhist Monk, a Catholic Bishop and the son of the king of Cambodia. He was actually just a school teacher whose crime was that he once spoke French. He remembered “the Barrel” version of waterboarding quite well. Head first until the water filled the lungs, then you talk.

Once at SERE and tasked to rewrite the Navy SERE program for the first time since the Vietnam War, we incorporated interrogation and torture techniques from the Middle East, Latin America and South Asia into the curriculum. In the process, I studied hundreds of classified written reports, dozens of personal memoirs of American captives from the French-Indian Wars and the American Revolution to the Argentinean ‘Dirty War’ and Bosnia. There were endless hours of videotaped debriefings from World War Two, Korea, Vietnam and Gulf War POWs and interrogators. I devoured the hundreds of pages of debriefs and video reports including those of then Commander John McCain, Colonel Nick Rowe, Lt. Dieter Dengler and Admiral James Stockdale, the former Senior Ranking Officer of the Hanoi Hilton. All of them had been tortured by the Vietnamese, Pathet Lao or Cambodians. The minutiae of North Vietnamese torture techniques was discussed with our staff advisor and former Hanoi Hilton POW Doug Hegdahl as well as discussions with Admiral Stockdale himself. The waterboard was clearly one of the tools dictators and totalitarian regimes preferred.

There is No Debate Except for Torture Apologists

1. Waterboarding is a torture technique. Period. There is no way to gloss over it or sugarcoat it. It has no justification outside of its limited role as a training demonstrator. Our service members have to learn that the will to survive requires them accept and understand that they may be subjected to torture, but that America is better than its enemies and it is one’s duty to trust in your nation and God, endure the hardships and return home with honor.

2. Waterboarding is not a simulation. Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.

Waterboarding is a controlled drowning that, in the American model, occurs under the watch of a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a trained strap-in/strap-out team. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim’s face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.

Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration –usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death. Its lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threaten with its use again and again.

Call it “Chinese Water Torture,” “the Barrel,” or “the Waterfall,” it is all the same. Whether the victim is allowed to comply or not is usually left up to the interrogator. Many waterboard team members, even in training, enjoy the sadistic power of making the victim suffer and often ask questions as an after thought. These people are dangerous and predictable and when left unshackled, unsupervised or undetected they bring us the murderous abuses seen at Abu Ghraieb, Baghram and Guantanamo. No doubt, to avoid human factors like fear and guilt someone has created a one-button version that probably looks like an MRI machine with high intensity waterjets.

3. If you support the use of waterboarding on enemy captives, you support the use of that torture on any future American captives. The Small Wars Council had a spirited discussion about this earlier in the year, especially when former Marine Generals Krulak and Hoar rejected all arguments for torture.

Evan Wallach wrote a brilliant history of the use of waterboarding as a war crime and the open acceptance of it by the administration in an article for Columbia Journal for Transnational Law. In it he describes how the ideological Justice Department lawyer, John Yoo validated the current dilemma we find ourselves in by asserting that the President had powers above and beyond the Constitution and the Congress:

“Congress doesn’t have the power to tie the President’s hands in regard to torture as an interrogation technique....It’s the core of the Commander-in-Chief function. They can’t prevent the President from ordering torture.”

That is an astounding assertion. It reflects a basic disregard for the law of the United States, the Constitution and basic moral decency.

Another MSNBC commentator defended the administration and stated that waterboarding is "not a new phenomenon" and that it had "been pinned on President Bush … but this has been part of interrogation for years and years and years." He is correct, but only partially. The Washington Post reported in 2006 that it was mainly America’s enemies that used it as a principal interrogation method. After World War 2, Japanese waterboard team members were tried for war crimes. In Vietnam, service members were placed under investigation when a photo of a field-expedient waterboarding became publicly known.

Torture in captivity simulation training reveals there are ways an enemy can inflict punishment which will render the subject wholly helpless and which will generally overcome his willpower. The torturer will trigger within the subject a survival instinct, in this case the ability to breathe, which makes the victim instantly pliable and ready to comply. It is purely and simply a tool by which to deprive a human being of his ability to resist through physical humiliation. The very concept of an American Torturer is an anathema to our values.

I concur strongly with the opinions of professional interrogators like Colonel Stewart Herrington, and victims of torture like Senator John McCain. If you want consistent, accurate and reliable intelligence, be inquisitive, analytical, patient but most of all professional, amiable and compassionate.

Who will complain about the new world-wide embrace of torture? America has justified it legally at the highest levels of government. Even worse, the administration has selectively leaked supposed successes of the water board such as the alleged Khalid Sheik Mohammed confessions. However, in the same breath the CIA sources for the Washington Post noted that in Mohammed’s case they got information but "not all of it reliable." Of course, when you waterboard you get all the magic answers you want -because remember, the subject will talk. They all talk! Anyone strapped down will say anything, absolutely anything to get the torture to stop. Torture. Does. Not. Work.

According to the President, this is not a torture, so future torturers in other countries now have an American legal basis to perform the acts. Every hostile intelligence agency and terrorist in the world will consider it a viable tool, which can be used with impunity. It has been turned into perfectly acceptable behavior for information finding.

A torture victim can be made to say anything by an evil nation that does not abide by humanity, morality, treaties or rule of law. Today we are on the verge of becoming that nation. Is it possible that September 11 hurt us so much that we have decided to gladly adopt the tools of KGB, the Khmer Rouge, the Nazi Gestapo, the North Vietnamese, the North Koreans and the Burmese Junta?

What next if the waterboarding on a critical the captive doesn’t work and you have a timetable to stop the “ticking bomb” scenario? Electric shock to the genitals? Taking a pregnant woman and electrocuting the fetus inside her? Executing a captive’s children in front of him? Dropping live people from an airplane over the ocean? It has all been done by governments seeking information. All claimed the same need to stop the ticking bomb. It is not a far leap from torture to murder, especially if the subject is defiant. Are we willing to trade our nation’s soul for tactical intelligence?

Is There a Place for the Waterboard?

Yes. The waterboard must go back to the realm of SERE training our operators, soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. We must now double our efforts to prepare for its inevitable and uncontrolled use of by our future enemies.

Until recently, only a few countries considered it effective. Now American use of the waterboard as an interrogation tool has assuredly guaranteed that our service members and agents who are captured or detained by future enemies will be subject to it as part of the most routine interrogations. Forget threats, poor food, the occasional face slap and sexual assaults. This was not a dignified ‘taking off the gloves’; this was descending to the level of our opposition in an equally brutish and ugly way. Waterboarding will be one our future enemy’s go-to techniques because we took the gloves off to brutal interrogation. Now our enemies will take the gloves off and thank us for it.

There may never again be a chance that Americans will benefit from the shield of outrage and public opinion when our future enemy uses of torture. Brutal interrogation, flash murder and extreme humiliation of American citizens, agents and members of the armed forces may now be guaranteed because we have mindlessly, but happily, broken the seal on the Pandora’s box of indignity, cruelty and hatred in the name of protecting America. To defeat Bin Laden many in this administration have openly embraced the methods of by Hitler, Pinochet, Pol Pot, Galtieri and Saddam Hussein.

Not A Fair Trade for America’s Honor

I have stated publicly and repeatedly that I would personally cut Bin Laden’s heart out with a plastic MRE spoon if we per chance meet on the battlefield. Yet, once captive I believe that the better angels of our nature and our nation’s core values would eventually convince any terrorist that they indeed have erred in their murderous ways. Once convicted in a fair, public tribunal, they would have the rest of their lives, however short the law makes it, to come to terms with their God and their acts.

This is not enough for our President. He apparently secretly ordered the core American values of fairness and justice to be thrown away in the name of security from terrorists. He somehow determined that the honor the military, the CIA and the nation itself was an acceptable trade for the superficial knowledge of the machinations of approximately 2,000 terrorists, most of whom are being decimated in Iraq or martyring themselves in Afghanistan. It is a short sighted and politically motivated trade that is simply disgraceful. There is no honor here.

It is outrageous that American officials, including the Attorney General and a legion of minions of lower rank have not only embraced this torture but have actually justified it, redefined it to a misdemeanor, brought it down to the level of a college prank and then bragged about it. The echo chamber that is the American media now views torture as heroic and macho.

Torture advocates hide behind the argument that an open discussion about specific American interrogation techniques will aid the enemy. Yet, convicted Al Qaeda members and innocent captives who were released to their host nations have already debriefed the world through hundreds of interviews, movies and documentaries on exactly what methods they were subjected to and how they endured. In essence, our own missteps have created a cadre of highly experienced lecturers for Al Qaeda’s own virtual SERE school for terrorists.

Congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle need to stand up for American values and clearly specify that coercive interrogation using the waterboard is torture and, except for limited examples of training our service members and intelligence officers, it should be stopped completely and finally –oh, and this time without a Presidential signing statement reinterpreting the law.

Waterboarding is torture... period
 
I like how the attitude of many is that water boarding is acceptable because we really don't like the people we are doing it to and we believe they are guilty.

No open trials. No review of evidence. We think they are guilty so we can do what we want to them...
This is not a law enforcement problem. It is a war, specifically a war against terrorists. The reason we don’t like those people is not because they are criminals; it is because we are at war with them. The reason we drop bombs on them and shoot at them with machine guns is not because they are legally guilty; it is because we are at war with them.

Think about it. We don’t call in air strikes against criminals in our country, nor do we have troops armed with automatic weapons and supported with tanks and heavy machine guns clearing out entire neighborhoods. If you want to take a law enforcement approach, you will need to completely alter our approach. You will also need search warrants, arrest warrants, translators who can read each captured terrorist his Miranda rights, a monumental chain of custody for any evidence seized, and plenty of court time to process these cases.

And you will need to start from the premise of presumed innocence.

Bringing Bin Laden or any other terrorist to stand trial in an American court means they are presumed innocent. The prosecution will have to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This also means hearings on whether the evidence was collected in accordance with the 4th Amendment, whether any statements made by the terrorists are protected by the 5th Amendment, whether any statements made by them were voluntary (and you’ll need Jackson-Denno hearings as well), whether any statements made by other people violate the Confrontation Clause as defined by the Crawford decision, and whether any statements made by others would be thrown out under prohibitions against hearsay testimony.

Anyone who says that a guilty verdict is a done deal is saying that the justice system is a kangaroo court system. If so, why go through the charade? If not, what happens if someone like the ultra-rich Osama Bin Laden hired a team of attorneys who got him an acquittal? We'd have to set him loose, and we’d have to set loose any terrorists who got an acquittal.

Law enforcement and war are different entities for a reason. They deal with very different problems.
 
Think about it. We don’t call in air strikes against criminals in our country, nor do we have troops armed with automatic weapons and supported with tanks and heavy machine guns clearing out entire neighborhoods.

Interesting.

You don't recall the Philadelphia Move Bombing? Your statement pretty much describes exactly what happened there.

NY Times Article
 
Your comment is laughable.

I recall the MOVE incident. I also recall the incident at Waco. Neither incident fits what I described. My statement referred to air strikes, tanks, and machine guns used in conjunction. SWAT teams use automatic weapons, but they are not conducting warfare operations no matter how much anyone tries to expand the definition of "war." Neither the MOVE incident nor the Waco incident is a common police function in this country, whereas the coordinated elements I described are common functions of war.

The coordinated elements I described were not used in the MOVE incident. An air strike consisting of missiles, 500-lb bombs, 1000-lb bombs, and strafing fire is dramatically different from a satchel bomb dropped from a police helicopter. The MOVE incident targeted a row house, not an entire neighborhood.

Given that your comment basically missed the elements of my post, my earlier statement did not “pretty much [describe] exactly what happened there.”
 
Tell that to the people involved. It sure as heck looked, smelled, and sounded like a war. I know, because I lived less than four blocks from there when it happened. I would imagine that your view would change if you were smack in the middle of that incident.

The MOVE incident targeted a row house, not an entire neighborhood.
That isnt how it looked after the fire.
 
A botched police action that destroys more than the target is not the same as what the police action "targeted." It seems you can't distinguish between a police action, even a botched police action, and a war. If you are unable to distinguish these things, you and I will never find common ground on which to discuss these topics.
 
Obviously. I must be blind.

War...botched police action...same results.

Police action:
fire.large.jpg


Urban Warfare:
73532962.jpg


But as you said, definitely not the same. :rolleyes:
 
War...botched police action...same results. But as you said, definitely not the same. :rolleyes:
Self-defense shooting ... murder ... same result: a dead person.

To my way of thinking, self-defense and murder are definitely not the same, even if there are times when the results are the same.

To your way of thinking, they are the same. :rolleyes:
 
Not a dodge.

The end result of "useful tool" and "torture" is the same. Just like the end result of that "botched police action" and "war" are just the same.
 
The end result of "useful tool" and "torture" is the same. Just like the end result of that "botched police action" and "war" are just the same.
Presumably, as a member of a gun forum, you believe in defending yourself with a gun if need be. The end result of "self-defense" and "murder" is the same when someone dies. But my guess is that you make a distinction between "self-defense" and "murder."

If you are against killing in all forms, I'm surprised you are a member of a gun forum. If you are not against killing in all forms, in that you recognize a right to defend one's life with lethal force, then you must admit there are important distinctions to make in these matters.

Distinctions such as these are the heart of this topic. The difference between a man defending himself and a murderer are recognized and embodied in our culture, and in all other cultures I can think of. The difference between LEOs neutralizing dangerous suspects and our military attacking terrorists is also recognized and embodied in our culture, and in all other cultures I can think of.
 
So torture is a form of self-defense? I thought that torture was obtaining information through the application of pain and/or distress, both physical and/or mental.

I hardly equate torture as a valid form of self-defense.
 
Actually, I'm saying:

1) Achieving the same result does not mean the methods for getting that result are the same. I've already given the "self-defense v. murder" example. Here's another: I study and take a test v. I cheat on a test. Assuming I pass the test either way, it doesn't change the important distinction between properly taking a test and cheating. These examples disprove the contention that reaching the same result means that the methods are the same.

2) Having proved that that reaching the same result does not mean the methods are the same, we move to torture v. waterboarding. Torture and waterboarding are not the same, even if they get the same results.
 
Okay...I am getting there. Valid points.

I just cant get past that water boarding isnt torture. The point of torture isnt to kill, but instead it is to causes distress. Waterboarding causes severe distress, albeit mental distress. However, if not done correctly, it can lead to death.

There's my problem.
 
Understood.

Frankly, it's a discussion that raises a lot of emotion because it's an important topic. Plus, there may not be a clear dividing line. I don't view waterboarding as torture, but if one were to draw a line that runs from non-torture to torture, I'd say waterboarding, while not crossing the line, is certainly near it.

In other words, it's a good thing to be concerned about and to watch over closely.
 
I can get fast garbage intelligence with waterboarding or I can do my job properly and not let up and get good intelligence. Shouldn't take longer than 48 hours or so.

First, you once again didn't address my statement. You seem to have a penchant for ignoring things that don't fit your argument. You stated that everyone isn't the same and not everyone breaks under the same approach. If thats the case the there are people who will break under waterboarding who wont break under other methods. Therefore by refusing to waterboard people you have unnecessarily limited your ability to get information.

Furthermore your statement completly ignores the facts. With waterboarding, KSM, who had withstood many other techniques, broke within seconds. SECONDS. Plus the information was not garbage. It was actionable and according to the CIA resulted in the discovery of several other terrorist plots.

I don't care how many treatises you've read or how many "experts" you heard. There is a load of difference between the classroom and real world, and in the real world, waterboarding has been incredibly effective. You simply can't deny this.


But the disenchanted folks over in the Middle East view the people we refer to as terrorists as soldiers defending them against the oppressive Americans.

No they don't. Most Iraqis don't like al quaeda for several reasons, not the least of which is because they are foreign fighters just like we are. The difference is that we aren't blowing them up indiscriminately. So while there are no doubt people that don't like us, it is not the case that every arab sees terrorists as soldiers.

So we are torturing their soldiers and torturing captured soldiers is illegal

They are not soldiers. Period. That and I dont know what the math is but 3 out of how many hundreds or thousands of these guys we've detained sure doesn't qualify as us doing anything to them.


plus turnabout is fair play. There goes our moral high ground and their opinion of us, which makes them more likely to oppose us.

Yet another invalid argument. They were killing us and sawing off heads before we were waterboarding. There isn't a single piece of evidence that anyone's opinion would change if we stopped, and deep down you know this.


Suffocating because you have water in your nose and mouth cutting off your air supply is the same as drowning. I can pull you out of the pool after two minutes or I can take the towel away. If I don't, you'll die, either way. By your definition, I can hold a guy underwater as long as I want as long as I don't kill him and it isn't torture. No court of law would agree.

Again, more side stepping. Waterboarding is not drowning. It is not the same as holding one's head underwater. If it were we wouldn't need waterboarding. Its not. People who are waterboarding are in no danger of drowning. Waterboarding is effective because it make the person think they are drowning. Thats the difference.


So if I turn someone into a babbling idiot who is so psychologically damaged that he spends the rest of his days smearing his feces on the walls of his rubber room, it's not torture?

How he turns out is irrelevant. What you did is. If you deprived him of sleep for a week by making him watch seinfeld reruns and he blows a gasket thats still not torture. Unless it causes physical injury/pain it aint torture.


I don't think you would believe so if that person was an American. You'd be calling for me to be drawn and quartered and you would be correct.

Because I don't want any harm to come to americans doesn't change my definition of what it torture. Besides I already answered this question. If an american was part of a terrorist organization waging war on a foreign nation I'd have no problem with him being waterboarded by said nation. Hell I was hoping that the fellow we caught in afghanistan would be shot for treason.

If you don't want to be waterboarded, don't be a terrorist. Sounds real simple to me.


Just because the terrorists aren't Americans doesn't make it okay to violate their human rights.

They have no human rights. Period. Once you kill innocent people you lose your freedom and your right to complain. What makes us better is that we aren't putting the screws to these people even though 1) they deserve it and 2) they do it to us.

However this 'human rights' argument is a joke. Since you seem to be enamored with the law, there is a principle that says you can't use the law as both a sword and a shield. In other words, if you want to claim the protection of human rights, then you can't go about killing people. If you do then you waive your right to that protection.

Terrorists have no rights, human or otherwise.

If we do, where do we stop? If they're European, then we won't do it? We'll spare the Canadians, but everyone else is fair game? Screw it, we'll do it to whoever we want and to hell with world opinion?

As long as the constitution is satisfied, so am I. I'm not quite sure what your preoccupation with nationality is, but that is completely irrelevant. Right now we have a problem with terrorists from the mid east. Should the day come where the canucks rise up and attack their imperialist neighbors to the south in the name of the great one eh, then they are fair game.

As far as world opinion, since when did that become a concern in how to fight a war. I don't recall Ike taking polls on whether overlord would be well recieved, or dresden for that matter.


I think it would only become a matter of time before the government turned these tactics against us on the argument of the necessity of maintaining national security.

Completely fallacious. Americans have specifically enumerated constitutional rights. There is absolutely no way that waterboarding would ever be permissible.


You've already trotted out the "they actively violate our human rights" and the "they don't fall under the Constitution" argument. But as a free society with the ability to define our moral values, we can do better than waterboarding terrorists and claiming we're still the good guys. After all, the Constitution didn't grant us our rights, it restricted the government from taking them away. We have those rights because we are human, not because the Constitution says we do. That makes those rights universal to all mankind, we're just lucky enough to live somewhere that still respects them, despite the wishes of the administration.

Not if we want to win against an enemy that has no limitations on its cruelty or its resolve.

And again, this appeal to 'lofty' principles is crap. Someone that would strap plastic explosives onto a 7 year old girl and send her onto a bus or into a cafe has no rights period. They have waived it. Its really that simple.

You aren't going to sit there and have a long and involved discussion about the rights of man and Montesquieu and Locke with the guy breaking into your house to kill you and your family. Quite the contrary, you're going to be pissed, your going to take every advantage you can get and you're going to kill the bastard. Why? Because he decided to waive his right to life.

The ony difference between that and this is that there are more bad guys and they have more tools.
 
So when the IRS send you a notice of an audit is that torture?

Abso-freakin'-lutely! :eek:

Back to reality: the distress to which I was referring is when the subject believes they are about experience great pain or die. There are levels of anxiety that must be reached in order to be labeled torture. Waterboarding IMO reaches that criteria.
 
The reason waterboarding is part of SERE is to teach US service personel to resist torture when they are prisoners. They do some other unpleasant things, as well, but everyone in SERE knows it is just a drill.

Waterboarding is torture, and semantic assertions otherwise are preposterous.
 
Back
Top