# what exactly is waterboarding?



## DavidCC (Jul 17, 2008)

A reporter submitted to being water-boarded.  Check out this video.

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=171275&page=3


----------



## Nolerama (Jul 17, 2008)

That's a fun-filled weekend!

Seriously, it's sad that we say we should uphold human rights when this violates that.

However, "aggressive interrogation" has, and always will, occur when countries are in conflict. If anything, I'd say this proves that we all need to start seeing beyond the BS, and start being more active in politics and sensitive to world cultures/affairs... On both sides of the political line.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 17, 2008)

Interesting that he only lasted maybe 10 seconds.  I didn't think it would be that severe that quickly.  Also interesting that the "interrogators" wore black hoods and gloves.  For their benefit?  For ours?  Not fun, over all.

This isn't even the worst possible form of water boarding.


----------



## DavidCC (Jul 17, 2008)

It looked to me like the guy was never in any real danger ... but he sure as heck thought he was, and quickly too!

After all the talk in the media, I exepcted something a lot more violent or aggressive.  I think you are correct, Nolerama, we do need to see thru the BS, this is not nearly as bad as it was made out to be.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 17, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> ...this is not nearly as bad as it was made out to be.



Interesting that you watched this video and came to the opposite conclusion on this matter than the guy who went through it.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 17, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Interesting that you watched this video and came to the opposite conclusion on this matter than the guy who went through it.



if reporters were all that brave or tough, they would have been soldiers........%-}


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 17, 2008)

Come now, gentlemen.  Would you voluntarily go through that?  

The drowning reflex is entirely beyond conscious control for most of us and the terror generated must be enormous, no matter that your conscious mind is telling you that the scenario is not 'for real'.

So let's not allow ourselves to become super-humanly John Wayne and judgemental when seeing somebody going through what we have not.  

I know I for one cannot abide having my face under water - that comes from nearly drowning as a young child and no matter how brave or stoic I may be in other circumstances, putting my head under water fills me with panic.  I'm given to understand that that is the feeling that Waterboarding replicates so, if you're going to do that to me, just ask me what you want to know and I'll tell you .


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 17, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> if reporters were all that brave or tough, they would have been soldiers........%-}



Well, Hitchens in full battle dress with a weapon of some sort IS a rather comical image.  However, soldiers who have gone through SERE say something pretty similar.

Former SERE instructor Malcolm Nance:"It has no justification outside of its limited role as a training demonstrator...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 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."


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 17, 2008)

Water boarding was described in the _Maleaus Malificorum_ "The Hammer Against the Witches" as a reliable way of determining whether someone was a witch.  According to the text, not a single person was able to resist even with full knowledge that they would be burned alive if they relented.  This was taken by the Church to mean that witches had some unholy aversion to water...

We all know what that was...torture and death.  And since "terrorists" recieve the same treatment and are sentanced to death, other then the method of execution, how far has humanity really come?  

I think the people who do this and the people who order it are war criminals.  They deserve the Nurenburg Noose.  Soldiers who are order to do this, should refused the order.  Mercenaries who are hired to do this are war criminals.  Those who hire them are war criminals on two accounts.  

That's a lot of people...and they all gave this country a blackeye.  I don't know if they will ever face justice for it, but if there is a God, hopefully he has a hot place in hell for those who torture.

I doubt it.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 17, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> . And since "terrorists" recieve the same treatment and are sentanced to death, other then the method of execution, how far has humanity really come?


 

As far as it is ever going to, I suspect.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 17, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> As far as it is ever going to, I suspect.


 
I think we can do better.

We need to classifiy the methods of rationalization/mind control that make people think doing this to another human being is okay as evil things.

That's a good place to start.


----------



## Mark L (Jul 17, 2008)

Looks like it sucks, a lot.  I don't want it ever done to me, that's why I will never try and make a point by slaughtering innocents.   

Do you think the US military is doing this to random individuals for fun?  The terrorists that carried out 911 want to _destroy_ us.  How about we just let them, 'cause we don't want to do anything unpleasant.  

Jim Trentini was my teacher in high school.  Tom McGuiness was my classmate in high school and college.  Jim, his wife, and Tom were all on the first plane to hit the WTC.  They were innocent, and are now dead, with thousands of others.

Maybe we should keep in mind the compassion that was shown to them and the other victims of this ****ing ridiculous conflict when we condemn the practices of those charged with ending it.  There's plenty of suffering on both sides of this.  It wasn't started by water boarding, it was started by Islamic Terrorists.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 17, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Come now, gentlemen.  Would you voluntarily go through that?


Tens of thousands of American pilots, flight crews and special forces troops have gone through that, since we have an all volunteer military, I'd have to say I wouldn't, but, I'm glad men better than me have.

I think we ought to treat the terrorists we capture the way the Geneva Conventions allows us to deal with non-uniformed combatants, that is, summarily execute them as spies and/or saboteurs.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 17, 2008)

Mark L said:


> Looks like it sucks, a lot. I don't want it ever done to me, that's why I will never try and make a point by slaughtering innocents.
> 
> Do you think the US military is doing this to random individuals for fun? The terrorists that carried out 911 want to _destroy_ us. How about we just let them, 'cause we don't want to do anything unpleasant.
> 
> ...


 
Ya ever stop to think that their might be more to the story then this line of thought?  Assuming that the government story is true, Chalmers Johnson lays out a great argument in his book "Blowback" that should make every true beleiver take a step back.  

The US isn't operating in a vacuum...its not like our government didn't "see" this happening.  

On the other hand, maybe we don't really know what happened on 911 and a lot of people died and we are being fed a line of BS.  Our country's track record regarding the truth of such matters...especially when war is concerned, is dubious at best.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 17, 2008)

It might not have looked that bad....  But this was a guy that knew the people doing it, knew they would stop as soon as he wanted them too, and knew exactly where he was and what was going to happen.

He lasted only a few seconds.

Now had they kept at it for 5-mins or so, not letting him ask them to stop, this would have been a very different demonstration.





Mark L said:


> Maybe we should keep in mind the compassion that was shown to them and the other victims of this ****ing ridiculous conflict when we condemn the practices of those charged with ending it.  There's plenty of suffering on both sides of this.  It wasn't started by water boarding, it was started by Islamic Terrorists.



Just don't claim the moral high ground then.

This was a group of terrorists, I'd like to think that the most powerful nation on the planet doesn't have to sink to the level of criminals on a official level.

It also creates a cycle that never ends.  Remember back in 2001 when the US led a coalition against Al Queida?  It had pretty good international support.  Then that ended, but Iraq got invaded, which was a war the Iraqis did not start.

But regardless of that, there is now a war, with the most powerful army on the planet on one side, and poor people fighting for their homes and beliefs (regardless of what you think of those beliefs) on the other side, they are desperate, without the resources to fight on a fair playing field and from their point of view, they are the good guys, getting crushed by a evil empire that defies their God.

One thing history shows, when people are fighting a religious war, things get ugly.  The enemy is seen as evil and not human, the people are doing Gods work, and all rules go out the window.

Giving them more reasons to think the west is evil, like using these techniques on prisoners, is only going to recruit more fighters to their cause.


----------



## Ninjamom (Jul 18, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> But regardless of that, there is now a war, with the most powerful army on the planet on one side, and poor people fighting for their homes and beliefs (regardless of what you think of those beliefs) on the other side, they are desperate, without the resources to fight on a fair playing field and from their point of view, they are the good guys, getting crushed by a evil empire that defies their God.


Have to differ on that one: there is a free Iraq, where the overwhelming majority of people now have a relatively-stable (but still young and wobbly-kneed) government that is being attacked by a small band of religious fighters from outside the country, supported by a shrinking minority of extremist native Iraqis.

There is a great source of news on what is really happening on the ground in Iraq in the blog of an independent reporter named Michael Yon.  His recent book doesn't pull any punches about the mistakes we (the US) made during the opening of the war in Iraq, so he definitely isn't a rose-colored glasses kind of guy.  As an independent reporter, he has no axe to grind or drum to beat, and I have never heard him play "the party line" for any side.  Still, this is his latest assessment on his blog:



			
				Michael Yon's Blog said:
			
		

> 14 July 2008
> The war continues to abate in Iraq. Violence is still present, but, of course, Iraq was a relatively violent place long before Coalition forces moved in. I would go so far as to say that barring any major and unexpected developments (like an Israeli air strike on Iran and the retaliations that would follow), a fair-minded person could say with reasonable certainty that the war has ended. A new and better nation is growing legs. What's left is messy politics that likely will be punctuated by low-level violence and the occasional spectacular attack. Yet, the will of the Iraqi people has changed, and the Iraqi military has dramatically improved, so those spectacular attacks are diminishing along with the regular violence. Now it's time to rebuild the country, and create a pluralistic, stable and peaceful Iraq. That will be long, hard work. But by my estimation, the Iraq War is over. We won. Which means the Iraqi people won.


 
He has been reporting on the ground from Iraq, literally for years.  He is so convinced it's basically 'over' that he is packing up and moving to Afghanistan. 

Now it's time for us to be ready to respond to the new Iraqi government.  Meaning: we should help with maintaining stability and rebuilding/retraining only to the extent that the new government wants our help, and we should be ready to leave as soon as they say, "Go."


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 18, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> I think we can do better.
> 
> .


 
I don't.

If we could we'd have managed after something like 10000 years of recorded civilization( remember all "Civilized" means is you live in cities).


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 18, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> Have to differ on that one: there is a free Iraq, where the overwhelming majority of people now have a relatively-stable (but still young and wobbly-kneed) government that is being attacked by a small band of religious fighters from outside the country, supported by a shrinking minority of extremist native Iraqis.



Iraq is under military occupation, it is not "free"

Under occupation life can go on as normal for a lot of people, but that doesn't mean the country as a whole is free.

For comparison, here is Paris during WW2:
http://funnytogo.com/stories/parisww2color/gallery.htm

For the most part, and without any knowledge of the situation, it doesn't look like a bad place to live.  Until you start recognizing some of the symbols in there, and remember what was going on in the world at that time.

Also remember that before the invasion the overwhelming majority of people had stable lives and the country was fairly stable.  Ruled with a iron fist, but apart from the occasional outburst and response, it was stable.


----------



## DavidCC (Jul 18, 2008)

"Ruled with a iron fist, but apart from the occasional outburst and response, it was stable."

are you implying that Saddam's Iraq was a good place to live?  is "stability" (what does that mean exacty?) the most important characteristic of a society?


----------



## DavidCC (Jul 18, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Interesting that you watched this video and came to the opposite conclusion on this matter than the guy who went through it.


 
I meant that, from the descriptions I heard on TV and read, I expected something much more violent, like being held underwater or something.  Sure this is probably terrifying but I don't think it is as terrible as it was made out to be by some people.  Compared to being starved, beaten, and beheaded on camera, this is really minor.

And if doing this to some people prevents other people from being murdered, then so be it.


----------



## mook jong man (Jul 18, 2008)

I don't think it's as bad as hacking peoples heads off ,filming it and plastering it all over the internet like the other side does !


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 18, 2008)

mook jong man said:


> I don't think it's as bad as hacking peoples heads off ,filming it and plastering it all over the internet like the other side does !




Neither side can claim innocence on inappropriate material being posted online....


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 18, 2008)

I think Americans need to get used to the idea that our government does the same kinds of things we think only other countries do - the barbaric ones - and we do it for a reason.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> Giving them more reasons to think the west is evil, like using these techniques on prisoners, is only going to recruit more fighters to their cause.



uh dude?

they CUT PEOPLE'S HEADS OFF AND PUT IT ON YOUTUBE

there is nothing we can do to make them think we are any more or less evil. They dont even think we are human.

Are you seriously saying we need to cater to the sense of "honor" of people that think beheading, stoning rape victims, honor killings and the like are hunky dory?

you cant seriously think that.


not to mention that the facts contradict you, AQ is having a HARDER time recruiting thee days. Thats why they had to strap explosives on  a retarded woman and use her for a human bomb. They are running out of recruits cuz we keep killing the ones they do have.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> Neither side can claim innocence on inappropriate material being posted online....




this is moral relativism and it is a flawed, defeatist attitude. 

they are worse than we are
they do worse things than we do
we are better examples of humanity than they are

it's true, you can say it.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 18, 2008)

I agree that you can say it, *TF* but I'm not sure that it's something proveable by quoting examples of what we consider to be barbaric behaviour.

Morality is always hard to discuss and the same person can hold inconsistent views on things.  

For example, as I've gotten older and seen more of the bad results of ineffective punishment, I have actually come to be in favour of the death penalty (with stringent standards for the certitude of proof of guilt).  

Execution is murder by any other name; it's just done with the approval of the government and the implicit complicity of the population.  Not an enlightened or moral procedure really.

However, I consider the use of torture such an anathema to a moral civilisation that I would not argue against the death penalty for those who enact it or sanction it.

Two moral 'wrongs' there and I would use one to punish another - not very logical.

That doesn't even begin to factor in the truth that you cannot use one cultures moral yardstick to measure the actions of another - some things *are* moral absolutes but many are not.  

Public beheadings?  They might not have had YouTube but the media of the day took great delight in spreading the news of the thousands of these carried out by the French during their Revolution.  Or even worse, the public burnings of Catholics or Protestants (depending who had the ascendency at the time) - who did that?  We did, the oh-so-civilised British.  These were also publicised to act as a deterrent to other 'wrong thinkers'. 

Please reread sentence one at this point - I can only put these forward as examples, they are not proof of anything but they do suggest that no nation is pure and all go through evolutions of morality where their 'humanity' (for want of  a better term) waxes and wanes.  

I might not believe in an all powerful God that created everything but the Bible does have some pretty useful wisdom in it when it comes to moral behaviour.  I'm not going to quote various bits and pieces of it to suit my argument, just suggest that when it comes to people taking pride in their Christian Morality, they need to accept all of what they base that on.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

not so fast

"murder" is the illegal killing of a human being

executions are not illegal

ergo, murder and executions are not the same thing,

someone may claim to "feel" they are the same, but that feeling isnt based on reality

The radical islamic terrorists are worse examples of humanity than the west is.

there isnt any real room to debate this.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 18, 2008)

That is true if there is no willingness to even consider that moral certainty is an illusion.

I shall pursue this no further as it can lead nowhere productive.  

I just hope that one day you might see things differently but it's not my place to try and show you. If I did attempt such a thing, I'd just cause a hardening of attitudes and a decline in the politeness with which we have come to address each other.

Plus, I'll be getting a smack for thread drift if I'm not careful anyway.


----------



## Darth F.Takeda (Jul 18, 2008)

All these animals have endured is waterboarding and in the case of Abu Grahb, some humiliation, nothing has been done to these guys that our own people dont go through in SERE schol and these are things that go on as hazing in University Greek clubs.

 If it can get you into Delta Force or Delta house, it aint torture, unpleasent but not torture.

They cut off heads, we puor water down their throats an ensure they live through it.

As for the argument that we make more Jihadis', so what?
Anything we do does that. We were pretty leanent on the M.E. durring the Clinton years and the first 8 months of the Bush admin. and they still did the Cole bombings, attacked embassies and did 9-11.

 If more hear the call to Jihad, that's just more that have to be killed.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 18, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> ...but that feeling isnt based on reality...


 
Whose reality?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 18, 2008)

Darth F.Takeda said:


> All these animals have endured is waterboarding and in the case of Abu Grahb, some humiliation, nothing has been done to these guys that our own people dont go through in SERE schol and these are things that go on as hazing in University Greek clubs.
> 
> If it can get you into Delta Force or Delta house, it aint torture, unpleasent but not torture.
> 
> ...


 
This is precisely the kind of rationalization that I labeled as an evil thing.  The war never stops and even genocide is not out of the question.  

In early 2006, a study came out that stated that inintended casualties related to the Iraq war was hovering right around half a million.  How many 911s is this?  How many times does the US have to revisit 911 upon a people who had nothing to do with 911?  How many people have to die before the war ends?  Everyone?

I think we all need to stop and think about rationalizations like this.  In our society, this is an evil thing, yet there are so many people that have cast away any sense of morality in favor of...what?  

How do people get like this?  Who benefits from getting people like this?  Who has the power to change history, control information, and control the image in order to get people to think like this?

This is another form of real.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

Never fear Sir, I like ya too much to get harsh with ya





Sukerkin said:


> That is true if there is no willingness to even consider that moral certainty is an illusion.
> 
> I shall pursue this no further as it can lead nowhere productive.
> 
> ...


----------



## elder999 (Jul 18, 2008)

Interestingly, wateboarding was used to elicit false confessions in Missippi, back in 1926, and the Missisippi Supreme court overturned a confession of murder, and called waterboarding _torture._

Waterboarding was also used by U.S. soldiers in the Phillipines in 1898, and it caused something of a scandal at the time, though feelings were...._mixed,_ those on both sides of the controversy called it _torture_.

The Japanese and the Gestapo used waterboarding on U.S. troops during WWII. Many Japanese and Germans were convicted of war crimes, including waterboarding, which was classified at the time as _torture._

Waterboarding was declared illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam, and U.S. soldiers were forbidden from using the practice to get information. At least one U.S. soldier was court martialed for participating in waterboarding.The U.S. generals called it _torture._

The Chilean Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture called the practice of waterboarding by the Pinochet regime _torture._

Most interestingly, though, waterboarding is used in the SERE school because it was specifically used by Communist regimes-North Korea, Red China and North Vietnam-to elicit _false_ confessions from American POWs. Consequently, one can conclude that, just as John McCain-a victim of torture himself-has said:*torture doesn't work*-the subject will say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear to make it stop.

What's waterboarding? *Stupid*,really stupid. It makes us look bad, and it doesn't work.

And it's _torture_.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

elder999 said:


> *Stupid*,really stupid. It makes us look bad, and it doesn't work.
> 
> And it's _torture_.



wrong again Elder

KSM cracked after less than 3 minutes, and we got a TON of information

it works very well.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 18, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> KSM cracked after less than 3 minutes, and we got a TON of information.


 
How do you know this?


----------



## Marginal (Jul 18, 2008)

If one views ethics as situational, does one have ethics at all?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 19, 2008)

Marginal said:


> If one views ethics as situational, does one have ethics at all?


 
If ethics are marketed as "situational" and the situations are "controlled" to the extent that you are told what to think, then how much do ethics really matter?


----------



## Ninjamom (Jul 19, 2008)

elder999 said:


> The Japanese and the Gestapo used waterboarding on U.S. troops during WWII. Many Japanese and Germans were convicted of war crimes, including waterboarding, which was classified at the time as _torture._
> 
> Waterboarding was declared illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam, and U.S. soldiers were forbidden from using the practice to get information. At least one U.S. soldier was court martialed for participating in waterboarding.The U.S. generals called it _torture._
> 
> The Chilean Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture called the practice of waterboarding by the Pinochet regime _torture._


 
I know that most of this is straight from Wikipedia, but it is also mostly incorrect, or at least grossly misleading (which is why the entire topic is locked at Wikipedia for review).

The term 'waterboarding' wasn't coined until 2004 (that was its first use that I could find), so to get these 'facts' about its historical use and classification as torture, its definition has been streeeeeeetched.  The Japanese and German practices, for instance, did not resemble the waterboarding under discussion beyond the fact that they both used water.  The SS was known for holding a person's head under water until near-suffocation or until the person passed out.  There was no "simulated drowning" - the prisoner was being drowned, then stopped short to allow speech.  The Japanese usually forced water from a hose directly into the stomachs of POWs.  The prisoner's grotesquely distended stomach was then beaten.  A skilled tormentor could get this to last hours before the stomach ruptured, resulting in an agonizing death.  In both of these cases, there was genuine peril of imminent death.  In the Japanese case there was lasting physical trauma/damage to any survivors.  Both of these elements are missing from the waterboarding techniques currently under discussion.

As far as the US soldier who was courtmartialed for using waterboarding in Viet Nam , AFAIK, he did in fact use the technique currently under discussion.  However, he used it without even having the authority to interrogate the prisoner, let alone use extreme measures.

In all of the above cases, the part that made the action illegal was the status of the victim, not the nature of their treatment with water.  The Japanese routinely used their water torture on captured soldiers under uniform and authorirty of another nation, while the Chileans and the SS used it on unarmed unresisting civilians, both of which populations are protected under rules of warfare (Geneva accords 1 through 4).  The lone US soldier in Viet Nam was an isolated incident of someone who acted outside the authority of his own chain of command - he was dealt with accordingly.  In the current discussion, waterboarding has only been used against armed illegal combatants engaged in terror and/or sedition, a population which was deliberately excluded from the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

So, under the Geneva accords, it's actually OK to torture spies or sabateurs or terrorists.  I know that doesn't make it right, but it does make it 'legal'.  Not sure if this would be straying off topic, or part of the natural evolution of the topic, but I would like to leave the debate on whether waterboarding is torture, and discuss the broader question: is torture ever justified?  I'll even grant that waterboarding is torture.  Given that, is it OK to use it in extreme circumstances against captured terrorists actively plotting attacks on civilian population centers?  Discuss please.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 19, 2008)

I agree, *Ninjamom* that it would be good not to allow the thread to side-track onto "What constitutes torture?" and would be better served by investigating our views on whether it is justified or useful.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 19, 2008)

The "it doesn't work" statement is a huge ASSumption. Unless some of us are CIA, NSA, SOF etc. Nobody here can honestly tell us if its getting good, verifiable (for some reason people here think out intell agents just take data at face value) intelligence or not.

The "it doesn't work" crowd just doent WANT it to work because it IS an ugly thing to have to do.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 19, 2008)

Well, here's what a former Master Chief Instructor at the U.S. Navy SERE school had to say about 'waterboarding":



> ....both the Army and Navy SERE school&#8217;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....*


\


...and here's what Brig. General David Irviine has to say about torture:



> No one has yet offered any validated evidence that torture produces reliable intelligence. While torture apologists frequently make the claim that torture saves lives, that assertion is directly contradicted by many Army, FBI, and CIA professionals who have actually interrogated al Qaeda captives. Exhibit A is the torture-extracted confession of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al Qaeda captive who told the CIA in 2001, having been "rendered" to the tender mercies of Egypt, that Saddam Hussein had trained al Qaeda to use WMD. It appears that this confession was the only information upon which, in late 2002, the president, the vice president, and the secretary of state repeatedly claimed that "credible evidence" supported that claim, even though a now-declassified Defense Intelligence Agency report from February 2002 questioned the reliability of the confession because it was likely obtained under torture. In January 2004, al-Libi recanted his "confession," and a month later, the CIA recalled all intelligence reports based on his statements.



and here's what former FBI agent says about torture, specifically, waterboarding:



> a former FBI agent said some of the most aggressive interrogation techniques in dispute are rarely effective anyway.
> 
> 
> "Generally speaking, those don't work," said Jack Cloonan, a former FBI agent and an ABC News consultant.
> ...



and, lastly, from the CIA webpage, a paper from the Intelligence Science board on educing intellignence:



> As I read the volume, my thoughts drifted back to James J. Angleton, the CIA's chief of counterintelligence from 1954 to 1974. In 1975, Senator Frank Church of Idaho led a Senate investigation into alleged intelligence abuses. I was his special assistant on the committee, and one of my assignments was to spend time with Angleton, probing his views on counterintelligence. At Angleton's suggestion, he and I met weekly for a few months at the Army-Navy Club in Washington DC. One of the key principles of counterintelligence interrogation, he emphasized to me, was this:* if you torture a subject, he will tell you whatever you want to hear.* The infliction of pain was a useless approach-- "counterproductive," as some of the authors in this anthology would put it. Angleton also had little regard for the polygraph or for chemicals as instruments of truth-seeking. He was not above using some forms of discomfort, though, such as Spartan quarters for the subject, along with sleep deprivation, time disorientation, and exhaustive questioning by way of a "good cop, bad cop" routine. Like some of the authors in this volume, he believed in using a combination of rapport-building (the good cop) and the engendering of some fear (the bad cop--although not one armed with a pair of pliers).
> 
> If Angleton had been able to read this book, he would have discovered a considerable corpus of research that suggests that the induction of sleep deprivation, fatigue, isolation, or discomfort in a subject merely raises the likelihood of inaccurate responses during subsequent questioning. As for the polygraph, researchers in this study tell us that this approach has definite shortcomings, but "there is currently no viable technical alternative to polygraphy."


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 19, 2008)

I agree, *Archangel*, we are without a doubt speaking with our hearts here and without the benefit of professional input.

The closest I can get to that is that I know (in the Internet sense) a couple of FBI chaps but they're not 'front-end' so what they would be able to confirm is questionable. *Tez* might be able to shed a little light with her connections?

To me, torture is morally wrong.  I have no ambiguity about that at all.  

The simplest part of my stance on this is simple extrapolation of legality - if it is illegal for me to do something then that illegality should also 'scale up' to render it illegal for my government to do it.  

This, of course, falls foul of the point I made before about how an individual can have inconsistent views.  How can I hold on the one hand that a government should not be allowed to use torture and yet, on the other, give my assent for them to invoke the death penalty?

Illogicality apart (  ), I still staunchly withhold my consent for my government to use torture to further it's aims.  That holds true for me even if by use of torture information can be gained that will save many lives.  Tho' it is not the fault of those that would be saved and to save them would be most assuredly a 'good thing', to do so via use of torture is to buy their lives with corrupt coin.

Permit something evil to be used for a clearly good purpose on one occasion and it's use will become more acceptable to those who wish to use it.  Next time the use will not be for such a laudible cause.  The time after that, even less so.  

To get a little Yoda/Buddha on your behinds, it only takes a little fruit juice added to a glass of pure water to turn the whole into something else.  It is the same with moral choices.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 19, 2008)

For that matter I have some "connections" to the business, but VERY FEW (and for good reason) have access to classified information. Perhaps it doesn't work, I dont know and for that matter 99% of us here probably have no real clue either. And if you did odds are you wouldnt be talking about here.

From my perspective, I believe that "coercive techniques" CAN work. I dont believe that most of our intell guys think that this is a technique where you just get a guy to "spill" and then believe that data without some sort of verification with other intell. I would think that intell specialists would be well aware of subjects giving false information to end interrogation.

But the issue of it "working" or not is a vastly different issue from if its right to do it or not. You can believe it works but still believe its wrong.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 19, 2008)

William Safire traces the specific terminology back to 1976:



> In 1976, a United Press International reporter wrote that U.S. Navy trainees &#8220;were strapped down and water poured into their mouths and noses until they lost consciousness. . . . A Navy spokesman admitted use of the &#8216;_water board_&#8217; torture . . . to &#8216;convince each trainee that he won&#8217;t be able to physically resist what an enemy would do to him.&#8217; &#8221;


 
Additionally, from the article I posted earlier, Mal Nance, the former Master Chief Navy SERE instructor, and counterterroism intelligence and interrogation consultant to DHS, CIA, FBI and US armed forces special operations, has this to say about wateboarding:



> *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.


 
Remember, this is the guy who has probably taught the technique to some of the people who wound up using it.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 19, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> I agree, *Archangel*, we are without a doubt speaking with our hearts here and without the benefit of professional input.



Not true.  Both Elder and myself have posted the writings of professionals involved in the use of waterboarding, either for training or for interrogation.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 19, 2008)

That was a conditional clause as an introduction, to let the reader know that I have no professional knowledge or expertise on the subject.  It was also to acknowledge my agreement with the previous posters statement that, as far as we know, we have noone here with actual experience.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 19, 2008)

And former head of the CIA James Woolsey said it does work. I believe him.

KSM himself admitted it worked on him. I believe him too.

"A current CIA official says that KSM actually told interrogators the only reason he confessed was because of the water-boarding."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/how-the-cia-bro.html

yes, it is horrible. Horrible things happen in war every day. Wishing otherwise doesnt make it so.

And lets not forget that it is a good thing to be loved and respected by your friends, but it is also a good thing to be feared by your enemies.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 19, 2008)

We can trade "professionals" opinions all day, and whos is more relevant than whos  EH. As Twin Fist has shown they have as varied opinions as we do.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 21, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> And former head of the CIA James Woolsey said it does work. I believe him.
> 
> KSM himself admitted it worked on him. I believe him too.
> 
> ...


 
From the above quoted article:



> *&#8220;If one water-board session got him to talk, you could have gotten him to talk (without it), given time and patience," *said Brad Garrett, an ABC News consultant and former FBI agent. Garrett has 30 years of experience interrogating terrorists such as Yousef, the Pakistani man who killed two CIA employees at the gates to the agency's Langley, Va. headquarters in 1994 and hundreds of violent criminals.
> 
> "If in fact it's true that they water-boarded him once and then he started talking and provided reliable information, then he falls under the category of the small minority of people on whom it works. But *torture seldom works. Most people start talking...to get the pain to stop," *Garrett said.
> 
> ...


----------



## elder999 (Apr 20, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> wrong again Elder
> 
> KSM cracked after less than 3 minutes, and we got a TON of information
> 
> it works very well.


 

After less than 3 minutes?

Or after the *50th or 100th time???*

Seen here:



> updated 9:09 a.m. MT, Mon., April 20, 2009
> C.I.A. interrogators used waterboarding, the near-drowning technique that top Obama administration officials have described as illegal torture, 266 times on two key prisoners from Al Qaeda, far more than had been previously reported.
> The C.I.A. officers used waterboarding at least 83 times in August 2002 against Abu Zubaydah, according to a 2005 Justice Department legal memorandum. Abu Zubaydah has been described as a Qaeda operative.
> 
> *The 2005 memo also says that the C.I.A. used waterboarding 183 times in March 2003 against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.*


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 20, 2009)

So that's about 6 times a day on average.  I'm amazed they had time to do anything else.  What insanity.


----------

