Video of Waterboarding
Via Stuart Buck comes a video of a guy who gets waterboarded to see demonstrate what it’s like.
Interestingly, he lasts 24 minutes, when we had been told that the toughest people last only a few seconds, or perhaps 2-3 minutes at most. But the “interrogators” also appear to give him breaks, by taking the cloth out of his mouth.
I would have preferred more explanation of what is actually going on, and less philosophical debate about torture, which you can get anywhere. Still, it’s an interesting video.
It doesn’t look like they’re giving him any breaks; removing the cloth allows them more time to inflict pain, which is the real motivation behind torture.
Steve Smith (2f23e9) — 10/14/2006 @ 8:38 amAsk a Navy Seal or Special Forces Troop. They endure much more than what a liberal coward calls torture and they’re only in training. People like poor old Steve have watched too many Holy-wood productions and became brainwashed by the cowards. I guess he’d let the terrorist go that chopped off Pearl’s head since he’s at the horrible GITMO. Make him a deal, let him out but Steve has to move him in with his family and take care of him 24-7. Me, I think we should return the favor and chop off his head in front of the other prisoners and let them see a rack of rusty dull knives waiting for them also.
Scraprion (a90377) — 10/14/2006 @ 11:11 amI’ve came to the conclusion that anyone with a ‘D’ by their name and those that vote for them are in fact cowards who wouldn’t lift a finger to protect the country or their family even if it came down to do or die.
Scrapion thoughtlessly called a lot of Americans, most of whom he has never met:
…insulting not just many decent people but also many soldiers who served and sometimes gave their lives defending our country.
Rick (c4e376) — 10/14/2006 @ 1:35 pmIt could be that they went easy on him, BUT… I think giving a person breaks may be part of the protocol because otherwise, you may literally asphyxiate him.
Plus, my thinking is that by alternating periods of fear and pain with periods of relative relief, you may increase the effectiveness of the technique. The contrast itself provides the brain something to move toward.
It also heightens the pain. This is the same with any type of stimulation.
Further, the subject is ex military (ex special forces, I believe: It’s been a while since I’ve seen the video) who had already undergone this technique in training and is far more highly motivated and tough than the average person. Second, by volunteering to do it again he had already self-selected himself as willing to undergo it, something that moves him well outside the average for people enduring the technique. He is not a representative sample.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/14/2006 @ 1:52 pmNo, he is not. He is tougher than your average person. You could call him a member of the “A- team”. So yeah, he’ll last longer than your average civillian.
But KSM isn’t your average civillian either. He to is supposed to be the best and toughest of what al-Qaeda can field.
Anyway, the whole “representative field” comparison is pointless. This is something that is done only to the highest of the captured HVT’s. This is not something that is experienced by anyone in the average civillian or military world.
AGX (65906c) — 10/14/2006 @ 6:01 pmSausage factory. I appreciate that this is being done to preserve the America I want my four and a half year old daughter to grow up in. I am grateful to those who are doing it. I would rather not see it.
nk (d7a872) — 10/14/2006 @ 6:09 pmHe doesn’t get waterboarded to see what it’s like. He was waterboarded previously. He volunteers to be waterboarded again to demonstrate it and to make moral and pragmatic points regarding it (on the balancing of the two).
That was the person who bravely volunteered to undergo this procedure’s point. It was to debate the philosophical and moral nature of it from a point of view you don’t have: both as someone who has undergone it and as a prior service member. While you don’t need to experience in order to hold a useful opinion, I’d say he’s gone above and beyond and earned his right to have an opinion on it, twice.
The point of view of the people he interviewed, particularly Mike Ritz, professional interrogator, was worthwhile. His main point if I grasp it is there are moral problems with torture and he does not support its being enshrined into law, but it’s sometimes practically necessary, and that a society can use a variety of methods, including jury nullification, to reevaluate it and show support for its necessity after the fact.
This is similar to the position of another commentator, Phil, you were debating earlier. You defended him and understandibly chastized me for not fully grasping his position.
I think that’s the point the interrogator was making, again from a position of experience that no one here shares. I found it valuable indeed.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/14/2006 @ 7:34 pmIt made for uncomfortable viewing, of course, but I found it very interesting that afterwards he was absolutely fine and healthy (while obviously not having enjoyed the experience at all). Keeping in mind that the whole western world has been debating precisely this technique so that it should be no surprise to the bad guys, and now with this openly available visual evidence that you come out of it okay (not to mention the first-hand testament to the fact that we put our own soldiers through it in training), I feel like the argument for using it has been strengthened somewhat. “It does no actual damage — see for yourself — but you’re gonna HATE it and you’re gonna give in.”
Eve M. (d41cef) — 10/15/2006 @ 10:57 am@Christoph: So what you are saying is that someone questioning a terrorist is supposed to know from some 6th sense when the country will allow him to inflict these techniques and how much we’ll allow. You expect him to face ALL the potential conseqences from his actions in exchange for a vague promise that we might consider the circumstances at his trial for same actions, nice.
Somehow I doubt many will take you up on the offer. The whole reason for defining it in law is to prevent politically hostile groups from defining any interogation tactic as torture, and flooding the courts and media with their attacks, which is what is happening right now.
maxh (d891d2) — 10/15/2006 @ 11:04 ammaxh, watch and read (including the link above). That’s not my argument nor is it my position.
It’s Phil’s position and it’s Mike Ritz’ position. My points were:
My main criticism of waterboarding is that it may be inadequate in certain circumstances. However, it seems like an effective technique and should be subject to strict controls because it is, by any objective analysis, a mild form of torture.
It produces pain and fear, which makes it torture, but is “mild” in the sense that it does not routinely cause long term physical harm.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/15/2006 @ 11:27 amWhile I noticed that the guy had been waterboarded before, I forgot that when I wrote the post, and characterized it as a desire to “see” what it’s like when it was more to “demonstrate” it. I do think he wanted to remind himself what it was like, so in a sense, he did want to “see” what it was like again — but the way I put originally it could mislead people who don’t view it into thinking that it was a first-time experience. So I have corrected the post.
I’m interested in the philosophical side of it, obviously, but wished that the video had been clearer on exactly what was happening and didn’t let the philosophical discussion distract from it. It is the graphic depiction of waterboarding that makes the video unique.
Patterico (de0616) — 10/15/2006 @ 5:08 pmEveryone I have seen commenting on waterboarding misses the essential point. When an enemy combatant is waterboarded, he thinks we are going to kill him, by intent or by accident. I have been through special forces training and have been waterboarded more than I care to remember. But I knew they weren’t going to kill me. That’s why this guy lasted that long, He KNEW he was safe.
Dan in Michigan (f253a4) — 10/15/2006 @ 6:08 pmNeither does an electric cattle prod.
That may be part of the reason that the United Nations Convention Against Torture doesn’t discriminate levels of physical harm when defining torture.
Rick (c4e376) — 10/15/2006 @ 6:15 pmFair enough, Patterico, about noticing that he’d been waterboarded before. I firgured that was most likely an oversight.
My main point is that I give a bit more weight to their viewpoint because they took the time (and unpleasantness!) to produce such a thoughtful piece. And with your calling me on my criticism of Phil for essentially the same position (you don’t agree with Phil; you just thought he was being sincere and serious) I wanted to clarify where you’re coming from.
As far as how awful the technique is, I don’t know and don’t want to know. If I was in the service, yes, I’d volunteer to undergo that technique if it was required for a given course. But I sure don’t think I’d want to do it as a civvy.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/15/2006 @ 6:27 pmDan, Rick, I don’t miss the point. I believe it’s torture. Just mild as far as torture goes. There are degrees in (most) everything.
And Rick, whom I hate, while the U.N. is correct in this instance, don’t expect me to ever by one of their definitions lock, stock, and barrel without independent confirmation.
Of course, we haven’t had a good U.N. Secretary-General since Trygve Lie who took his mission seriously.
historylearningsite.co.uk/united_nations_korean_war.htm
(read last 4 paragraphs or entire thing… great history lesson)
But… could it be happening again with Ban-Ki Moon?
hotair.com/archives/2006/10/15/abc-interviews-incoming-un-chief-lies-about-what-he-said/
You’d better hope not, Liberals.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/15/2006 @ 6:37 pm*buy
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/15/2006 @ 6:38 pmsorry christoph I misread your comment.
I agree with you that waterboarding may be insufficient in some cases but it falls under the “couldn’t hurt might help category.” It doesn’t seem to do long term damage when done correctly and it seems to be an effective way to root out valuable intel. All of the techniques being debated don’t seem to be all that bad really, at least compared to what some nations consider normal practices. Messing with the perception of time, playing on Muslim mens discomfort around women, loud music, insults, psychiatric analysis, cold rooms, etc. Some of these techniques have been standard practice by police for years.
I don’t particularly like the idea of government agents using some of these techniques on anyone. But I believe it will be necessary sometimes and will happen regardless of what the civil rights for terrorists crowd thinks. A comprehensive definition of what is permissible is absolutely necessary and will allow some interrogation of valuable prisoners while also preventing people from going to far with it. Leaving it all up to the interrogator to decide will either leave you with a bunch of dead Americans because someone didn’t want to risk time in Leavenworth. Or an excessive level of brutality in some interrogators because they thought official silence meant anything goes. At least with a written standard they know how far they can go and that there will be penalties if they exceed certain levels.
maxh (d891d2) — 10/15/2006 @ 9:00 pmNo worries, maxh.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/15/2006 @ 9:03 pmExactly when has the Geneva Convention protected Americans?
I keep repeating this- the Geneva Convention was created to prevent America from doing to captives from the rest of the world what the rest of the world does to American captives.
drjohn (3f653a) — 10/17/2006 @ 10:54 amWhen you’re torturing someone you don’t want to actually hurt them. Injuries can be displayed in court, or they can limit your future torture options. (You can’t make someone hold stress positions if you’ve chopped off his arms.)
We executed Japanese officers for waterboarding their prisoners in World War 2. It’s a war crime. It’s torture 2.0. It has all the “benefits” of torture without the drawbacks, which is why we’d still be waterboarding our prisoners even if we had Saddam’s full toolbox at our disposal.
The fact that we’re doing this to people who have never been formally charged with a crime or allowed to explain to a judge why we might have the wrong person is an orthogonal but equally important point.
tongodeon (a81a7f) — 10/17/2006 @ 4:23 pmNicely put, tongodeon. I’ve argued about torture with some of these guys over and over, but I never found anything like that to kick their argument in the proverbial balls. I preferred to stick to the obvious ethical problems associated with deliberately inflicting pain on another human being while espousing your moral virtue to the rest of the world.
Leviticus (43095b) — 10/17/2006 @ 4:56 pmFor maxh (and others),
There is a distinct downside to publicly itemizing our tactics. The other team gets to prepare themselves against them. That is precisely why SERE training in the military subjects members to those techniques, and is certainly why the guy held out for 24 minutes.
He KNEW he wasn’t being permanently harmed, he KNEW he wasn’t at the point of death, initially. After a time under such duress the mind loses it’s trust in that knowledge, and he gave up. But someone who did not know what was coming could not have lasted as well.
We have lost when we decide to govern every action of a wartime military in accordance with civil laws, especially when we fight against a countryless enemy, an amorphous band of insurgents who are bound by no law.
In complete agreement with drjohn (#19), no American prisoner of war since the Geneva Conventions have been established, has ever been treated in accordance with them. Sen. McCain knows this. For any who haven’t yet read Mark Steyn’s piece on visiting Gitmo, you need to.
We all have the freedom to claim someone’s actions are immoral. I posit that those who oppose this war would never stop finding targets for their claims of immorality by our country, no matter how often we changed to accomodate their sensitivities. Remember, these are the same sort that said President Bush (41) was a neanderthal opposing the will of congress for vetoing a monstrous tax hike they wanted, bullied him into accepting it, then ground him into the dust as a “liar” for allowing it in spite of his “no new taxes” pledge. And which stand could he have taken that would not have been attacked?
“War is hell.” Some have the nerve to take a stand for a country they believe in. Some don’t. Let those who do get the job done, and stay out of their way.
Freelancer (cb897a) — 10/17/2006 @ 5:52 pmTongdeon stated that “we” executed Japanese prisoners for waterboarding in WWII. (#20)
First, it might also have had something to do with the “beatings” done with “fists” and “bamboo poles.”
Second, Malaysian civilians were the subjects of that torture (according to Tongdeon’s reference).
Third, I don’t see where “we” executed anyone. The inference is that the Malaysian inquiry board ordered the execution of those who tortured the civilians. I don’t see that “we” had anything to do with it.
drjohn (e90484) — 10/18/2006 @ 1:29 pmBill Clinton endorses Phil’s position and Mike Ritz’ postion.
Christoph (24f655) — 10/19/2006 @ 12:42 amI agree with DrJohn. Tongdeon links to a site that describes waterboarding-like activities that included brutal beatings and partial drownings that required the subjects to be “revived”. Moreover, we do not know what information was the basis of the reports that are listed in the website or how much was excepted from the underlying reports. This is triple heresay.
The waterboarding that I have heard about the CIA conducting and watched in the video is not torture. It would suck to have it done to you, but it leaves no lasting harm and is over with very quickly (the AQ types have generally not lasted more than two minutes accoring to some reports).
Cruiser (e49885) — 10/27/2006 @ 2:42 pmLet me see here, scrapion, Franklin put us in WW II, Harry dropped a couple of woppers on Japan, Lyndon had us in Vietnam, Bill took care of Sarajevo. All have a ‘D’ connected to their name.
davidsworld (42139c) — 11/7/2007 @ 7:44 pmBurning-Bush (George says he talks to some god and gets advice like Moses, but I think it’s the bush his dog uses) inexplicably turned away from Afghanistan allowing Osama to split to Pakistan just waiting for his turn at the free-atomic weapons when Mushariff falls and the largest opium crop to ever fluorish and creating a few more reasons with his Iraq buffoonery for millions more young (the displaced and refugees) Muslims to hate our government and attack anything and everything. There is an ‘R’ connected to his name and I think he and his crew are the cowards–they never served, just killed with orders…
The ‘R’ guys of your ilk, not all ‘R’ guys, just your kind, have blinders, ear-plugs, walk in lock-step without question in any direction those ‘Rs’ point your noses to America’s death door…
Water-boarding is torture, but that is besides the point. The real point, missed by many, is that torture does not produce valuable or valid information. Classifying water-boarding as torture or not is semantics, torture does not work.
And then, to make matters worse, the United States is torturing people indiscriminately. A worthless technique used against innocent people…from a democratic nation? Honored America has fallen so low. Now if you go find a suspected terrorist and you convict him of terrorism in a real court of law, you can torture him all you want…with my blessings (it won’t do any good, but if it makes you feel better…). However, until then, you are merely cowards, frightened of the truth, eyes closed and flailing wildly at your many imaginary boogeymen.
If you become the enemy to defeat the enemy, what have you won?
Daryn (852c35) — 12/13/2007 @ 5:04 amThat is abject nonsense. Moral relativism at it’s most depraved.
As for your “point”, tell it to Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Abu Zubaydah rolled over on him after some 35 seconds of “torture”, which left him in precisely the same shape he was in at the outset.
Pablo (99243e) — 12/13/2007 @ 5:22 am