Do you think waterboarding is torture?

dictionary.com defines torture:

tor⋅ture
   /ˈtɔrtʃər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tawr-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, -tured, -tur⋅ing.
–noun
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.

So, yes, waterboarding is torture. I imagine the severity of its results on the body was the point of inflicting it.

I was surprised when I read the question. Unless you are a member of the former Bush administration or a supporter, would you think of asking it?

The definition MaryLupin gave and the wikipedia article about waterboarding make things very clear to me. Of course, when Rudi Giuliani was asked whether waterboarding was torture, things were more murky: "I don't know... it depends who does it".

The arguments I have found in defence of waterboarding not being torture is that the pain is not intense or prolonged enough to qualify for torture... Might they not revise this appreciation is the bad guys were doing the torturing?


I think President Obama was quite right to condemn this firmly. A country that can acknowledge its mistakes becomes stronger, not weaker. Too often countries find it convenient to push the bad actions of the past under the rug.
The moral superiority of a democracy is that you don't resort to such methods, even if you are under pressure and you think it might give you a momentary advantage over the enemy. It also makes you vulnerable because you know some of your enemies would not abide by the same rules. But if you go down to their level of inhumanity things can only get worse.
In times of terrorist attacks, democracies are fragile and may be tempted to forget important principles in view of the perceived danger. This is what happened in the United Kingdom during attacks from the IRA, or with the French army during the Algerian war in the early 1960's.

If one needs more arguments to show that waterboarding is torture, let's quote some of the groups who used it in the past:

The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia

The Pinochet regime in Chile, for example.

I don't think these people can be suspected in dabbling in "light" forms of torture.
So this is the gentlemen's club the Bush administration joined with waterboarding.

I'll end with the part of the Wiki article about waterboarding by the French in Algeria and the censorship that followed. To this day, many French people have only a vague idea of what happened during that war.

Algerian War

The technique was also used during the Algerian War (1954-1962). The French journalist Henri Alleg, who was subjected to waterboarding by French paratroopers in Algeria in 1957,[72] is one of only a few people to have described in writing the first-hand experience of being waterboarded. His book La Question, published in 1958 with a preface by Jean-Paul Sartre subsequently banned in France until the end of the Algerian War in 1962,[73] discusses the experience of being strapped to a plank, having his head wrapped in cloth and positioned beneath a running tap:

The rag was soaked rapidly. Water flowed everywhere: in my mouth, in my nose, all over my face. But for a while I could still breathe in some small gulps of air. I tried, by contracting my throat, to take in as little water as possible and to resist suffocation by keeping air in my lungs for as long as I could. But I couldn't hold on for more than a few moments. I had the impression of drowning, and a terrible agony, that of death itself, took possession of me. In spite of myself, all the muscles of my body struggled uselessly to save me from suffocation. In spite of myself, the fingers of both my hands shook uncontrollably. "That's it! He's going to talk", said a voice.

The water stopped running and they took away the rag. I was able to breathe. In the gloom, I saw the lieutenants and the captain, who, with a cigarette between his lips, was hitting my stomach with his fist to make me throw out the water I had swallowed.

Alleg stated that he had not broken under his ordeal of being waterboarded.[75] Alleg has stated that the incidence of "accidental" death of prisoners being subjected to waterboarding in Algeria was "very frequent".[6]

Yes, quite clearly, it is torture.

More troubling than our own use of torture is the extradition of prisoners to our less inhibited allies who will take it to the next level. This is not a case of torturing, personally, but handing off defenseless prisoners to people who we KNOW will torture them.

These are the more familiar forms of torture you might remember from Rambo movies and the inquisition.

"Who will rid me of Ibnul'Ashraf?"

We didnt do the deed, but it was our order that led to it.

Always one to find try to find the real story, our "own" Christopher Hitchens subjected himself to waterboarding. Read what he had to say about the experience in a Vanity Fair article.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feat ... rentPage=2

Hi Chris:

There are some questions that should remain academic in nature. ‘Is water-boarding torture?’ is one of them. This question has several facets; but I will only address two of them here.

1. It depends on the definition of torture (or the person’s tolerance of pain).

For a nation unaccustomed to the atrocities of war on their homeland, then such citizenry may regard even the shouting at a prisoner of war to be intolerable torture, since perhaps they may ‘break’ if they were subjected to a similar treatment. However, if your enemy’s definition of torture includes drilling holes in a prisoner’s eyes while they are still alive, and similar treatment, then the torturer may view-water boarding as an inconvenience, while the tortured may welcome it as temporary relief.

2. It depends on the environment.

If a nation is at war, then both sides view the capture of officers as beneficial, since useful intelligence may be obtained from them. That is why traditionally the foot soldiers, who were more likely to be captured, were not normally briefed on the details of battle strategies. Hence, they may avoid being tortured since knowledgeable enemy officers understood that such persons were unlikely to have significant strategic information. However, if they were tortured for sadistic or retaliatory reasons, then they would have had limited useful information to reveal.

When a high valued asset (officer) is captured, then the ‘aggressor’ enemy will certainly torture, as survivors have typically reported. However, what is the ‘non-aggressor’ party to the conflict to do? This is not a game of monopoly, where the board is put away at the end of the exercise and the participants then go about their normal lives. If you fail to keep the enemy at bay, then you, your family and nation will certainly lose everything.

It is so very easy for people, who are untouched by real atrocities, to pontificate their academic views about what others should and should not do to avoid the terrible consequences of either inaction, or a less than adequate response. These academic views were allowed to escape the well defined boundaries of theoretical rhetoric and incomprehensively dictate the world’s insane response to the Rwandan massacre.

These academic views resulted in a cowardly, irresponsible, and I must say it, evil response of: Do absolutely nothing useful to stop any person mercilessly torturing and murdering civilians, and do absolutely nothing useful to help any of those who are being mercilessly tortured and murdered. Do absolutely nothing useful - or else!

So, every nation of the world complied and merely sat and watched the spectacle of 800,000 civilians being slaughtered over 100 days, similar to how the Romans were entertained by the massacres in the coliseum approximately two millennia ago. The world only intervened to tell the victims, who had decided to fight back and had their enemy on the run, to stop pursuing their enemies - or else!

So, is water-boarding torture? It is for some, and it is not for others. For the remainder, the US’ national obsession with discussing water-boarding is torture enough.

Regards,
BrotherSka.

Hello BrotherSka,
I'm not entirely clear on what you're saying, my fault at least in part for not having the details of the Rwandan massacre straight in my mind. I was wondering if you did have a chance to look at Christopher Hitchens' article to which I posted a link above, and what you thought of it. I can't right now justify such a relativistic outlook on torture as you seem to be promoting.

Hi DWill:

I read Hitchens' article, which should convince everyone that water-boarding is much preferred to actual torture. The experience seems to be a much safer form of tying a plastic bag around the head to simulate controlled suffocation. It would appear that water-boarding is the safest method of forcibly getting a prisoner of war to cooperate.

DWill, given all of the various coercive methods, can you please identify a safer method than water-boarding, which even Hitchens found amusing enough to try twice!

Regards.

Brotherska wrote:

I read Hitchens' article, which should convince everyone that water-boarding is much preferred to actual torture. The experience seems to be a much safer form of tying a plastic bag around the head to simulate controlled suffocation. It would appear that water-boarding is the safest method of forcibly getting a prisoner of war to cooperate.

Have we forgotten?

Burning and hanging
http://www.aztlan.net/torched_hung.htm

or, beheading
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/ ... 6901.shtml

The prisoners who suffered embarasing treatment at Abu Ghraib are still walking and talking. American prisoners don't have that luxury. (Don't say it was torture, that's even more embarasing) American soldiers were convicted of war crimes connected with Abu Ghraib because it was exposed. Obama is vocalizing about water boarding because it has been exposed. Are there forms of torture endorsed by the American government that have not been exposed? That's the question, but, do we really want to know the answer?

Suzanne

Brotherska wrote:Hi DWill:

I read Hitchens' article, which should convince everyone that water-boarding is much preferred to actual torture. The experience seems to be a much safer form of tying a plastic bag around the head to simulate controlled suffocation. It would appear that water-boarding is the safest method of forcibly getting a prisoner of war to cooperate.

DWill, given all of the various coercive methods, can you please identify a safer method than water-boarding, which even Hitchens found amusing enough to try twice!

Regards.

Amusing enough, brotherska? Would you yourself try this out? Hitchens did this for professional reasons, and obviously you don't believe his conclusions about the technique. Formerly the U.S. had proscribed this method. What changed--only that we had become victims of terrorists? Is that sufficient to abandon a principle? Look, I'm no expert on this, and I don't want to sound naive, either. But there are opinions by experienced people to consider, to the effect that torture doesn't work as well other interrogation techniques, anyway.