[Note: For more on this topic, see here and here]
When defending the indefensible, it’s generally beneficial to stop when the apologia becomes untenable. The CIA gave up trying to defend the morality or legality of waterboarding—though they may still make a Machiavellian justification—because it troubled even the people who carried out the torture. Yet at NRO, Marc Thiessen continues unabated. Despite the fact that the Red Cross, Senator John McCain, numerous military leaders, FBI interrogators, Christian ethicists, former SERE school instructors, and his own church, denounce the technique known as “suffocation by water,” Thiessen continues to defend it on the website of one of the most august journals of conservatism.
Alas, such is the shameful state of American conservatism.
I apologize to readers who are finding this topic rather tedious; I too wish that we didn’t have to point out the obvious to our fellow conservatives. But the sophistry employed by Thiessen must be challenged so here, once again, is a rebuttal to his latest volley.
He begins by saying that I have made a “shameful comparison between the lawful techniques employed by the CIA and the tortures employed during the Spanish Inquisition.” The fact that the current method of waterboarding is almost exactly like the Inquisition’s “water-torture” is an inescapable fact, yet Thiessen is not convinced. Instead he rebuts my source by providing one of his own and quoting selectively from it:
The patient was placed on . . . a kind of trestle with sharp-edged rungs across it like a ladder. It slanted so that the head was lower than the feet and, at the lower end was a depression in which the head sank, while an iron band around the forehead or throat made it immovable. Sharp cords, called cordeles, which cut into the flesh, attached the arms and legs to the side of the trestle and others, known as garrotes, from sticks thrust in them and twisted around like a tourniquet till the cords cut more or less deeply into the flesh, were twined around the upper and lower arms, the thighs and the calves. . . .
Instead of Thiessen’s selective quotation, I recommend reading the entire passage which is available online. (The sentence before his quote is, “The water-torture was more complicated.”) Rather than directly quoting the next passage, he skips ahead to to describe a technique which, according to the book, is not water-torture, but the potro—the rack.
Here is Thiessen’s quote:
were carried to a maestro garrote by which the executioner could control all at once. These worked not only by compression, but by traveling around the limbs, carrying away skin and flesh. Each half round was reckoned a vuelta or turn, six or seven of which was the maximum, but it was usual not to exceed five. Formerly the same was done with the cord around the forehead, but this was abandoned as it was apt to start the eyes from their sockets.
Curiously, Thiessen then goes back to quote the original passage, as if the latter part truly did come in the middle. He conflates the rack with waterboarding in order to imply that they are both part of the same technique. I’m not sure if this is an intentional attempt to deceive or merely a failure of Thiessen’s skill as a researcher. Either way, it only further undercuts his claims.
Thiessen then triumphantly proclaims:
Sorry Joe, none of this even remotely resembles the technique as applied by the CIA. No cutting cords travelling around the limbs, twisting like a tourniquet and ripping away skin and flesh; no cord tightening around the head causing the victims eyes to pop from his skull; no iron prong distending the mouth; no strip of linen thrust down the throat to carry the water into the internal organs. No comparison whatsoever.
Thiessen appears to imply that unless it is combined with the rack, waterboarding cannot be considered torture at all. The fact that the primary purpose of both techniques is, as the Red Cross calls it, suffocation by water, seems to be a trivial detail.
But let’s look at how one of the prisoner’s who was waterboarded, Abu Zubaydah, described the incident:
I was put on what looked like a hospital bed, and strapped down very tightly with belts. A black cloth was then placed over my face and the interrogators used a mineral water bottle to pour water on the cloth so that I could not breathe. After a few minutes the cloth was removed and the bed was rotated into an upright position. The pressure of the straps on my wounds caused severe pain. I vomited. The bed was then again lowered to a horizontal position and the same torture carried out with the black cloth over my face and water poured on from a bottle. . . I lost control of my urine. Since then I still lose control of my urine when under stress.
Does that sound so different? Does Thiessen truly want to claim that the water-torture of the Spanish Inquisition does not “even remotely resembles the technique as applied by the CIA”? If so, then I suggest he take a course in reading comprehension.
His next section quotes me saying, “No doubt Mr. Thieseen will regale us with some bit of sophistry about how this “water torture” (simulated drowning) is radically different from waterboarding (which is also simulated drowning).” He presents his case and then adds:
In Courting Disaster, I go though other examples of how the Japanese employed water torture — and all of it rebuts Carter’s charge that these techniques are the same as the techniques used by the CIA.
Theissen seems not to have noticed that in one of the quotes he uses to defend his case it says, “They tied him to a stretcher, gagged him and elevated his legs. Then they poured water up his nostrils for five minutes.” Although I never said the techniques were similar (my claim, as you can see, is that the outcome—simulated drowning—is similar) Thiessen presents evidence that refutes his own case.
He continues:
Carter tries to respond to my point that we waterboard tens of thousands of U.S. troops during training, by arguing that waterboarding as conducted in SERE training and waterboarding of terrorists is different. Well, of course it is Joe — no great insight there. But he does not answer my question: Do we torture our own troops during SERE training? After all, we do not pull out their fingernails during training, or electrocute them, or break their bones leg screws, or burn their fingernails off with cigarettes. But we do waterboard them. Why is waterboarding permitted, but these other techniques are not? Because the other techniques constitute torture; waterboarding does not.
Thiessen admits that the waterboarding conducted in SERE training is different than waterboarding done on terrorist yet cannot fathom how this difference could make one technique “training” and the other torture. A moment’s consideration would identify that consent and intensity would certainly seem to be obvious points where difference can transform an act. After all, there is a vast chasm between consensual sexual intercourse and violent rape. Sometimes “difference” makes a difference.
But again, I’ll point out that it is no only me that thinks the difference is essential. As I quoted before, a former SERE school instructor says that is is the way that waterboarding was done on terrorist that constitutes torture. And the internal CIA IG report—which I also quoted from—says that, “according to [the Office of Medical Services], there was no a priori reason to believe that applying the waterboard with the frequency and intensity with which it was used by the psychologist/interrogators was either efficacious or medically safe.”
If Carter acknowledges that we do not torture our troops (which he must, or else appear ridiculous) then he must also admit that the act of waterboarding is not an intrinsic evil, as defined by the Catholic Church.
The mind reels at such willful obtuseness. I hope one of my Catholic friends (perhaps one of those at NRO who have so far remained silent) can explain to Mr. Thiessen how consent and intensity of violence can transform an act into an intrinsic evil as defined by the Catholic Church.
Carter says I do not make an argument based on Christian principles. I dedicate an entire chapter of Courting Disaster to doing just that.
I can certainly respect an author’s plugging their book (indeed, I recommend he read my book, How to Argue Like Jesus, in order to make a more persuasive case). But since this is a debate in an open forum, perhaps he can copy-and-paste some of the relevant passages for his argument. I’m sure we’d all be interested in hearing how he squares the circle on an issue in which so many Christian ethicists disagree with him.
January 8th, 2010 | 2:40 pm
Once again we get the conflated definition of torture here. Waterboarding mentioned in the same breath with things that do PERMANENT damage to someone: cutting, burning, crushing, gouging….
The Medievals and other modern era foreign regimes have indeed inflicted permanent damage to people’s body, mind, and soul. To the extent anyone does so to another person, this is torture.
The Nazis, the Commies, the Viet Cong…. Muslim extremists…. they have all inflicted permanent damage on their victims. But that’s not what happened to KLM. That’s not what’s happened to other terrorists held by American forces.
Making fun of someone, beating them, chilling or depriving them of sleep (for less than 48 hours) is all unpleasant, frightening, and painful. But it’s not torture.
Waterboarding or tazering are not torture either insofar as neither inflicts permanent damage to someone.
Torture – comes from etimological roots for ‘torque’…. i.e. the rack. The rack was a device used for pulling people limb from limb. Obviously that causes permanent damage. So does crushing, burning, gouging, cutting limbs, fingers, etc. off. and so, for time immemorial such actions were considered the CLASSIC definition of torture.
Waterboarding is definitely unpleasant and terrifying. But then so is spending a night in jail or being blindfolded and scared with noises that sound like a firing squad getting ready…
Finally, we are dealing with actions by just authority in defense of the innocent against unjust aggressors who while not themselves immediate threats to others (thus can’t be executed on the spot) do have secrets pertaining to the well being of untold numbers of innocent people who have inalienable rights to life and not being blown apart. Terrorists have no moral right to keep such secrets. So they’re not exactly in the same category as POWs, criminals or political opponents.
As a means of getting information, torture is a failure. Which is why, one presumes, the Bush administration did not torture anyone. But inflicting pain, terrifying the terrorists and disorienting them does have a long history of breaking people and making them talk. Hence it’s use the world over by police everywhere.
I continue to be amazed at theologians refusal to define their terms and conflate one thing with others which are clearly of a different category of harm. Killing someone is not the same thing as permanently scaring them. And scaring someone is not the same thing as inflicting temporary pain or discomfort.
Murder and torture are ‘forever’. Beating someone, waterboarding them, tazering someone… that’s not ‘forever’.
To not accept that there is a moral difference in this distinction is to lose any capacity to talk intelligently about this or any OTHER moral dilemma.
January 8th, 2010 | 3:02 pm
Joe,
When making an argument or having a debate, the invocation of ‘authorities’ assertions is the weakest of all positions, unless one is quoting scripture.
Thus you base much of your case that waterboarding fits the definition of torture on the ASSERTIONS of people who do not offer REASONS for their opinion.
“Despite the fact that the Red Cross, Senator John McCain, numerous military leaders, FBI interrogators, Christian ethicists, former SERE school instructors, and his own church, denounce the technique known as “suffocation by water,”
OK, so they denounce it. Fine. Now why and on what grounds? If waterboarding is the moral equivalent of torture, the definition of torture is now expanded NECESSARILY to include things that have nothing to do with water or boards but induce people to experience physical pain, mental panic, and spiritual crisis.
This means virtually any action done by authorities on anyone can be construed as “torture”. The pain and panic need not be permanent, or even of prolonged duration. It need not be intentionally inflicted either.
Now maybe this is fine by you. But this means sending a child to bed without dinner and with a spank is torture on the same moral plane as the rack.
January 8th, 2010 | 3:17 pm
John Once again we get the conflated definition of torture here. Waterboarding mentioned in the same breath with things that do PERMANENT damage to someone: cutting, burning, crushing, gouging….
“Permanent damage” is not part of the standard or legal definitions of torture. It is a shifting of goalposts to cover actions that have always been considered torture, but that some people have decided they are comfortable with.
Terrorists have no moral right to keep such secrets. So they’re not exactly in the same category as POWs, criminals or political opponents.
True, they have no moral right to keep such secrets. But we have no moral right to resort to immoral techniques in order to extract that information from them.
John When making an argument or having a debate, the invocation of ‘authorities’ assertions is the weakest of all positions, unless one is quoting scripture.
This is an new rule I’ve never heard of. The invocation of authorities is based on people who have relevant knowledge that is applicable to the debate. How is the “weakest of all positions?”
Thus you base much of your case that waterboarding fits the definition of torture on the ASSERTIONS of people who do not offer REASONS for their opinion.
All of these people have offered reasons for their assertions.
OK, so they denounce it. Fine. Now why and on what grounds? If waterboarding is the moral equivalent of torture, the definition of torture is now expanded NECESSARILY to include things that have nothing to do with water or boards but induce people to experience physical pain, mental panic, and spiritual crisis.
Waterboarding has been considered torture for centuries. It has been one of the most commonly recognized forms of torture throughout history. The reason it is considered torture is because it fits all of the relevant definitions of the term: any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession.
This means virtually any action done by authorities on anyone can be construed as “torture”.
No, it does not. The definition of torture is rather distinct and not all that hard to understand. Until the time of the Bush administration, waterboarding has always been considered torture. The U.S. military considers it torture. The FBI considers it torture. And if you were to do it to your neighbor, the criminal courts would charge you with torture.
January 8th, 2010 | 3:22 pm
John,
The Catholic definition states that torture be either physically or morally violent — meaning the mental and/or spiritual health of the tortured and the intentions of the torturer towards those being tortured are factors equal to the shedding of blood.
January 8th, 2010 | 4:48 pm
You and other commentators continue to assert that waterboarding – as done by the CIA – has “always been” considered torture and yet in all those other non-US cases, the descriptions include elements that caused permanent harm to the victim, whereas the CIA technique does not.
Furthermore, merely adding ‘waterboarding’ to the list of ‘bad things’ evades the requirement to define exactly what constitutes ‘torture’ and what is ‘close, but no cigar’. What is it about waterboarding that makes it ‘torture’ but doesn’t make other things torture?
Vague condemnations of violence is not the same thing as a moral argument that waterboarding, in the American version, is the moral equivalent to ancient practices and thus is torture.
This is the degree of specificity that most pundits don’t address. But we must if we’re discussing this as ethicists or philosophers.
Finally, St Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle both taught that arguments from authority were weak arguments unless accompanied with reasons for these positions. Plenty of Ph.D scientists will OPINE that man causes global warming. But they don’t make the case as to why exactly.
John McCain was tortured by the North Vietnamese…. so he’s certainly someone who can speak to permanent injury being wrong inasmuch as he was permanently injured! But that doesn’t automatically make him an authority on every other ‘technique’ unless he’s got an argument other than “I’m John McCain”.
January 8th, 2010 | 5:10 pm
Joe: Just one limited argument. Argument by authority shows its weakness when one’s opponent can quote other, equally reputable, sources on the opposite side of the argument. I haven’t done the relevant research, but is it not the case that defenders of waterboarding can quote reputable authorities to the effect that it is not torture? And I would add that NO ONE would deny that pulling out finger nails is torture. You want to insist that waterboarding is an easy case in the same way that pulling out finger nails is. I’m not at all persuaded you’ve shown that’s the case.
January 8th, 2010 | 5:26 pm
James NuechterleinArgument by authority shows its weakness when one’s opponent can quote other, equally reputable, sources on the opposite side of the argument. I haven’t done the relevant research, but is it not the case that defenders of waterboarding can quote reputable authorities to the effect that it is not torture?
That’s a fair question. I too would be interested in seeing what authorities can justify the actions on moral, legal, and pragmatic grounds. The first two would be very difficult. The last might be easier but not as easy as everyone thinks. Even the interrogators who did the waterboarding decided later that they didn’t want to keep using the technique.
And I would add that NO ONE would deny that pulling out finger nails is torture. You want to insist that waterboarding is an easy case in the same way that pulling out finger nails is. I’m not at all persuaded you’ve shown that’s the case.
The reason that I think waterboarding is an easy case is because until recently there was never any question about it being torture. I was in the military for years before the Bush administration and it wouldn’t have occurred to me or anyone else I knew that waterboarding would not be torture. In fact, that is the very reason it is taught in SERE school: they are preparing servicemen for how to endure torture if they are captured.
But this shifting in what is considered torture is why we need a clear-cut definition. I’m sure that we can find warriors in Rwanda that wouldn’t think using rape to get some to talk is necessarily torture either. We are culturally conditioned to equate torture with nail removal and anything short of that is questionable. Taht is a strange standard, in my opinion.
I’m curious is to why people think that waterboarding is not torture. The only reason I can imagine is that people are unclear on what the technique entails. (I’ve never heard anyone who went through SERE school that doubted if the enemy did it to them, it would be torture.)
If we were to put people in a water tank, drown them, and then pull them out before they die, would that be torture? If so, what is the difference between that and waterboarding?
January 8th, 2010 | 5:44 pm
It’s hard for me to imagine, if I were a US soldier, captured, and put under US-type waterboarding, that I wouldn’t think & feel like I’m being tortured. Especially under those adverse circumstances. Nonetheless, the fact that many of our servicemen have gone through it (albeit under different circumstances) gives the appearance that it isn’t what is commonly understood as torture.
January 9th, 2010 | 8:51 am
Mr. Carter:
I don’t know what your purpose is in continuing this pointless exercise. You have made up your mind and your continued insistence that you are categorically and undeniably correct is not only tedious but insulting. I think we can all agree that any interrogation technique that causes permanent physical and/or psychological damage is torture. Many of us can also agree that using fear and pain in interrogation is always wrong. Some of us, such as you, think that wrong is equivalent to evil. Some of us, like me, think that wrong is not always equivalent to evil. For example, as you noted in your initial post (oh so long ago), abortion is always evil but women who have abortions are not necessarily so. Unfortunately, you chose to leave it there. I would say that abortion is always evil because it always results in the death of a completely innocent human being and is always done for the convenience of some other, always more powerful, human being. The use of waterboarding and other interrogation techniques that do not result in permanent harm are not on the same scale as beatings, whippings, raping of a wife in front of a detainee husband, use of a rack, etc. You may call that semantic wrangling, I call it a difficult and complex moral issue that requires a lot of thought and soul searching before throwing around accusations of evil-doing.
January 9th, 2010 | 9:04 am
Joe, has it been established that even the ticking bomb scenario would not justify waterboarding. Also has it been established how often this procedure has been used by the U.S..and did these people fall under the same ticking bomb scenario.If they did has it been established that they gave information that saved lives.I ask these questions because I can imagine a situation where we tried other methods to no avail and the bomb went off.Those whom we tried to get information from would still be walking around and their victims would be dead. Now picture that we waterboarded them, got the information that prevented the deaths of innocents and the prisoners would still be walking around. Of these two scenarios which would you rather be rsponsible for.
It would seem to me that under the duress of a truly dire situation one might be tempted to revert to any means necessary recognizing that morally speaking you would be in a lose lose situation. I would agree that extreme interrogation methods should be officially proscribed but for someone given the responsibility to protect our citizens from our enemies to expect the exercise of that responsibility to be reduced to a check off list seems cold blooded and in the final analysis immoral.
January 9th, 2010 | 2:17 pm
Charles Nonetheless, the fact that many of our servicemen have gone through it (albeit under different circumstances) gives the appearance that it isn’t what is commonly understood as torture.
But we must keep in mind that the sole reason the technique is used in training is to prepare them to endure torture. It would be like saying that since someone gets punched in a martial arts self-defense class that we shouldn’t consider punching someone to be assault.
Lauri Friesen I don’t know what your purpose is in continuing this pointless exercise.
I’m starting to wonder that myself.
You have made up your mind and your continued insistence that you are categorically and undeniably correct is not only tedious but insulting.
Is it also insulting for me to insist that I am categorically and undeniably correct about abortion?
I think we can all agree that any interrogation technique that causes permanent physical and/or psychological damage is torture.
I don’t think we can since waterboarding can cause permanent psychological damage and yet plenty of people are willing to say that it is not torture.
I’ve tried to avoid the argument about torture only being what can cause permanent damage since that has historically not been part of the moral or legal definitions of the term. I noticed that after the Yoo memo that this became a popular debating point with the Bush administration (that many people unfortunately fell for) but permanency of damage is not necessary for the definition of torture.
Consider one of the most popular examples that people like to use: putting bamboo under fingernails. Now this technique is excruciatingly painful yet causes no permanent damage so according to the definition many people in this discussion are using, it can’t be considered torture at all. Likewise other techniques that have always been considered torture would be exempt under this new definition.
I’m curious to hear whether you think mock executions are torture. They have always been considered torture since they can cause (permanent) psychological damage. So why isn’t waterboarding the same? You do realize that the purpose for waterboarding is to cause the prisoner to think he is dying (same as in a mock execution). Waterboarding causes the same sensation that occurs when someone is drowning (not similar—the same) so the person has no way of controlling the fear.
Many people are scarred for life after a near fatal drowning experience. Why then would you not think the same is true for those who are drowned in waterboarding?
For example, as you noted in your initial post (oh so long ago), abortion is always evil but women who have abortions are not necessarily so.
That is true, but only because either (a) the motives of the woman are not necessarily evil, or (b) they are unaware that they are killing a human being. Recognizing that the women are not necessarily evil, however, does not change the fact that abortion is evil. Similarly, someone could commit and act of torture and not be evil yet the act itself would remain so.
I would say that abortion is always evil because it always results in the death of a completely innocent human being and is always done for the convenience of some other, always more powerful, human being.
I would say that torture is always evil because it always results in the damage to human dignity of a human being and is always done for by a nation-state that is willing to put themselves in the place of the Creator.
The use of waterboarding and other interrogation techniques that do not result in permanent harm are not on the same scale as beatings, whippings, raping of a wife in front of a detainee husband, use of a rack, etc.
Beatings and whippings can be done in a way that does not produce permanent harm. Even the raping of a wife in front of a detainee’s husband may not cause permanent harm to him. But waterboarding can and does produce permanent psychological damage.
You may call that semantic wrangling, I call it a difficult and complex moral issue that requires a lot of thought and soul searching before throwing around accusations of evil-doing.
Here is where we disagree: For the Christian the issue is not that difficult or complex—torture is wrong and we shouldn’t do it. The fact that so many Christians try to justify the acts is neither surprising nor abnormal. All of us try to make actions that we know are evil more palatable by trying to convince ourselves that it is “complex.” (I’m not throwing stones because I do the same thing on other issues.)
But the history of the church (we a few exceptions such as the Inquisition) has always considered torture to be evil-doing. We may try to convince ourselves that the world has changed so much that we can no longer subscribe to the same Christian principles that have guided us for millennia. But that does not change the fact that God’s standards do not change.
Michael Currie Joe, has it been established that even the ticking bomb scenario would not justify waterboarding.
The other day I posted several responses from Christian ethicists and thinkers addressing that very question. Their consensus is that the ticking bomb hypothetical does not change the moral equation. Christians can’t have a Machiavellian box of principles that have a “Break Glass in Case of Emergencies” marked on it. ; )
Also has it been established how often this procedure has been used by the U.S..and did these people fall under the same ticking bomb scenario.
Good question. The CIA has admitted to waterboarding at least two detainees neither of which fell under the ticking bomb scenario.
Oddly, that phrase has never really been defined so let’s say that a ticking bomb scenario is an incident that will occur anywhere from one to 72 hours. The CIA waterboarded the detainees before getting any actionable information. As a solely practical matter, waterboarding appears to be completely ineffective for the ticking bomb scenarios.
I would agree that extreme interrogation methods should be officially proscribed but for someone given the responsibility to protect our citizens from our enemies to expect the exercise of that responsibility to be reduced to a check off list seems cold blooded and in the final analysis immoral.
I certainly want to agree with your point but the problem is that we all keep in our heads a list of what “Brutal but necessary” techniques we’d allow under this scenario. The problem is that we don’t think about what would happen if a technique that shocks our conscience were actually used. Take, for example, using rape as a technique. How many people would we have allowed a team of interrogators to rape in order to prevent a 9/11 style attack?
January 9th, 2010 | 2:30 pm
I’m really disappointed that the statements of the terrorist Zubaydah are used to back up the argument that the CIA tortures people. I find other aspects of the argument troubling as well.
Information about waterboarding should be obtained from reading the CIA memos. Memo 1 (August 2002) states: “Finally, as we discussed above, you have informed us that in determining which procedures to use and how you will use them, you have selected techniques that will not harm Zubaydah’s wound. You have also indicated numerous steps will be taken to ensure that none of thse procedures in any way interferes with the proper healing of Zubaydah’s wound. You have also indicated that, should it appear at any time that Zubaydah is experienceing severe pain or suffering, the medical personnal on hand will stop the sue of any technique.” (Page 11)
http://www.nrcat.org/storage/nrcat/documents/olc_08012002_bybee.pdf
Then we read in Memo 3 (May 10 2005): “You have previously explained that the waterboard technique would be used only if: (1) the CIA has credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent; (2) there are ‘substantial and credible indications the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or delay this attack’; and (3) other interrogation methods have failed or are unlikely to yield actionable intelligible in time to prevent the attack.” (page 8 of pdf) My understanding is that the technique was applied to 3 combatants. Further, the guidelines were fulfilled: an attack on L.A. was prevented.
http://www.nrcat.org/storage/nrcat/documents/olc_05102005_bradbury_20pg.pdf
In the same paragraph it also states: (1) maximum length of waterboarding is 40 s (with this max rarely reached); (2) during any two hour session, the number of individal applications of water lasting 10 seconds or longer may not exceed six; (3) no more than two sessions are allowed in any 24-hour period.
By the preceding statements, we either assume that Zubaydah is telling the truth, and the CIA broke their own guidelines, or that Zubaydah was lying. I believe Zubaydah was lying.
Regarding the inquisition, Thiessen did conflate two chronologically distinct episodes, though for what may be an explainable reason. He may have been trying to show that the cords that were wrapped around the victim’s body truly did cut into the flesh. The later chronological citation clearly states this. The first certainly implies it, but it is not as ‘descriptive’ about what the cords do.
Regarding the process, even on the surface waterboarding and water-torture during the inquisition seem different. During the inquisition, the passage in the provided google book link states: “… a toca, or strip of linen, was thrust down the throat to conduct water trickling slowly from a jarra or jar, holding usually a little more than a quart. The patient strangled and gasped and suffocated and, at intervals, the toca was withdrawn and he was adjured to tell the truth.” (Page 19)(note: six to eight quarts could be used. One quart is 32 ounces).
CIA Memo 1 (August 2002) states: “A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth. This causes an increase in carbon dioxide level in the individual’s blood. This increase in the carbon dioxide level stimulates increased effort to breathe. This effort plus the cloth produces the perception of ‘suffocation and incipient panic,’ i.e., the perception of drowning. The individual does not breath any water into his lungs.” (Page 4)
To me, the two techniques are different at even the most superficial level. And this does not include the severing of flesh by the cords or the sharp laddered rack that was applied to a victim of the inquisition.
I would suggest that everyone read the CIA memos in detail, and not a rehash performed by the media. You can read about all the procedures which were carefully controlled, the legal determination about which procedures can be used, a thorough examination of the phrase “severe pain and suffering”, whether a process that performed once is not severe though when repeated many times may cause pain and suffering, as well as other aspects.
I, for one, am a shameful conservative who is proud of the men and women in the CIA who have kept us safe. They are less likely to be effective now that the details are out.
January 9th, 2010 | 3:03 pm
CAA In the same paragraph it also states: . . . (3) no more than two sessions are allowed in any 24-hour period.
By the preceding statements, we either assume that Zubaydah is telling the truth, and the CIA broke their own guidelines, or that Zubaydah was lying. I believe Zubaydah was lying.
Do you also believe that the CIA Inspector General is lying?
Regarding the inquisition, Thiessen did conflate two chronologically distinct episodes, though for what may be an explainable reason. He may have been trying to show that the cords that were wrapped around the victim’s body truly did cut into the flesh.
Perhaps, but why would that change the technique into torture? Are we to believe that suffocation by water is acceptable but that if you tie the straps too tight you’ve crossed a line?
To me, the two techniques are different at even the most superficial level.
The differences are only superficial. Putting a strap in the mouth or putting the cloth over the mouth doesn’t change the essential nature of the technique: to induce drowning.
I would suggest that everyone read the CIA memos in detail, and not a rehash performed by the media.
I would also recommend reading the CIA IG report (at least the parts that aren’t blacked out). The violation they admit to are disconcerting enough.
You can read about all the procedures which were carefully controlled, the legal determination about which procedures can be used, a thorough examination of the phrase “severe pain and suffering”, whether a process that performed once is not severe though when repeated many times may cause pain and suffering, as well as other aspects.
I’d also recommend reading the memos since they essentially admit that we used torture and that the Bush administration legally condoned it.
January 9th, 2010 | 3:33 pm
Joe, good point.
(BTW, I appreciate you keeping this discussion civil and snark-free; here, rather than other sites, it’s “more light than heat”.)
January 9th, 2010 | 11:31 pm
I don’t see how whether I believe the CIA inspector general is lying has any import on whether I believe Zubaydah was lying. You might be implying that since the CIA IG stated that waterboarding was used many times, inconsistent with SERE, then therefore Zubaydah must be telling the truth. I’m just not following your argument here, I guess. (Another possibility is that since the CIA doesn’t follow their own guidelines, Zubaydah was not treated correctly, and therefore he is telling the truth. I don’t think this follows, especially after I read the IG report)
I tried to quickly read the report by the CIA IG (there were many blackouts so that made it go faster). I interpret the section you quoted as implying that the procedure was not consistent with SERE since too many applications of waterboarding were used. After the section you sited, I read the immediately following sentence: “According to the General Counsel, the Attorney General acknowledged he is fully aware of the repetitive use of the waterboard and that CIA is well within the scope of the DoJ opinion and the authority given to CIA by that opinion.” (page 44) Thus, it appears to me that though the applications were not consistent with SERE, they were consistent with the CIA guidelines.
The report states that KSM was waterboarded 183 times. (pages 45, 91) According to the guidelines, for the 10s to 40s waterboard application, 6 applications of waterboarding were allowed in a 2 hr period. No more than 2 sessions were allowed in a 24 hr period. The interrogation took place in March. I calculate 2 sessions/24 hrs * 6 applications/session * 24 hrs/day * 31 days = 372 theoretical possible applications in March for the 10s-40s type. This is much more than 183, which is likely why the sentence I cited above states that the CIA was within their guidelines. Further, we don’t know if the amount in the report refers to 10s-40s applications, or just any application. (I may have missed it if it does say this.)
When the straps are mentioned in the inquisition book you cited, the passages imply that the straps cut in to the flesh. This seems different to me than tying the straps too tight. I realize the rhetorical effect this was supposed to achieve, but it evades the main point.
(As an aside, if I were Thiessen I would have explicitly stated where the passages came from and that they were from sections describing different “procedures.” I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.)
When I look at the two water techniques, they seem very different. In the inquisition, the cloth is shoved into the mouth, then multiple quarts of water are dropped or poured onto the cloth (the text implied 6-8 quarts = 192-256 oz). I can only assume that water goes through the cloth into the lungs. So here we have suffocation, from water in lungs, as well as the drowning sensation. In the CIA procedure, the cloth is not in the mouth, it is moist/wet but water is not going through it, and the effect is due to a breathing reflex from C02 concentration levels. Further, no water goes into the lungs. This is a great difference.
Thanks for pointing me to the CIA IG report. I hadn’t read it yet, and I will look it over in more detail.
January 10th, 2010 | 9:36 am
Mr. Carter:
If you can seriously argue that any woman who has aborted a child in North America since Roe v. Wade did so not understanding that the “terminated pregnancy” constituted the death of a human being, then I believe that you are not debating ideas you hold to be true but are, rather, merely enjoying goading and antagonizing those who disagree with you. I shall now cease to read anything further that you have to say.
January 10th, 2010 | 3:10 pm
[...] Torture is not Conservative First Things has a nice takedown of that guy on NRO who advocates [...]
January 10th, 2010 | 4:25 pm
Its a shame we do not live in a paradise where all obey God’s laws. But since we do not live in such a paradise why do those who advocate that we abide by God’s laws feel that they will triumph over those who will not?
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plough for those who have not.
Perhaps the author feels he can deal with those who cut off people’s heads and then make a video of it for profit. I can’t share such an attitude or pretend to embrace such moral standards.
January 10th, 2010 | 8:59 pm
Dear Joe,
I hope you’ll keep making this argument. The willingness of many conservatives to justify torture (or mass murder) when convenient is shameful. These apologies for immorality should be exposed and denounced whenever and wherever they appear. I’m sure you’re more than capable of maintaining your convictions under fire, but for what it’s worth: be encouraged to persist! It is, I think, a small but very positive sign to see a First Things writer taking a prominent stand against the consequentialist logic that we can trample over human dignity when not doing so is costly. To that end, you may want to note, if you haven’t already, an earlier line of argument from your website, in which the same charge of pacificism is levelled against anyone who is not willing to condone approve torture or mass murder in extreme cases (when the enemy is very bad):
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/spengler/2009/05/12/torture-on-a-personal-note/
Richard Ekins
January 11th, 2010 | 2:51 pm
I hesitate to wade into this area again, having battled it out twice recently with Mark Shea over at the InsideCatholic site, but a few assertions have to be corrected here.
” You do realize that the purpose for waterboarding is to cause the prisoner to think he is dying (same as in a mock execution). Waterboarding causes the same sensation that occurs when someone is drowning (not similar—the same) so the person has no way of controlling the fear.”
This is completely wrong. The three al Qaeda leaders who were waterboarded were specifically told they would not die so that it would not be the equivalent of a mock execution. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that these CIA interrogators, blood dripping from their fangs in your view, took those kinds of steps, as well as having doctors present? Does that tell you anthing about their intent?
“In fact, that is the very reason it is taught in SERE school: they are preparing servicemen for how to endure torture if they are captured.”
Two points on this: (1) waterboarding is used in SERE training because it causes a high degree of distress without causing actual harm to the person being waterboarded; (2) it is laughable to maintain that we waterboard troops to get them ready to be tortured, therefore, waterboarding is torture. Have you heard of any of our troops being waterboarded by al Qaeda or the Taliban? Why do you think that is? Do you think it is because they consider waterboarding too barbaric?
“Here is where we disagree: For the Christian the issue is not that difficult or complex—torture is wrong and we shouldn’t do it.”
But defining what torture is, especially when dealing with terrorists who intentionally target civilians, is complex. How would you have handled the interrogation of KSM and his two cohorts? The Church has always taught that secular powers have a duty to protect those in their care, but that duty appears to have no weight in your view.
January 13th, 2010 | 7:31 am
“This is completely wrong. The three al Qaeda leaders who were waterboarded were specifically told they would not die so that it would not be the equivalent of a mock execution.”
No, Joe Carter is right. The (Bush-appointed) Office of Legal Counsel memos determined that waterboarding invariably causes the sensation of drowning even when the victim has been told he will not drowned. Check out page 11 of the first NRCAT link from commenter CAA provides.
“How would you have handled the interrogation of KSM and his two cohorts? The Church has always taught…”
The Church has always taught us to treat persons humanely and with dignity. Mock executions don’t cut it. For specific guidance on handling the interrogation of KSM, see the Army Field Manual. It’s not perfect, but better.
January 13th, 2010 | 11:38 am
“No, Joe Carter is right. The (Bush-appointed) Office of Legal Counsel memos determined that waterboarding invariably causes the sensation of drowning even when the victim has been told he will not drowned. Check out page 11 of the first NRCAT link from commenter CAA provides.”
Do you understand what a mock execution is? Carter is wrong.
“For specific guidance on handling the interrogation of KSM, see the Army Field Manual. It’s not perfect, but better.”
Do you even know what is provided for in the Army Field Manual? If you do, how was that supposed to elicit any information from KSM? I see a lot of concern for KSM’s humanity here, but not a lot for the humanity of those he intended to murder.
“
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact