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.

“

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.

” 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

(BTW, I appreciate you keeping this discussion civil and snark-free; here, rather than other sites, it’s “more light than heat”.)

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?

The Review determined that the interrogators used the waterboard on Khalid Shaykh Muhammad in a manner inconsistent with the SERE application of the waterboard and the description of the waterboard in the DoT OLe opinion, in-that the technique was used on Khalid ShaykhMuhammad a large number of times.

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.