Go read hilzoy

Please go read hilzoy on waterboarding:

That we are even having a debate about this question, and that it is not a foregone conclusion that someone who claims not to know whether waterboarding is torture cannot possibly be confirmed as Attorney General, is a testament to the moral degradation of our country, and of our political discourse. ...

Imagine what we would think of a country where candidates for high office and nominees for the highest law enforcement position in the country had earnest debates about whether or not the rack was torture ("hey, I do stretching exercises before I go jogging, and it doesn't hurt me!"), or whether disembowelling living prisoners shocked the conscience ("I had my appendix out, and I'm doing just fine!") We would think that the people who said such things had utterly lost their humanity. Yet for some reason, altogether too many of our fellow citizens seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable for politicians and their appointees to have the same debates about waterboarding. I suspect that future generations, and the current inhabitants of other countries, will regard this the same way we would regard people who took it to be an open question whether the rack was torture: with abhorrence.

She supports this with a detailed explanation of the "controlled drowning ... controlled death" of waterboarding from Malcolm W. Nance, "a former Master Instructor and Chief of Training" at the Navy's SERE school in San Diego, who states:

"Waterboarding is a torture technique. Period."

Go read the whole thing. I have nothing to add except "what hilzoy said."

Comments

[Ember Keelty]

I have to admire her just for ability to discuss this intelligently. This is one of those issues I can never debate effectively because just thinking about it makes me feel broken and hopeless.

I don't disagree with Hilzoy. Waterboarding is torture, and it should not be practiced in America. Unfortunately, the law defining what constitutes torture is vague (which is why the Office of Legal Counsel could plausibly - even if reprehensibly and legalistically - argue that torture required the sort of actions likely to cause death, organ failure, or permanent damage resulting in the loss of a significant bodily function or long-term mental harm.

This should be rather simple to remedy. Congress could (and should) amend the War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C 2441(d)(1)(A) to include without limitation waterboarding.

Of course, with the Bush Administration's ludicrous reading of the Executive Commander-in-Chief power, this might not be enough to stop the Bush Administration - but it would split all but the most hard line conservatives from their ranks.

[Pope Easier Rhino I]

Did people ever believe that the rack was not torture? I don't know about that. The fact that we're having debates on the identity of torture rather than its necessity (which is what I think people would debate about the rack in times gone by) says something, but I'm not sure what. I suppose we could be debating several things: whether something is torture, whether something, torture or not, is legal, or perhaps even whether something, torture, legal, or otherwise, is necessary. Those debates overlap, but the fact that we're having the first and some of the second rather than the third is relevant to discussion, I feel.

[Ember Keelty]

Did people ever believe that the rack was not torture?

No. Which is exactly the point – this discussion is batshit crazy.

[Pope Easier Rhino I]

It's not batshit crazy, it's coolly calculating. Again, the fact that no one seems willing to go to bat for the whole, "torture, whatever it is, is useless and unnecessary," thing suggests that the people doing the torturing (or extreme-coercing, if you prefer to use weasel words) think that they won't win that battle. My inner optimist agrees: people don't want torture to be necessary, regardless. My inner cynic is less sure: there seem to be a shocking number of people who feel that torture is not only necessary but justified, and these people aren't just the schmoes at the top. If we ever start to have the debate on whether torture, repugnant though it may be, is justified, then I'll find out which of my inners is right.

[not_scottbot]

The U.S. has been torturing for over 5 years, as official policy.

The cynicism is not necessary - torture continues, it is policy, and quite honestly, it likely will continue for the foreseeable future.

If it comforts you, however, a person like Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz can never again visit the EU with confident certainty they won't see a jail cell.

[Patrick Phelan]

I think maybe people aren't currently debating the issue of whether torture is necessary, because the pro-torture crowd... Okay, I've started this sentence wrongly. You know how whenever you bring up reparations for slavery, the people arguing against it always start with "Pah, it's too complicated to ever manage it"? I always kind of wonder about that, because they're not arguing about whether or not it's a good idea - which seems to be a kind of tacit acceptance, since you're skipping right to logistics. I think the pro-torture crowd either truly believe or pretend to believe for political purposes that waterboarding isn't torture, and even if it was torture it'd be justified anyway. So they're starting at the highest point - "no, it isn't" - and if that ever gets resolved or becomes an indefensible position, they'll move down to the next - "okay, it is, but Khalid Sheik Mohammed!!!"

Unfortunately, it takes a while for an argument to become indefensible. Even when it's so manifestly kick-worthy as this one.

[not someone else]

*blinks*

Okay, my head is in the sand. Last I heard they were still claiming That Sort Of Thing didn't happen, even if it was hypothetically okay. This argument's been going around for a while, yeah, but... they're admitting it? What?

'Course, I keep hearing a lot of wild nonsense rumors that people end up admitting and trying to defend, with these people.

Is there a point where I'll wake up and we'll have gotten a sane, or at least not openly and proudly psychotic, administration? Or maybe a post-apocalyptic wasteland? If the latent radiation causes superpowers or people start exploding into orcs or something, that might be fun.

[not_scottbot]

The U.S. government has been torturing officially for 5 years - the only 'distinction' is that according to the government, their torture isn't torture.

You need to have a certain clarity of vision to actually understand what someone does has little to do nothing to do with what they say.

And the current American adminstration is trying its very best to keep even publicly known cases of kidnap and torture (Canadian and German citizens, for example) from being discussed, by denying entry or legal redress for the victims of such American actions.

Americans live surrounded by an ever increasing pool of lies converning what is being done, and trying to make that point clear sounds like lunacy.

[Cactus Wren]

What, precisely and specifically, is the difference between the technique called "waterboarding" and the technique that was called by the various Inquisitions "water torture"?

[bib0cierced]

I don't see what the big deal is, I gargle every morning, cmon guys amirite

[bellatrys]

Ember, they never said (afaik) that the rack wasn't torture - but because of popular outcry over it (due to seeing the results when the racked were taken out for execution) there was for a while a push in Elizabethan England (in the wake of the Armada, which was kind of a bigger threat to national security than 9/11) to not rack prisoners - so they went with the "torture-lite" of hanging people from the ceiling and tying weights to their feet.

"See! We're not racking them! And anyway we're not as bad as the Spanish with their waterboarding and all!"

Torture was finally banned, officially, period - and then unbanned again by special exception right after the Gunpowder Plot, of which today is the anniversary.

There is nothing new under the sun.

[cjmr]

What, precisely and specifically, is the difference between the technique called "waterboarding" and the technique that was called by the various Inquisitions "water torture"?

AFAICT, the differences are primarily that 'modern waterboarding' uses plastic wrap/bags (rather than cloth), and the water is poured quickly (rather than trickled down over an extended period). That's based on seeing three videos of 'modern waterboarding' and reading a few old descriptions about 'water torture'.

[not_scottbot]

As for modern waterboarding - I remember reading, somewhere in the very late 1970s, very early 1980s, that several South American regimes had 'improved' the process - the plastic was used, but the fluid was sewage. Of course, at least one of these regimes also practiced the Vietnam era method of using helicopters to dispose of the remnants of their enhanced interrogation, though they flew out over the ocean instead of over the jungle.

Various torturers in the Americas almost seem to form a club, sharing their best tips over cool drinks at the School of the Americas. Keeping the world safe from whatever menacing evil threatens it is a never ending job, apparently. In these uncertain times, nothing like having a job in demand to keep your family well fed.

Though now essentially gone as an ongoing project, Islands in the Clickstream was one of the few places on the Internet where someone actually seemed to feel that exposing what it was like to be a torturer, as compared to showing the horror of being tortured, was the best method to try to prevent a civilized society from engaging in torture.

Nope - once a society starts to slide along the path of insanity, it seems like little can stop it. At best, a bit of satire helps - http://thewitness.org/article.php?id=1008

[bulbul]

If it comforts you, however, a person like Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz can never again visit the EU with confident certainty they won't see a jail cell.
Oh if only I shared your faith, my fellow EU citizen... I don't. But I can still dream.

[Jesurgislac]

Sadly, I have to agree, Bulbul. The very best that's ever likely to happen is Rumsfeld being whisked swiftly to the nearest US embassy by the local police, and the US embassy asked politely to get him out of the country as fast as possible.

And I think the most likely thing to happen is Rumsfeld just avoiding EU countries for the next few years.

[not_scottbot]

Bubul - notice the conditional - 'confident certainty.' Pinochet probably thought hanging out with Thatcher would be fun, but it turned out to be quite a hassle, though nothing compared to what his minions performed.

I love it. Bushco admits that torture is wrong, and says "We don't torture." Because they simply define, whaddadaycallit, aggressive interrogation techniques, something like that, as not being torture.

[Jesurgislac]

Anon: I love it. Bushco admits that torture is wrong, and says "We don't torture." Because they simply define, whaddadaycallit, aggressive interrogation techniques, something like that, as not being torture.

See Aunursa doing the same thing on Late Night Phone Calls (btw, Fred, lot of spam on that) and Torture.