Kids, Don't Try Waterboarding at Home
by Motte Brown on 02/01/2008 at 4:59 PM
About two months ago, a few guys in their twenties were watching the news about efforts to ban waterboarding. They began joking about doing it themselves to see if it actually was a form a torture. But when they discovered how easy it is to do, the joke turned serious.
Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal put their "Saturday-night antic" experiment on the front page. Here's what happened,
With Mr. Gaspar Filming, Mr. Larroque lay down on the frozen ground with his arms at this sides and his head leaning back. Mr. Toulouse poured.
On the videotape, the water hits Mr. Larroque for about 10 seconds before he jerks upright, sending the towel flying.
In a posting on his blog, Mr. Larroque said he was surprised by how fast his air supply ran out. In other circumstances, he says he can hold his breath long enough to swim the length of a pool.
"Waterboarding is like a one-way valve," he said in an interview. "You've got water pouring in and the cloth keeps you from spitting it out, so you can only exhale once. ... Even holding my breath, it felt like the air was being sucked out, like a vacuum."
It left no lasting physical damage, making waterboarding arguably "a more humane" way of forcing information out of an otherwise uncooperative prisoner, he said.
And as WSJ reports, others have experimented with waterboarding as well -- some with an agenda and some for "dares." Kaj Larsen, a vet and a journalist, filmed himself being waterboarded and put it on the Internet so the public could decide for themselves if it was an acceptable interrogation technique. Wesley Sherwood, a teenager, did it "to try and win an online dare contest."
All of them, Larroque, Larsen and Sherwood, told the same story -- waterboarding produces "sheer" or "blind panic" with little or no lasting effects. But that's based only on their bush league form of waterboarding. I wonder if the pros produce a different effect.
1. Scott L. said the following at 6:31 PM on Feb 1:
Water boarding is a brilliant interrogation technique.Water Boarding gives no physical harm. It works.
methods to extract information from our fellow man will always be around.
I appreciate this method as it does no lasting harm.
2. Michelle said the following at 6:38 PM on Feb 1:
I saw a Youtube video similar to the ones described in the WSJ article, except a civilian got two of his Army buddies who had actually done water boarding professionally to do it on him. He was incoherent immediately after word and weak for several days following. It's very disturbing to watch.
3. John D. said the following at 9:09 PM on Feb 1:
It's clear to me, at least, that waterboarding is torture. I am embarrassed by the "conservatives" who claim, in the face of logic, common sense and decency, that it is not. When the United States stoops to the use of torture, we lower ourselves to the moral level of the nations we are fighting. Torture degrades both the tortured and the torturer. The United States loses a lot of moral standing in the world's eyes.
I ask Boundless readers to consider the issue from a Biblical standpoint, and not to automatically jump to the defense of the Bush administration if you are a Republican.
Yes, it works. It worked (in more or less similar form) for the Nazis, Japanese and Khmer Rouge, too. The fact that a technique is effective does not mean that it is right. (How effective torture is in obtaining correct information, rather than what the victim thinks the torturer wants to hear, is an open question. My guess is that, with enough waterboarding, you can make someone confess to shooting President Garfield.)
Torture degrades a human being who is made in the image of God.
4. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 11:38 PM on Feb 1:
It's torture. Beating someone doesn't have a "lasting effect" either, because bruises heal and pain subsides. That doesn't make it any less torture.
I say again: waterboarding is torture.
5. Jethro said the following at 12:28 AM on Feb 2:
Scott,
Water boarding is torture. This is clear at international law. Torture is a breach of international law that can NEVER be justified. If the government does it, then those responsible are international criminals. This includes the president.
It's that simple.
6. BDB said the following at 12:48 AM on Feb 2:
Frankly, I think this issue is what pushed me over the edge for McCain. At least he can speak to the issue with credibility.
7. Leah said the following at 6:40 AM on Feb 2:
This was my first response to the post:
I wonder what the title of this post has to do with the post. You don't make any claims that waterboarding is dangerous or that people actually shouldn't do it, so I don't see where "Kids, don't try waterboarding at home" comes from.
Secondly, all I know about waterboarding is what I learnt from this post. Otherwise, I know nothing about it. And it does sound like a certain type of torture- but not one I have problems with. (Then again, depends on your definition of 'torture'). I have problems when something leaves permanent, or long-lasting, physical, emotional or mental damage. Something that simply puts you into panic (or, when done particularly well, leaves you weak for a few days) is fine by me. That is what's needed to get some people to talk.
The Nazis and Khmer Rouge did not use torture tactics that simply made someone panic. They used torture which caused serious, permanent physical and mental damage, even death. You simply CANNOT compare that with waterboarding by my understanding.
I then clicked "post" and opened a new window and wikipedia-ed waterboarding. I'm glad I forgot about having to put in the security code to post, because having actually found out all the other stuff about waterboarding (which should be in the OP- you must never assume your reader knows anything about the subject matter), I've changed my opinion.
From what I've read in Wikipedia, it can cause long-lasting severe psychological damage, brain damage, lung damage, broken bones (from struggling against restraints) and death. Of course, I imagine this would only happen in actual interrogations when the practice is used persistently, and probably not in a one-off experiment as carried out by Larroque.
Not to mention, it sounds like an ineffective way of getting the truth out of someone, because, as Wikipedia says "information retrieved from waterboarding may not be reliable because a person under such duress may admit to anything, as harsh interrogation techniques lead to false confessions."
8. Eliza said the following at 7:44 AM on Feb 2:
Wow, the perspective of this post is so not what I would have expected from FotF. "How far is too far" is just bad news anytime, but taking that stance when it comes to torture??? I don't see respect for human dignity in that, for sure.
9. John D. said the following at 8:48 AM on Feb 2:
Hard cases make bad law. In general, policymakers should legislate toward the norm, and not the extreme situation.
Occasionally, tough situations give rise to exquisite ethical dilemmas to which there are only unsatisfactory solutions (abort the baby to save the life of the mother?). Thanks be to God, those situations are very rare.
I don't know if a "ticking bomb" situation (where agents have to torture information out of a terrorist as a bomb is about to go off) has ever occurred outside of the movies and TV. In a case like that, I suppose they will do what they have to do, and face the consequences later.
However, it's one thing to act in an unlikely and extreme situation, and another to codify and institutionalize the practice of torture. Still more repugnant is the willingness of conservative lawmakers and pundits (the very folks who claim to believe in limited government and traditional moral values) to proclaim that torture is a good and noble thing. They even deny that waterboarding is torture, referring to it as "getting a terrorist's hair wet" or some such, ignoring the grisly reality that would shock most decent people.
If someone protests, the question usually comes back "What's the matter, don't you want us to be able to protect the homeland?" which sounds like a no-brainer, except for the dishonest way in which the question is phrased. Only in extreme and rare situations would the need for waterboarding or other forms of torture even be necessary.
Professional interrogators have said that dialogue and building a long-term relationship of trust is a better method of getting good, solid information.
10. Adam D said the following at 8:57 AM on Feb 2:
I have a problem with people who justify torture. I understand it's a slippery slope argument, but if you have no problem with torturing someone, what other great evils are you capable of reproducing? Nazi regime anyone?
11. Justin said the following at 8:58 AM on Feb 2:
And Focus on the Family begins the process of supporting John McCain for the Presidency.
Good!
12. Ted Slater said the following at 9:26 AM on Feb 2:
Justin -- Not likely. Dr. Dobson has said that he will never vote for McCain.
I side with Dr. Dobson on this issue. No way I'll ever vote for McCain.
13. A.M.C. said the following at 9:35 AM on Feb 2:
Re: Ted Slater
I side with Dr. Dobson on this issue. No way I'll ever vote for McCain.
Just out of curiosity: if it comes down to McCain vs. Obama or Clinton, would you just abstain or vote for a 3rd Party or independent candidate in protest? ;-)
14. Beth said the following at 10:24 AM on Feb 2:
This post frightens and angers me for its implicitly neutral stance on waterboarding. The take on waterboarding is almost light-hearted.
So help me understand the political logic here - the use of torture can be glossed over, but since McCain supports Mexicans stealing our jobs and he would not support the Marriage Amendment, no vote for him?
I don't understand these priorities.
I don't care if this comment is too liberal for Boundless to publish. I am too disturbed by the lack of a stance against torture here not to say anything.
15. Daniel from the Maritimes said the following at 10:42 AM on Feb 2:
Dr. Albert Mohler wrote an article on torture. His position pretty much comes down to what John D. said: Hard cases make bad law. In general, policymakers should legislate toward the norm, and not the extreme situation.
16. Matthew said the following at 12:33 PM on Feb 2:
I'll just add my voice to the chorus and say that waterboarding is torture and we shouldn't use it. I would also like to add to the chorus of people who are confused about why John McCain is getting rejected by conservatives because he won't vote for a law that lets the government define marriage (I thought conservatives liked limited government) and he is somewhat progressive on immigration issues (I thought the Bible encouraged us to love the alien and stranger in our midst.) McCain is strongly pro-life, thoughtful and coherent on Iraq policy, against the further wasteful expansion of the federal gov't, and rightfully against torture. Seems like a good conservative candidate to me. Not perfect, certainly-- but not the boogeyman that Dobson makes him out to be.
17. jj said the following at 12:52 PM on Feb 2:
I'm actually relieved reading the comments here - good points all around folks. About the only thing I might add is that water boarding is not "simulated drowning", it is drowning. The point about not legislating to the extreme is excellent.
As far as McCain - totally happy with him since he is a moderate. Go Johnny go!
18. Beth said the following at 12:54 PM on Feb 2:
Daniel, thanks for the link to Dr. Mohler's article. It was very well-reasoned.
19. BDB said the following at 2:10 PM on Feb 2:
Ted Slater wrote:
>>I side with Dr. Dobson on this issue. No way I'll ever vote for McCain.<<
Really? Too bad. It was once FOTF policy to oppose abortion. Looks like McCain will be the only pro-life candidate with a chance of getting elected. Only a pro-life president will appoint appeals court - and Supreme Court - justices that are at least willing to listen to the pro-life side. I'm not really a single-issue voter, but I agree with McCain on pro-life, the environment, immigration and stopping government expansion. We can argue about the other stuff as long as he appoints at least some good judges.
As for waterboarding...those who think it's OK are remarkably short-sighted. We cannot afford to sacrifice long-term moral legitimacy for short-term supposed advantages.
Real Example: The University in Kabul, Afghanistan, had a small pile of uranium. The Taliban took over, and the professors hid it in the basement for a dozen years. The Americans came in, and the professors turned the stuff over to the Americans. THAT is how moral legitmacy buys you security. Those professors took a huge risk to do the right thing. You want everyone with access to stuff like that to be confident in their own mind that America will do the right thing - so they voluntarily help us.
Incidentally, some of the prisoners of war from Germany held in the U.S. during WWII actually moved to the U.S. after the war. We shouldn't be torturing people at all. We should be treating prisoners with respect and dignity, so that when they go back, in quiet moments, they will be honest with a few people and tell them Americans are respectful of human dignity. That is why we need to have a professional military, not just a bunch of thugs.
20. Ted Slater said the following at 3:06 PM on Feb 2:
BDB -- you said, "We should be treating prisoners with respect and dignity, so that when they go back, in quiet moments, they will be honest with a few people and tell them Americans are respectful of human dignity. That is why we need to have a professional military, not just a bunch of thugs."
We in fact *are* treating enemy combatants with dignity. And yes, our military is not "a bunch of thugs." You're not implying that they are, are you?
21. BDB said the following at 3:39 PM on Feb 2:
Ted Slater wrote:
>>We in fact *are* treating enemy combatants with dignity. And yes, our military is not "a bunch of thugs." You're not implying that they are, are you?<<
Definitely not. The U.S military is perhaps the most professional large military in the world. The Swiss and many other democracies have professional militaries as well. In fact, I recall prisoners in Afghanistan rioting to get shippe to Gitmo, where conditions were better. And I believe that military tribunals, with their educated juries, probably provide more justice than a regular U.S. Jury.
And military people I know really don't like the fact that portions of the U.S. government are not taking a firm stance against abusive treatment.
But there are some on the payroll of the U.S. who are far less professional, and I suspect that it is those individuals, in 3rd countries, doing things like waterboarding.
Most of the abuses in history were committed by paramilitaries, not the professional military. Russia had the KGB, China the Red Guards, Hitler the SS, Milosevic let prisoners out of jail, armed them, and sent them to Kosovo. It's important to take a strong stand against abuse of prisoners so that everyone, not just the U.S. Military, knows that it will not be tolerated.
22. Eliza said the following at 4:12 PM on Feb 2:
Ted:
It's nice to think that our American soldiers are handing out bubblegum and chocolate like the were in WWII, and I'm sure that the majority of them do indeed respect the people in the places they're working. But we cannot avoid responsibility for situations like Abu Ghraib and other credibly told stories from Guantanamo Bay (not to mention other unsubstantiated claims of rape and murder, which may or may not be true). To deny that we have done anything wrong is both unacceptable and dangerous. Like waterboarding and other torture techniques towards which we turn a blind eye, it just fuels international flames of fury.
I am immensely thankful for the service of our soldiers, but it would be ignorant to assume they are all angels.
Probably BDB was referring to torturers as "thugs" rather than all military, which I understand, although I think the word "torturer" says enough on its own.
23. JB said the following at 4:35 PM on Feb 2:
I don't understand the argument that an interrogation technique is not torture if it does not inflict lasting physical harm. Torture, it seems to me, is about the infliction of suffering on another human being in order to coerce her or him into doing something you want. Physical harm frequently but does not always correspond to suffering. A heart attack, for example, can cause a lot of physical damage but not be particularly painful while a sunburn can be excruciating but not cause any lasting harm. Since physical harm doesn't equal suffering and suffering is at the core of what it means to torture, the infliction of lasting physical damage should have nothing to do with the definition. And, as a corollary, since it's hard to think of something which causes more suffering than waterboarding, it is clearly a method of torture.
I think it's admirable that both McCain and Huckabee oppose waterboarding and torture (of course Clinton and Obama do as well), but I find Romney's position disturbing. He says that he supports the regular use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" but not torture, and then he refuses to define the difference between them. His position amounts to, "It's not torture if I say it's not" which is perhaps worse than openly endorsing torture as an interrogation technique. So I'm curious, what is it about McCain that makes him less acceptable than a candidate who more or less endorses torturing people?
24. Joey Tyson said the following at 4:46 PM on Feb 2:
One of the most eye-opening pieces I ever read on waterboarding was an analysis by another person who tried it at home:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448717
25. k. said the following at 5:05 PM on Feb 2:
Abraham Lincoln said, "Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."
I feel the same way about waterboarding -- I looked at the Wikipedia article Leah referenced, and it's sickening.
26. Melissa said the following at 6:41 PM on Feb 2:
Thanks to Daniel for posting the link to Dr. Mohler's commentary.
Ted, I am a little bewildered when people say that they categorically will not vote for a candidate, even if it is the person most closely aligned with his or her political views. Can you share the rationale?
27. Ted Slater said the following at 9:14 PM on Feb 2:
Eliza -- you wrote, "It's nice to think that our American soldiers are handing out bubblegum and chocolate like they were in WWII...."
Do you honestly think that that's what the military was doing during WWII? The truth is that there was a lot more indiscriminate killing going on in WWII than there is today. Not sure what you're trying to say there, or what you're trying to infer about our valiant military forces. And I'm not sure what you're trying to do by bringing up the deplorable frat-house pranks committed by a handful of people at Abu Ghraib. Surely you're not saying that they were typical U.S. military....
Melissa -- the link I provided explains my position pretty well. McCain is not "most closely aligned with [my] political views."
28. Leah said the following at 6:45 AM on Feb 3:
Beth- it is only torture if used upon someone unwillingly. In the instance of Larroque, I don't think you can call it torture because he voluntarily underwent the process. Boundless was just being the "messenger", so to speak- like you said, a neutral reporter. There is nothing wrong with this. You must understand that in reporting things, a writer will not necessarily put forward his own personal view. In real journalism, you're in trouble if you DO.
That aside, I didn't even feel that Motte was completely neutral- sounds like he's quietly dissenting.
Melissa- perhaps you don't knwo Ted's political views. I don't think anybody would say that they'd categorically not vote for a candidate if that candidate was the closest to their personal political views. If Ted says he will not vote for someone, then I would guess that person is NOT the one who most closely shares Ted's political views!
Thanks to Joey for the link. Very informative. I think I'll take the finger-smashing, too.
29. Jethro said the following at 2:55 PM on Feb 3:
Ted,
The US military does NOT treat all captives with dignity. Have you ever read US Field Military Manual 34-52? It outlines a range of 'enhanced interrogation techniques' (how Orwellian) that do not comply with the US's international obligations under the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Is the military a bunch of thugs? Probably not. But it has major institutional issues thanks to this president and his cabinet (many of whom, including Bush could be legally termed 'war criminals'). That's not even to mention the CIA, the ghost prisoner program and countless other immoral acts. It's interesting to see that here your conservatism is winning out so strongly over your Christianity. Something tells me that Jesus (who was himself tortured) would never endorse such actions.
30. Leah said the following at 6:18 PM on Feb 3:
Here's another thought for people: if you think it's not torture because it doesn't leave long-lasting effects (whether it be physical, psychological, emotional or whatever), I'll concede to that for the sake of argument. However, it doesn't stop waterboarding being terrorism. You might be able to argue away the "torture" label, but think about it: terrorism is committing, or threatening to commit, acts which don't necessarily harm someone, but terrify them into submission. I understand that in interrogation situations you must often put the interviewee under a certain degree of pressure, but I don't think sheer, blind terror has ever been allowed.
I think if you waterboarded the population of New York, you'd induce 100x more fear than what happened on Sept 11. People, instead of thinking "could I die too", would be thinking "I am dying". And not only would that elicit the emotional fear that came with Sept 11, it would elicit the complete and utter instinctive, mindless panic God has hardwired into us to subconsciously keep ourselves out of deadly situations.
31. JB said the following at 11:04 PM on Feb 3:
Ted,
"Frat-house pranks?" Seriously? There are pictures from Abu Ghraib which show soldiers holding a "thumbs up" sign in front of the mutilated face of Manadel al-Jamadi. His death was ruled by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology to be due to homicide caused by "blunt force injuries to the torso complicated by compromised respiration." He was, in other words, tied up and beaten to death.
Abu Ghraib certainly was not representative of the quality of our armed forces generally, but don't minimize what went on there. It wasn't just frat-house pranks. It was torture, sexual humiliation, and murder.
32. Eliza said the following at 9:51 AM on Feb 4:
Ted,
Having lived in Germany and spoken with Germans who were children in WWII, I happen to know that GI's did hand out bubblegum and chocolate on occasion. And I cannot recall having heard of any personal atrocities committed by Allied forces in WWII. This might be a gap in my education. The only thing I can think of that you might be referring to is the bombing of Dresden? That was RAF, and anyway, it isn't really comparable as torture/humiliation.
My information on Abu Ghraib comes from the book, The Lucifer Effect, written by the lead investigative psychologist of those incidents. He actually says, more than anything, it was the difficult situation those soldiers were in that caused them to do what they did, but he did not dilute the fact that those actions were evil. I also think it was more than just "frat-house pranks". It was/is a systemic and wide-reaching culture of disrespect.
Of course I don't think all--or even the majority of our soldiers are like that. But it only takes a few to ruin what the many are trying to achieve.
My point in bringing up WWII niceties compared with Iraq atrocities is this: It seems that one of our main objectives in WWII was to promote goodwill, even to our enemies. That does not seem to be the case now. Waterboarding and other humiliating techniques are examples of how the goodwill many soldiers are fighting for is being sabotaged. This kind of thing should make good US soldiers more angry than anyone, because their cause is being upended!
33. Beth said the following at 12:36 PM on Feb 4:
Leah,
I didn’t mean to say that Larroque was being tortured. I was disappointed that Boundless did not take a stronger stance against waterboarding generally.
In retrospect, I did not express myself very well. Thanks for calling me out.
My assumption was that Motte was indeed trying to be more-or-less neutral on the topic of waterboarding --- but not because of journalistic standards of “objectivity.” I do not consider the Boundless blog a traditional news source; mostly they give their opinion on news and events also reported elsewhere. Boundless does not attempt to be neutral on any news article regarding abortion, marriage, or even the Super Bowl. Rightly or wrongly, I assumed that Motte was attempting to be as neutral as possible because of the controversial nature of the topic --- obviously, the use of waterboarding by US personnel and whether it not it counts as torture are highly contested matters. I did not credit Motte’s neutrality as journalistic virtue.
Again, I don’t mean this as a personal attack on Motte --- he does appear to be “quietly dissenting.” I was just disappointed by the editorial choice to keep the post close to neutral.
34. k. said the following at 3:32 PM on Feb 4:
Ted - "Frat-house pranks"?? Those were a lot more than pranks, frat-related or otherwise. (Can you point me to a comparable group of frat boys now paying for their 'pranks' in federal prison?)
Even Donald Rumsfeld didn't refer to these as frat-house pranks. He said they were "un-American," and "inconsistent with the values of our nation." That sounds a whole lot more accurate than your description.
35. Melissa said the following at 6:21 PM on Feb 4:
Ted,
Thanks--I reread the news story and Dobson's statement that as "matter of conscience" he could never vote for McCain because McCain does not support traditional marriage values (constitutional ban on same-sex marriage). I assume that means that if McCain is the nominee, Dobson will abstain from voting in the general election or vote for a write-on candidate. I'd still like to hear more about the rationale behind that decision, but I am no longer bewildered. Sorry if I came across as rude--definitely wasn't my intent--just honest befuddlement.
36. Leah said the following at 11:25 PM on Feb 4:
Beth, I agree that Boundless is not a news source that requires neutrality- I just mentioned that as an illustration that neutrality is not necessarily a bad thing.
I have noticed however that occasionally Boundles throws a neutral article out there just to start a conversation and see what people's points of views are. On something such as this, where people can validly take very different points of view, I think it worked.
Eliza- I understand (I think) your reason with bringing up the "niceties" carried out by Allied forces during WW2 as opposed to the Iraq war. I would not, however, say that they were trying to promote goodwill to their enemies. (Not for the most part, anyway). It probably happened in isolated instances, but I don't think that was a blanket attitude.
One of my favourite stories from WWII was about the Christmas day treaty. Both the Germans and allied forces stopped fighting for Christmas day, without the knowledge of their commanding officers. They even exchanged presents, throwing cigars or balls from one trench to the next, and shouting conversations about what they were having for Christmas lunch. And then that night, at midnight, they were killing each other again.
37. Eliza said the following at 7:36 AM on Feb 5:
Leah,
"Niceties" is an obvious exaggeration, and I don't think it applies at all to the Pacific front. I was referring to our relationship with German citizens both during the war and after it. The Marshall Plan and the Berlin Airlift are examples of things the US did not have to do, and did partially for the sake of goodwill towards Germans. Goodwill to prevent WWIII.
I could be totally misinterpreting history, but I see these US government actions as overwhelmingly positive towards the "enemy".
Iraq is a totally different war and probably it wasn't a good idea for me to try to compare it with WWII. My point was only that the US doesn't have a great international image and things like waterboarding don't help.