Land of the Free, Home of the Cowards - A Look at Waterboarding

Waterboarding of late has generated more publicity than even America's Sweetheart, Britney Spears. Whether or not you consider this practice torture seems to rely on what your political party affiliation is. There are some irrefutable facts you may want to consider if you're undecided or feel this practice is a necessary tactic for Blood and Guts Bush's War on Terror. According to an article I recently read in THE WEEK Magazine, the practice of waterboarding has been banned by both international law and U.S. policy for decades. It's an established fact the U.S. has throughout history regarded this practice as a criminal act. As far back as the Spanish-American War of 1898, a U.S. military officer named Major Edwin Glenn used this technique on Filipino insurgents and was court-martialed as a direct result of his actions. Hmmm, U.S. military personnel torturing perceived enemy combatants or insurgents nearly 110 years ago. I sense a certain eerily reminiscent ring to this terminology. It's nice to know the Bush administration is using the latest technological breakthroughs when it come to interrogating insurgents in order to save our lives.

We move forward to World War II, where several Japanese soldiers were charged and convicted of waterboarding Allied prisoners of war. Those Japanese soldiers were handed down sentences ranging from hard labor to the death penalty for this practice. In the Vietnam War, a U.S. soldier who had waterboarded a North Vietnamese prisoner was drummed out of the military with a Dishonorable Discharge for his courageous act under fire. Even noted right wing veteran and republican presidential contender, John McCain states that waterboarding is torture. In fact McCain's exact words described the practice as "very exquisite torture." Whether you like, loathe or feel totally ambivalent about McCain, he did honorably serve this country during the Vietnam War. He has the credibility to speak of torture because of his position as a former POW, and has done so almost as many times as Rudy Giuliani has reminded anyone who will listen that he was mayor of New York City on 9/11. George Bush and Dick Cheney really can't speak about the pros and cons of torture because that subject rarely comes up when you're a drunken AWOL deserter or a Brokeback Mountain cowboy with priorities other than honorably serving your country in a time of war. In their defense, Bush did kill a lot of Jack Daniels bottles and Cheney would mistakenly confuse an old man with some pheasants and drop the guy with one clean shot to the face.

But enough about Chicken and Little. While the sky remains where it should, allow me to explain exactly how waterboarding works. The intended victim is normally tied up on an inclined board with his feet raised and head lowered, whilst he is blindfolded and has his face and mouth covered with a towel or washcloth. The interrogator then begins to pour water over the victim's face in a steady stream. The purpose of this is to cause the wet material of the cloth to cling over the mouth and nostrils. As the water continues streaming into the victim's face, some of it begins to penetrate the cloth and nostrils and begins seeping into the lungs. At this point, the victim begins the process of sensing he is beginning to drown and begins to buck and gasp for air in a panicked state. Few people can last very long in this position. Highly trained CIA interrogators who have undergone this procedure as part of their training were only able to last an average of 14 seconds before pleading for the practice to stop. An unnamed CIA agent explained that "while you're being waterboarded, you're inverted, thereby escalating the fear. It's not painful but it scares the living s*** out of you."

The reason experts say this procedure is so terrifying is because the sensation of water filling your nose and throat triggers a very real primal survivor mechanism almost all humans have. Prisoners become desperate to escape the position but are unable to breathe or move as they simultaneously are fighting for air. Shortly after the procedure begins, the steady stream of water overwhelms the gag reflex and makes the victim feel as though he is dying. This continues until the the prisoner nearly passes out from this sense of strangulation. People cannot continually remain in this state for very long. A victim will soon become hysterical. In theory he will tell his captors anything they want to know at this point rather than endure another session. But like with all good things, there is some bad mixed in with the good. Most trained interrogators will agree that when captive prisoners finally agree to spill their guts, said spillage is not always the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me Allah.

Just like the old adage there are no Atheists in foxholes, captured and tortured combatants are not notorious sticklers for every little detail. First off, if you or I were being barbarically tortured, the aforementioned truth may become the first casualty of the process. When a prisoner finally screams out, "I'll tell you anything you want to know," he means just that. He'll tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear. These are often two entirely different scenarios. If you ask me, for example, is Al-qaeda Johnson hiding under the latte machine at the Starbucks on the corner of Mohammed Ave and bin Laden Blvd, I will cheerfully announce he most certainly is. It's like meeting your girlfriend's father in high school, you quickly gauge what he wants to hear and that's exactly what you tell him and throw a sir on the end for additional style points. So as exotic and 007ish as torture may seem, the ultimate purpose may fall far short of psychologically breaking a person down and eliciting actual useful information that is reliable. Opponents would argue about time constrictions. Yeah you're right, better to hurry and get useless information from a terrified prisoner than getting reliable information a few days or a week later. I guess this is just one of many reasons the U.S. is kicking Iraqi and insurgent ass so impressively.

The first recorded use of waterboarding occurred during the Spanish Inquisition in the 1500s on people suspected of holding Jewish, Protestant or other heretic beliefs. Not to be outdone when it came to subhuman torture, the Nazis also subscribed to the practice as well while attempting to elicit secret information from recently captured prisoners. The Khmer Rouge employed waterboarding during its reign of terror in Cambodia. This form of torture was widely unknown, however, until the Bush administration authorized CIA interrogators to use the technique as one of several "enhanced interrogation techniques" for individuals classified as enemy combatants during Bush's jihad on Muslim terrorism. Many of the recent victims of this practice happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and virtually no proof even exists these captives are terrorists. They were rounded up off the streets and relocated to top secret sights in Europe and Guantanamo in Cuba. They have been tortured and held in direct violation of Habeas Corpus for years without being officially charged with any crime or having access to an attorney.

Most doctors agree the bulk of any long term damage from waterboarding is primarily psychological. Dr. Allen Keller of Bellevue Hospital Center in New York City recently testified before Congress that victims of waterboarding are so traumatized they continue to have nightmares, depression and panic attacks years later. According to Keller, one patient told him that he was unable to take showers and suffered panic attacks every time it rained. The fear of being killed is a terrifying experience, according to Dr. Keller. These methods are intended to break the prisoners down, to terrify them and cause harm to their psyche, thereby resulting in lasting and harmful health consequences. I don't know about you but I have to believe this is not the best method available in order to gather truthful information from one's enemy. As stated yesterday, prisoners in this state will say anything they think you want them to say in order for the torture to stop. The probability that the statement obtained under these circumstances comes close to resembling the truth is very low indeed.

Knowing this, it makes you wonder what kind of spineless moron would condone and approve of this ineffective and cruel method of gathering information. The Bush Administration, at least publicly, refuses to say anything about waterboarding. But in 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that all prisoners in US captivity must be treated according to the Geneva conventions. In July, George W. Bush signed an executive order barring humiliating and degrading treatment that any "reasonable person" would deem beyond the bounds of human decency. The CIA had stopped waterboarding months earlier and no longer uses the technique, according to unnamed government officials quoted in several recent newspaper stories. Still, the administration won't say publicly that waterboarding has been banned, allegedly on the grounds that it doesn't want terrorists to know what to expect if they are captured. A recent survey indicated that approximately 90% of all worldwide terrorists are regular subscribers to the New York Times.

The U.S. Senate recently confirmed the nomination of Michael Mukasey as the replacement for Alberto Gonzales as U.S. Attorney General by a vote of 53 - 40. Despite initially receiving broad bi-partisan support, Mukasey's nomination was almost derailed because in the grand tradition of the Bush administration, he flat out lied when he claimed not to know exactly what waterboarding was. I have to assume this learned scholar lacked the intellect and computer savvy to google waterboarding like I and millions of other less qualified goofballs did. Despite being publicly against torture, he wouldn't state he was against waterboarding until confirmed and briefed what it was by Bush. I would love to be a fly on the wall listening to that conversation, albeit a mentally retarded fly. Obviously Mukasay knows full well what waterboarding is and the illegality of the practice. He refused to admit that however, because if he did, he might find himself in the position of having to request an independent counsel for the purpose of criminally prosecuting both Bush and Cheney for perjury and authorizing torture contrary to U.S. laws.

I thought a lot about the interrogation of enemies designed to elicit useful information to uncover future plots, locate specific individuals or to prevent ongoing operations. I came to the conclusion there's no one stop singular method that will work for everybody. I think you learn very quickly that your enemies are the same types of people as your friends. In order to acquire useful intelligence you have to be able to quickly surmise exactly who your captive is. How bright is he? How easily can be intimidated psychologically or physically? Would he be willing to talk if you offered him a "cookie" as an inducement to spill his guts? Do you believe he's the type of person even capable of telling the truth or would he lie like the fisherman detailing the length of the 25 foot shark he just caught armed only with a butter knife? I realize this is a dilemma, but CIA and intelligence agents get paid significantly above minimum wages to figure this out. Strapping a guy to a board and pouring water in his face and mouth until he feels he will drown may get him to talk, but will a word he says be truthful?

Another thing I wonder about is the 29 percent of Americans when recently polled who said waterboarding is NOT a form of torture and when asked whether they think the U.S. government should be allowed to use the procedure to try to get information from suspected terrorists, 40 percent said yes. In other words, 3 out of every 10 Americans feel waterboarding is not even torture and 4 out of 10 are just fine with their government torturing human beings. The one question the pollsters never seem to ask is how would the American people who support torturing our enemies react to our enemies torturing our troops. I mean a war can't be fought if only one side is participating, it takes at least two. I think there's also an expression regarding geese and ganders thats applicable as well.

So what do you say Joe and Mary America? Since 40 percent of you say it's ok for the U.S. to torture enemy combatants, I have to assume you find it acceptable for those same opposition members to capture American soldiers and citizens in and around the battlefield and whip out the board, the rope, the washcloth and the tub of mountain fresh, crystal clear Iraqi or Afghani spring water to torture our guys and women as well? Why stop at waterboarding, these Middle Eastern sons of Allah have been in the ruthless torture business for approximately 14 centuries. Our government could learn much more from them than they could ever learn from us. You want to turn your HDTV on and watch Shiite or Sunni extremists brutally torturing our troops? I have to assume you think it's just fine because fair minded people such as you realize full well that torture is not a one way street. That kind of traffic flows both ways. So if you are one of those 40 percentile supporting the U.S. in the torture of the extremists, I have to assume you equally support reciprocal behavior perpetrated on American combatants as well. Funny how the Marines and Army never show the exciting acts of torture in the carefully orchestrated television commercials or slick recruiting brochures.
,
Next year, a new president will have already been elected. Based on the current slate of candidates being offered by both parties, the next president may not be ideal, but can't help being a noticeable upgrade from what we have today. George W. Bush has disgraced himself and more importantly his country. Petty politics has become the order of the day in recent years. I urge you to be smarter than Bush and reject the handful of manipulators and profiteers who subliminally infiltrate your brains. To quote President John F. Kennedy, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what can you do for your country." In other words, stop the petty partisan politics that is decaying our country and ask which candidate is truly best for our country. Every so often, it feels better aspiring to be a hopeful optimist, than it does being a cynical pessimist. What do you have to lose, other than your country........