On Waterboarding

The Obama administration's declassification last week of numerous internal memos dealing with interrogation and torture has ignited a firestorm of controversy. Written by Bush administration officials in the first years after the 9/11 attacks, the memos discuss the legal limits of "enhanced interrogation" techniques such as waterboarding, stress positions, and sleep deprivation. These techniques were used by the CIA on "high value" terrorism suspects with the approval of top Bush administration officials.

The memos' authors seem quite concerned with justifying the legality of these "enhanced" techniques, especially waterboarding. In the end they conclude that waterboarding does not meet the definition of torture, and can therefore be used by CIA interrogators. However, waterboarding has become the most controversial technique used by the Bush administration. Amnesty International and other human rights groups consider waterboarding to be a form of torture, illegal under international law and binding U.S. treaties. Since the Spanish Inquisition, waterboarding has been widely considered a form of torture. More than 60 years ago, Japanese soldiers were convicted and executed after WWII for using waterboarding on American prisoners.

The term "waterboarding" can actually refer to a number of similar techniques. In all forms of waterboarding, the victim is laid on his back, tightly bound and blindfolded, on a slightly-inclined board or table so that his head is below his chest. With this basic setup, there are three general methods of waterboarding:

In its simplest form, water can be poured directly over the victim's face. (This method was apparently not used by the CIA.)
A towel can be either wrapped over the victim's face or stuffed in the victim's mouth, and the water then poured over the towel. (This appears to be the method most commonly used by the CIA.)
Prior to pouring water over the victim's face, plastic wrap can be placed over the victim's face, covering his nose and mouth, with a hole cut in the wrap over the victim's mouth.

As water is poured over the victim's face, the towel becomes saturated and the victim's nose and mouth fill with water, immediately triggering the gag reflex. Due to the inclined position of the victim, it is impossible to simply hold one's breath to prevent water from entering through the nose and mouth. Usually within 10-15 seconds, enough water flows into the victim's lungs to trigger an uncontrollable and overwhelming wave of panic and terror.

It is at this point that those in the media who have undergone waterboarding were overwhelmed and compelled by sheer terror to immediately end the session. However, the CIA's waterboarding victims could of course not stop the process. If the process is continued longer than 15-20 seconds (the Bush administration approved up to 40 seconds) victims reported intense pain in their chest and lungs and rapidly intensifying panic.

It is often claimed in the media and by advocates of waterboarding that the technique "simulates" drowning. In fact, waterboarding is a process of slowly drowning the victim. The mechanics of the technique simply allow the flow of water into the victim's respiratory system to be more effectively controlled, prolonging the suffering of the victim. The mind responds to this seemingly imminent prospect of death on an instinctual level, with the most intense feeling of fear.

Contrary to popular belief, waterboarding is actually quite dangerous -- so dangerous that the CIA always kept a doctor present during sessions as a precaution against accidental death. U.S. military personnel who undergo training to resist torture -- as part of the SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) training program -- experience a relatively safe and controlled form of waterboarding, much different from that practiced by the CIA.

According to Malcolm W. Nance, a master SERE instructor and 20-year veteran of anti-terrorist intelligence operations, said, "It is risky but not entirely dangerous when applied in training for a very short period. However, when performed on an unsuspecting prisoner, waterboarding is a torture technique - without a doubt. There is no way to sugarcoat it." Unlike the Bush administration lawyers and Republican pundits now defending waterboarding, Nance was himself waterboarded and witnessed numerous waterboarding sessions.

Relating the dangers of waterboarding, Nance continues: "Waterboarding is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration. Usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch. If it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia - meaning, the loss of all oxygen to the cells."

Journalist Christopher Hitchens, after being waterboarded once as part of an investigation for Vanity Fair magazine, said that even months after the experience he was haunted by recurring attacks of panic and intense fear. Any kind of strenuous activity leaving him short of breath would trigger intense fear and panic similar to that experienced during the waterboarding session. Hitchens also repeatedly awoke from sleep in a panic, feeling as if he was being smothered. Keep in mind that this was after being waterboarded once, in a highly controlled and unthreatening environment, where he was able to immediately stop the process as soon as he desired.

One can only imagine how much more horrific the experience would be at the hands of determined, hostile interrogators. The CIA's targets were generally spirited away quickly to secret prisons by masked agents. Once in these prisons, they were deprived of sleep for long periods of time and put in painful "stress positions". They were beaten, made to live in their own excrement, psychologically terrorized, and kept in constant fear of death. These factors alone could cause serious psychological damage. When combined with the horror of waterboarding, it is hard to even imagine the resulting effect on the victim.

Considering the real nature of waterboarding, it can only be honestly described as torture. In fact, it appears to be an especially cruel form of torture. Torturers have long sought the means to inflict the maximum amount of pain and suffering on their victims without leaving a mark. Waterboarding leaves no bruises or blood, so the uninformed public assumes that it cannot be that bad. That waterboarding is so widely regarded as too mild to be called torture merely demonstrates that it is an especially ingenious (and therefore dangerous) form of cruelty.

When considering such a horrific form of torture, the relevant point is not whether the victim is guilty of some crime or deserving of punishment. Neither should such abuse be rationalized by the possibility of "saving lives". The central question presented by waterboarding is whether such an extreme form of cruelty should ever be condoned under any circumstances. For those who understand the real nature of waterboarding, there should be no question that only a particularly brutal and twisted society would knowingly condone such a practice.

Pirate Crazy

(Please forgive the snarky tone of this post. There is no way to approach this nonsense seriously.)

There is certainly no shortage of ideas being put forth for dealing with the growing problem of Somali piracy in the Gulf of Aden. Since the Bainbridge incident in which an American captain was taken hostage by pirates and rescued by Navy SEALs, many commentators are no longer content with increasing naval patrols in the Gulf. Reactions varied across the ideological spectrum, but many of the proposed solutions share a common characteristic: They are extremely stupid.

Boston Herald editor Jules Crittenden is proposing the borderline-genocidal policy of destroying all ships and naval infrastructure on the Somali coast, or otherwise completely excluding Somalis from fishing in their own coastal waters. Crittenden apparently has no qualms with broadly condemning the people of Somalia to more horrific levels of starvation and death, because pirates are known to disguise themselves as Somali fishermen.

The usually-insightful military affairs blog Captain's Journal thinks public execution of all captured pirates is the answer: "Send in the Marines [...] onto the boats, shoot them with sniper fire, and kill all of the pirates. The ones who survive the ensuing fire fight are to be lined up at the rail and shot in the head, bodies dumped overboard. The whole event is to be taped and published to the world so that they will know how we deal with pirates."

Perhaps most puzzlingly, liberal writer Matthew Yglesias says that the United States must bring "some measure of stability and security to Somalia," as if such a task was rather simple. Of course Yglesias neglects to explain how this could be done without a full-scale invasion and nation-building program in Somalia.

For that matter, he fails to explain how it could be done even with an invasion. So all we have to do is bring stability to a country that has been mired in bloody chaos for 18 years? Well why didn't you say so earlier, Matt? He might as well recommend magically turning all the pirates' guns into kittens. That might actually be more practical than stabilizing Somalia. Yglesias also gets bonus stupid-points for referring longingly to the "stability" he says would have been ushered in by the murderous, deposed Islamic Courts Movement.

The origins of Somali piracy go back to shady European policies of dumping nuclear and other toxic waste in Somali waters, as well as depletion of aquatic life by European over-fishing in Somali territorial waters. This double-pronged assault on the lives and livelihood of Somali fishermen and coastal inhabitants combined disastrously with the already-chaotic and poor situation in the nation. The result is a huge number of starving, angry Somalis with nothing to lose.

Obviously, these wrongs do not justify the pirates' crimes. Nor should it be assumed that all pirates are responding to such predations -- many are plainly just thugs trying to get rich. However, knowing the relevant history is essential to finding a solution to the problem. By understanding the origins of the piracy boom we can, for example, understand why 70 percent of Somali citizens support the pirates' actions.

Since forcefully bringing prosperity and stability to Somalia would be unimaginably difficult -- requiring an investment far greater than in Iraq -- the only workable solution is an imperfect one. Naval forces from all over the world must increase their commitment to securing the Gulf, while doing all that is possible to dismantle the pirates' coastal bases and infrastructure. Commercial vessels must find ways to defend themselves. After all, most Somali pirates are little more than groups of men in modified fishing boats and dinghies with rifles and rocket launchers.

Yglesias is right about one thing: the problem of piracy will not go away until the situation in Somalia improves. Unfortunately, the United States is in no position to start another exercise in nation-building. Therefore, the world's navies and the targeted ships must step up to the challenge. These other suggestions of invasion, mass execution, or indiscriminate destruction are not only ridiculous and unhelpful, they are irresponsible.