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.