Waterboarding, Just water boarding

[Shivan]

[QUOTE]

[waterboarding is] already a rather clear violation of IHL . . .the image of US-as-torturer has done serious damage to the US moral position in the GWOT, and (quite apart from the legal, moral, and operational arguments against waterboarding) it does rather seem a rather steep price to pay for a technique possibly used on only three prisoners. I constantly find Abu Ghreib, Gitmo, and waterboarding raised with me in the ME, and frankly I think they are collectively a rather large mobilization and recruiting gift for AQ and various AQ wannabes.

If "waterboarding" is that clear a violation of IHL as claimed, then Congress should have legislated it away, no? Have they decided to then ignore our obligations under IHL? Have we even defined "torture" to include "waterboarding"? Rather ipse dixit to call it "torture" if not.

As for the information war, recall that in the 80s, Reagan et al. were vilified by world media and accompanied by mass protests (and lots of hysteria) in Europe when missiles were deployed. Reagan and Thatcher prevailed. Today, a similar situation exists: whatever the U.S. does, media in the Mid East and elsewhere will vilify, as they currently do. Thus, we have to continue to do that which will protect Americans, until such acts are specifically forbidden by Congress.

Claiming that this is a boon for AQ recruiting is to buy into propaganda. AQ et al have not had trouble recruiting before or after 9/11, nor in finding grievances, real or imagined, for their propaganda (see, for example, "Inside Al Qaeda" by Gunaratna, and "The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global" by Gerges). The Intel Community needs to be able to use all techniques that are currently legal to do their job.

[Rex Brynen]

(see, for example, "Inside Al Qaeda" by Gunaratna, and "The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global" by Gerges).

Fawaz (Gerges) is indeed an odd source to cite in support of your argument--I've heard him twice in the last few weeks argue that US detention and interrogation methods have served to swell jihadist ranks, based on his recent field interviews with militants, supporters, and young men hoping to make the trip to Iraq to fight US forces (which, as I noted earlier, is very much my impression too).

[Shivan]

Fawaz (Gerges) is indeed an odd source to cite in support of your argument--I've heard him twice in the last few weeks argue that US detention and interrogation methods have served to swell jihadist ranks, based on his recent field interviews with militants, supporters, and young men hoping to make the trip to Iraq to fight US forces (which, as I noted earlier, is very much my impression too).

Actually reading the book would be helpful. It goes to the point that "AQ et al have not had trouble recruiting before or after 9/11, nor in finding grievances, real or imagined, for their propaganda."

Gunaratna (and others) have cited numbers as high as 7 million men radicalized and armed (or willing to be armed) to fight in jihad, and drawn from all over the Muslim world. Is that all the fault of Abu Ghraib, interrogation, etc.? Could it be possible Gerge's recent informants you cite are spouting exactly what they want reported?

I'm not denying that Iraq, Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib, etc., are beacons for recruiting, but my point is that such an increase is marginal at best. Take Pakistan & Afghanistan as examples: long before 9/11, there were an estimated 120K armed militant running about. A hypothetical increase to 125K means little given the starting point.

If, on the other hand, we were talking about 1.2 billion Muslims all of whom were at peace and in love with America, and we suddenly started torturing people and that became a recruitment device, you may have a point.

[Rex Brynen]

Gunaratna (and others) have cited numbers as high as 7 million men radicalized and armed (or willing to be armed) to fight in jihad, and drawn from all over the Muslim world. Is that all the fault of Abu Ghraib, interrogation, etc.?

Leaving aside how credible that number is--and the serious dangers of lumping all Islamists into the same category-- I hardly think that anyone is claiming that its the sole source of militant Islamist grievance.

What is being claimed is that, quite apart from what I believe to be its clear illegality (under IHL) and immorality, water-boarding is not worth the damage it does to the US national image. In a long war of ideas and legitimacy, reputation counts.

[Shivan]

I believe to be its clear illegality (under IHL) and immorality

Personal value judgment. Let the U.S. Congress (a) define waterboarding (b) determine if it is illegal under international and/or U.S. law and (c) act accordingly.

Actually, I live in the Mid East off and on, and speak Arabic. Having mingled with Arabs from all walks of life, waterboarding, Abu Ghraib, etc. is only an issue among Western liberals. Arabs think of us a far too genteel and naive in many aspects. The greatest grievance among many Arabs towards my dear Uncle Sam is that they cannot get visas to America.

[Rex Brynen]

Personal value judgment. Let the U.S. Congress (a) define waterboarding (b) determine if it is illegal under international and/or U.S. law and (c) act accordingly.

I have no problem with this (although, under IHL, individual states have no right to "legalize" that which is internationally prohibited).

Actually, I live in the Mid East off and on, and speak Arabic. Having mingled with Arabs from all walks of life, waterboarding, Abu Ghraib, etc. is only an issue among Western liberals. Arabs think of us a far too genteel and naive in many aspects. The greatest grievance among many Arabs towards my dear Uncle Sam is that they cannot get visas to America.

I was working in Gaza when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke. The anger was real, and virtually universal. Those in SWC who served in Iraq are better placed than I to say whether Iraqis were upset or it was simply a western, liberal non-story.

I suspect we're never going to agree on this one, so I'll leave it there.

[Shivan]

Yes, we will not agree on the waterboarding issue.

The Gaza crowd is hardly illustrative of Arab thought. They hate us, and along with their West Bank cohorts, had a fine celebration on 9/11 as I recall.

One must also account for how much genuine passion there exists for issues, and how much is whipped up by Arab/Western presses and anti-American leaders.

[Abu Buckwheat]

Personal value judgment. Let the U.S. Congress (a) define waterboarding (b) determine if it is illegal under international and/or U.S. law and (c) act accordingly.

Actually, I live in the Mid East off and on, and speak Arabic. Having mingled with Arabs from all walks of life, waterboarding, Abu Ghraib, etc. is only an issue among Western liberals. Arabs think of us a far too genteel and naive in many aspects. The greatest grievance among many Arabs towards my dear Uncle Sam is that they cannot get visas to America.

Shivan, You must live in a different Middle East than I because I get Abu Ghraieb, Fallujah, Qana, and 9/11 conspiracy theories thrown in my face almost daily. I speak Arabic & in live in a ME capitol ... also served in Iraq. There is nothing about those issues that can't turn a peaceful group of guys smoking the Shisha into a pretty worked up crowd. They especially believe in the 9/11 Jewish conspiracy and when I tell them I saw the attacks with my own eyes and that Jews, Moslems and Christians were killed in the hundreds only then do they soften up and regret what they say. They think the Bush neo-conservatism is really a neo-Crusader trick of great shrewdness. They can't believe its just incompetence.

There is nothing Western liberal-inspired about the anger and resentment here in the ME. Its genuine and deep seated ... oh and they are angry about not being able to get Visas too... especially the Iraqis that worked for us.

As for Gunaratuna's estimate of 7 million armed and angry Moslems in the Jihad ... it not a good estimate. Its 1 billion angry innocent Moslems who have a political gripe about our policies and approx 21,000 amed & in the Jihad globally (incls Taliban, AQI, Chechens, AQ global & franchises, ASG and other mini-Jihads). Maybe 100,000 active supporters. Thats my guess.

OK back on topic ... My wife says - "A little bit of torture is like a little bit pregnant ... in the end you're still knocked up."

[Shivan]

Abu Buckwheat -- Careless writing on my part by adding Abu Ghraib. I was focusing on the issue of waterboarding, hence the following sentence "Arabs think of us a far too genteel and naive in many aspects." The last line is facetious, as you may have figured: "The greatest grievance among many Arabs towards my dear Uncle Sam is that they cannot get visas to America."

Yes, I know how upsetting the issue of Abu Ghraib is, and the conspiracy theories percolating in the region. Arabs would not be Arabs w/o conspiracy theories, and which has a long history in their social traditions. A lot of anger is whipped up though, like the cartoon controversy.

[Bullmoose Bailey]

Personal value judgment. Let the U.S. Congress (a) define waterboarding (b) determine if it is illegal under international and/or U.S. law and (c) act accordingly.

Actually, I live in the Mid East off and on, and speak Arabic. Having mingled with Arabs from all walks of life, waterboarding, Abu Ghraib, etc. is only an issue among Western liberals. Arabs think of us a far too genteel and naive in many aspects. The greatest grievance among many Arabs towards my dear Uncle Sam is that they cannot get visas to America.

True points that our eastern establishment media will not address. Perhaps a pure example of western arrogancy, not being able to see past our own collective nose as relates to being offended by the realities of war.

I have come more and more to see this cultural divide as symptomatic of the dysfunctions attendant to the dolorous "nation that separates its warriors from its scholars."

Perhaps you are aware of a dangerous trend I've noticed emerging from the "seminar caller" sector online and on-the-air. Prosecutions of previous war crimes, i.e. severe water torture via-a-vis stomach flooding followed by stick beating to rupture, are being semantically conflated with present water-boarding techniques.

The result is that "seminar callers" are able to make the "point" that the US approves the same thing they claimed was torture when others did it, which is, of course, untrue. What saddens me is that most journalists, radio hosts and others are unlearned of the actual history and let the argument go on unchallenged.

[Polarbear1605]

True points that our eastern establishment media will not address. Perhaps a pure example of western arrogancy, not being able to see past our own collective nose as relates to being offended by the realities of war.

Something to think about:
This country (the US) has a long history of torture. In fact, we torture each and every day. Just ask any inmate sitting on death row if they are under “severe mental pain or suffering”. In order to establish a gauge in this discussion, while you are talking with that death row inmate, ask which event they would prefer to occur to them today; a waterboarding or an execution. The only reason we don’t call that torture is because it is sanctioned by our Rule of Law. I think a lot of folks commenting on this thread have jumped up on their high horses and are confusing dogma vs doctrine. For example, dogma is an opinion and doctrine is a written instruction.

The debate over torture since 9/11 has been centered on its definition and what “severe physical and mental pain and suffering” really means. The definition of torture in the Geneva Conventions is very nebulous. One reason it is nebulous is because whenever we sit down with those folks to discuss the definition of torture, for example, we are usually sitting across the table from a set of international reps from states that not only have a nebulous definition of torture but also employ that definition more as general guidelines vs laws. Of course, these general guideline folks are there to ensure we don’t put their state on report with the international court of public opinion.

After 9/11, the then elected administration had to make a fundamental decision on how they were going to set the strategic tapestry to fight international terrorist. They could use the US Constitutional Rule of Law or they use the Laws of War. Neither is a really good fit, US Constitutional Law stops at the boundaries of the US and affords a set of rights to the accused that can easily be used to make a mockery of the legal process. The Laws of War are not a good fit either because, comparatively speaking, they are general, vague and open for wide interpretations. Of course, the advantage of the Laws of War is they do have a certain amount of global acceptance. In any event, the 9/11 administration decided to set the strategic tapestry with the Laws of War and hence, the call for a “Global War on Terrorism”.

The other issue when defining torture is the legal issue of “intent”. I feel that because the current administration could not prove intent is the primary reason a certain X-VP is not cooling his heels in a Federal prison. Is the intent of waterboarding really to inflict severe pain and suffering, especially when it is used as a military training technique on our own pilots?

In 2007, or so, the national media starts to report that the CIA is using waterboarding (enhanced interrogation techniques) and the Department of Justice authorized it. This is interesting since it seems the presidential administration seems to not only define the legal definition of torture but also place in under Title 50 …covert ops? What else was happening in 2007? You had a majority opposition congress pushing to get there political party elected to the White House and the more issues the better. Consequently, the definition of torture has nothing to do with what is legal or what is right or wrong, it is just another example of strategic legalism used as a political tool that plays nicely into our enemy’s hands.

[Mark O'Neill]

Gunaratna (and others) have cited numbers as high as 7 million men radicalized and armed (or willing to be armed) to fight in jihad, and drawn from all over the Muslim world.

Ok, slightly off thread, but I could not, as we say in Australia, 'Let this one go through to the wicketkeeper.'

This figure beggars credibility in every reasonable sense of sound statistical analysis. How did Gunaratna (who is at the helm of what is essentially a Government funded social science program focussed on security) come up with this figure?

He certainly does not have the resources (or ability) to poll everyone (or even a representative sample) of the Islamic world. I even doubt whether respected polling groups like Pew could undertake such an audacious poll. Singaporean think tanks obviously have some (well hidden) abilities..

I suspect that if challenged on this, after a few disingenous and distracting observations, we would find that the figure cited comes from some form of 'government source' , thus obviating the need for substantiation because, after all, they know what they are talking about, don't they? As a last resort , if pushed, we would find out that if came from 'classified source' , thus totally removing the need for rigorous verification. Gunaratna, and others of his ilk, have 'form' for this.

The problem with 'careless' facts from 'credible' figures is that people accept them at face value. The mental image of millions of putative violent jihadists is quite disturbing - and, dare I say it, grist for the mill for those who make their living, name and reputation from being expert commentators on the matter.

The fact is that it does nothing to 'help' confront the true nature(s) and scope of the problems associated with radical Islam - related issues of political violence . This appears irrelevant to those who spout such meaningless, and ultimately useless figures.
- Mark

[Shivan]

I'm not wedded to the number, nor do I take it as absolute. However, if we consider that the number represents about 00.50% of all Muslims spanning the globe, it is not that huge. 50 basis point deviation from the mean in any group (although Muslims are not homogeneous) is not that much.

Yes, how did he come up with the number? What degree of radicalization are we speaking of? When putative jihadists claim to be "willing" to take up arms, do they intend to do as they say?

[Presley Cannady]

...do we really know what the interrogation technique in current practice actually entails? My own attempts to answer this question have been thwarted by reports persistently hand-waving in SERE counter-resistance techniques with those actually authorized for use on detainees.

[LawVol]

[QUOTE=Shivan;30157]

If "waterboarding" is that clear a violation of IHL as claimed, then Congress should have legislated it away, no? Have they decided to then ignore our obligations under IHL? Have we even defined "torture" to include "waterboarding"? Rather ipse dixit to call it "torture" if not.

It is a violation of international law and Congress has already spoken on this issue. Article 17 of Geneva Convention III specifically states that "no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever." Now, if you subscribe to the notion that those we have detained in Afghanistan and Iraq are not prisoners of war, then I would direct you to Article 31 of Geneva Convention IV which states "no physical or loral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties." A protected person is essentially a civilian. Article 3 also states that "torture" is "prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever."

So, the above covers prisoners of war and civilians (i.e. those not taking part in the fight). However, many supporters of waterboarding argue that those we detain are neither of these (as if there were always some way to immediately tell). I would direct these folks to Protocal I of the Geneva Conventions. This Protocal specifically prohibits "torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental" (Art. 75). This applies to any person that has taken part in hostilities but that has not been granted prisoner of war status (Art .45).

The Geneva Conventions were ratified by the US Senate on Aug 2, 1955. This means that those Conventions are now US law, on par with the Constitution itself (see US Const., Art VI). The US treats Protocal I as customary international law which essentially means that the US views this as universal and indisputable.

For those that might take issue with international law, Congress has also spoken on this issue in federal law. Title 18, section 2340A of the United States Code specifically provides for the prosecution of any person that commits or attempts to commit torture. Torture is defined in title 18, section 2340 as:

1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from--
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

The applicability of this provision turns on whether the person is acting under color of law and whether the act (waterboarding in this case) meets the definition of torture provided. Acting under color of law essentially means that the person is acting with some authority from the government. Military personnel, contractors, CIA, etc. would qualify. Reasonable minds may differ as whether waterboarding satisfies the definitional requirements above. There will always be some lawyer that will engage in a Clintonian definitional word game, but one could reasonably conclude that waterboarding satisfies the criteria.

Another issue to consider, however, even if you subscribe to the notion that waterboarding does not meet this criteria is the effect our acquiescence with regard to this interrogation method has on the public. A few of the previous posts indicates that the Arab world is/was outraged by the Abu Ghraib incident. We attempted to make up for this mistake by prosecuting those responsible. However, if we condone waterboarding, do we not cheapen the judicial process with regard to Abu Ghraib. In other words, although we were genuinely shocked over the treatment our people subjected prisoners to, do we send a different message by condoning waterbaording?

[jconners]

Many US military training courses during the 1960-70s era included a POW compound exercise where individuals were subjected to "hard" and "soft" cell treatment...US military pilots, the 101st Recondo course, etc.

Water torture was part of the "hard cell" treatment given to some or all of the students in each class.

My personal experience involved a medical doctor being present during water torturing...when you pass out or vomit and block the airway, I believe that a doctor is necessary to insure that the person being water tortured is not permanently physically harmed or killed.

I knew that I would be resuscitated during the water torturing during the POW compound training...yet when regaining consciousness there was always a short time frame when I was disoriented and believed that I was indeed drowning and when subjected to water torturing again under those conditions the experience was perceived as life threatening and I struggled under that perception until I was again unconscious.

My personal experiences gained in such training...I would not subject a prisoner to water torture/water boarding...and belief that we have the technology to gain the information needed by means that do not constitute torture...

[Fuchs]

That's not so much about technology as it is about skill...


Besides; it's an often forwarded, yet entirely irrelevant argument that the U.S. did this to its own soldiers, too (I know you didn't phrase it as a pro argument):
Boxers voluntarily beat each other up. Voluntarily, and professionally. Do the same without consent and it's a crime. Nobody would ever be stupid enough to attempt to justify having beaten somebody up by pointing at boxing sports, right?

[jconners]

I concur

[carl]

Fuchs:

That is great point about boxing. I never heard anybody bring that up before. Good job.