Wow, magnificently put!

You seem to be assuming that waterboarding actually constitutes torture, which is a position I've never been able to subscribe to. It creates a psychological and unavoidable feeling of panic, but does not inflict pain nor any lasting injury (physical or mental). Pulling out fingernails, bastinado, putting people through shredders... those are torture. But waterboarding just doesn't meet the definition of torture, in my opinion, and I have yet to find any description of waterboarding that has changed my mind.

Agreed: waterboarding most certainly is not anything akin to torture.

I've said it to others and I'll say it again here. If hooking a KNOWN terrorist to a car battery will save American or Allied Nation's citizen's lives then have at it. Now I'm not for grabbing some schmo off the street and applying such methods, that is not right or moral.

American lives > Terrorist lives/rights

We are at war with Islam, our culture and way of life are incompatible with the devout practice of Islam. That doesn't mean those who consider themselves "Muslim" yet are not devout adherents are our enemies, but the "radicals" (adherents to the Koran and Hadiths) are. They are at war with us whether we, our governments, or our media acknowledge it; and by not acknowledging it we are sure to lose.

Robin,

Have to disagree with you in part. WITHOUT regard to its morality or lack thereof, or its efficacy (which is damned high, by the way), waterboarding is absolutely torture.

I'll concede that it's not physically crippling or disfiguring, as is most of what folks think of as "torture." Which is why I'd certainly prefer it to having multiple joint capsules broken, or having body parts hacked off, as true terrorists are often wont to do. So maybe we don't disagree too much. But to many who have undergone it, the line is very thin. And I'd rather those forced to use it in defense of our nation never forget that.

Do NOT misunderstand me -- I am NOT putting myself on a moral pedestal: In certain, high-value situations, I'd use it on another person, knowing full well what I was doing and accepting what I consider the stain on my soul. Although it wouldn't stop me in a "ticking time-bomb" situation, I understand that what I was doing is really, really brutal, even though the marks may not show.

I think it's important that it be considered a tool of last resort. There's a lot of effective mind games you can use to loosen many tongues without giving someone screaming nightmares for many days to come.

My $0.02

I don't consider waterboarding to be torture. So, I think it is an acceptable technique on suspected terrorists.

I do have doubts about the wisdom of using "real" torture (disfiguring, crippling, etc.).

You may end up using those techniques on innocents, either inadvertently, or through rogue or "political" interrogations.

I think my moral conundrum is somewhat moot, as it appears enhanced interrogation (like waterboarding) is as effective as real torture.

I've met some people who consider putting underwear on someone's head the same thing as going to work on someone with a power drill.

They told me that slapping someone was the exact same thing, morally, as submerging someone in acid.

That's one of the reasons that I recoil when someone admits that they're a Liberal.

And I've had these people tell me (in person) that they elected Obama to enact their policies. They assured me that they were the majority.

Yuck.

This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 5/8/2009, at The Unreligious Right

1charlie2 -

Fair enough, reasonable people can disagree on this question.

I'm a bit puzzled by your reference to "screaming nightmares for many days to come", though. Have you read the interviews with U.S. soldiers who went through the SERE course, and were waterboarded as part of the course? Most quite properly refused to talk about it, as the course and techniques were (and I think still are) classified -- but from those I've read that did talk about it, I did not get the impression that they had nightmares about it afterwards. If you've read interviews that suggest that waterboarding does leave psychological scars in the form of nightmares, I'd be interested in reading them.

Of the interrogation techniques our country has actually used, I think the one most likely to induce nightmares in its subject was not waterboarding, but the specific trick played on KSM. The interrogators knew he was afraid of insects, so they put him in a box and told him they were going to put a stinging insect in there with him. (The actual insect was something harmless, like a caterpillar). I don't know if that was ever actually done or not, but it was certainly one of the proposed techniques in the recently-released Justice Department memos. And while exploiting someone's primal fears is certainly a nasty trick to pull on them, I personally would have a hard time calling it torture.

Anyway, if you have sources that demonstrate that waterboarding has a harsher psychological impact than the immediate aftereffects, please link them; I'd be interested to read about it.

If hooking a KNOWN terrorist to a car battery will save American or Allied Nation's citizen's lives then have at it.

As some forgotten wiseguy said, I have three things to say: Red is positive, black is negative and make sure his nuts are wet.

I'm not on board with the thinking behind this part of the original post:

"When terrorists embrace a belief system and moral code that defines civilians as legitimate targets, they forfeit their their rights."

Every WWII Allied bomber crew fits that description, and I reject the idea that they were thus somehow fair game for torture.

The bottom line with all of this for me is that when SEREs style measures were used on our POWs in Korea and Vietnam we called them torture, now some of us are trying to justify doing those same things to other people, and it's a house built upon sand.

Robin,

I will neither confirm nor deny anything that I may or may not think may or may not be performed as part of some SERE training evolution. (As an aside, I have little respect to anyone who was exposed and then talks about it -- they are NOT helping anyone. But I digress.)

However, imagine for a moment you undergo a training evolution involving exposure to one or more "enhanced interrogation" techniques. in such an imaginary moment, one might supposed that, while the ordeal would be no fun at all, it might still be clear to you that IS training. With some physiological limits being respected. Perhaps with medical personnel standing by. Generally with some form of rules.

As such, while your level of, ahem, "discomfort" might be extremely high, the amount of sheer terror would not necessarily equal the level felt should you undergo a such techniques when used by a genuine enemy force.

In other words, in the USA at least, while training is strenuous, painful, and potentially dangerous, the instructors generally try to do no permanent damage. Your hind-brain knows that, while you CAN die or suffer permanent injury, reasonable efforts are being made to prevent it. The instructors don't all REALLY hate you, for all they simulate it.

As such, while those few who may talk about SERE training may not discuss significant side effects from the training, this may not strongly indicate that the techniques used there, when used FOR REAL, don't cause such side effects.

Imagine for a moment you're "sn enemy," and being interrogated. No rules. No doctor. No limits. The only mercy you share in might be the limit of your interrogator's sadism. Not quite the same thing as a training session.

Let me reiterate -- none of this is necessarily a criticism of a kinetic interrogation. With the right motivation, I'd perform water-boarding in an instant. But I prefer it never be used except in quite extreme cases, because I really feel it a reasonable approximation of torture.

My concern remains that those who must protect our nation, and their superiors, not lose sight of that in their efforts, and that appropriate rules be written to keep this "a last resort." Not trying to stop it, per se. But like our nuclear arsenal, I don't want it used lightly.

And that's why I prefer it be termed "torture" and acknowledge that I'd say "well, in some circumstances, I'm okay with that." Of course, I've also been known to say "With sufficient motivation, not only would I pull the switch, I'd pedal the generator."

1charlie2 -

You have a point that the detainees wouldn't know just how far the interrogators were going to go; although medical personnel would be monitoring the situation, the interrogators would take great pains not to let the detainees know it. (E.g., the "We're going to put a bee in the box with you" trick played on KSM -- they wanted him to believe he was in real danger even when he wasn't). I'm not sure we can ever know for certain whether that difference has a long-term effect. The only way would be to interview the three terrorists we waterboarded and ask them about it -- and I, for one, wouldn't take KSM's word about anything. If KSM told me the sky was blue, I'd not only open a window and check, but I'd assume until I did so that it was actually overcast and pouring rain.

But yeah, thoughts of "Oh god, oh god, I'm gonna die" (or perhaps, "Oh god, oh god, they're gonna kill me") are not fun, regardless of whether they'd be likely to inflict lasting psychological damage.

And since we agree on that point, I think we're probably in agreement on just about everything but where to draw the line labeled "torture" (I draw it just on the far side of waterboarding, and you draw it just on the near side). I also think that waterboarding is a technique that should be reserved for very special cases, because it is pretty darn harsh, no matter what you call it. And you've said that you wouldn't want to rule it out ("Not trying to stop it, per se. But like our nuclear arsenal, I don't want it used lightly"), and in both those areas I agree 100%. So there's probably not all that much more to discuss.

Nice talking with you, BTW -- I'm always pleased when I can disagree with someone and still have a reasonable, civil discussion. (Very sad that such a thing should be a rarity these days.)