-By Warner Todd Huston
Once again, we see the truth take a back seat to the best spin by Democrats. NRO’s The Corner blog has an exclusive report on the supposed “180 waterboardings” that the US government conducted on terror suspects and it appears that the truth is a bit different than the spin.
You see, it seems that there weren’t “180 waterboardings” but were instead 180 “pours.” In other words, water was poured on the suspects 180 times. Further, the rules were quite specific. No more than two sessions could be conducted on any suspect within a 24 hour period and no more than 6 “pours” of water were allowed per session.
This means that instead of 180 sessions on the waterboard there was a much lower 30.
But, as Cliff May notes on The Corner blog, all the carefully crafted rules for how to conduct waterboard interrogations reveals a far different situation than the Torquemada-like, torture loving Bush administration that critics are trying to advance.
1) Such detailed rules suggest that serious thought was given to where to draw the line between coercion — “stress and duress” — and torture. You can disagree with where those lines were drawn, but I don’t see how you can say no attempt was made to set limits.
Nor do I see how — except in an Orwellian universe — lawyers from the current administration can prosecute lawyers from the previous administration because they disagree with their legal opinions.
Not only lawyers but also physicians and psychologists were involved in these decisions. Indeed, these interrogations were supervised by physicians and psychologists who had the power to stop them. (My column today touches on this question.)
Time and intensity are relevant factors. Who would argue that a single night of sleep deprivation constitutes torture? Who would argue that a month of sleep deprivation is not?
2) Remember that Abu Zubaydah said: “Brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardships.”
Any interrogator worth his salt would understand this means it is his job to bring his subject to the point at which cooperation is no longer betrayal but permitted according to his religious beliefs. Can that be achieved short of torture? Sure. Can it be achieved without coercive interrogation techniques? No, not with subjects who have the beliefs described above.
This picture is changing. Let us all try to quell the wild-eyed speculation and bring clarity to the situation, shall we?
____________
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as newsbusters.org, RedState.com, Human Events Magazine, AmericanDailyReview.com, townhall.com, New Media Journal, Men’s News Daily and the New Media Alliance among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events and is currently the co-host of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Conservatism” heard on BlogTalkRadio. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book “Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture” which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of publiusforum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions : EMAIL Warner Todd Huston
Fair Use: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
I heard Cliff May on the radio yesterday – I don’t trust him. But more importantly, if he’s telling the truth here, 30 sessions! If torture is so effective, why would it be necessary to employ 30 sessions? And how does this qualify as one of those “ticking clock” scenarios that you torture guys love to trot out?
But, 30 sessions on how many is the question.
These people were not being tortured in the true sense of the word. They did not bleed nor have their joints pulled out of their sockets.
Waterboarding is standard training for SEALS. Why aren’t these bleeding heart liberals protesting that if they really care about STOPPING it. They only protest it’s use on terrorists.
Jerks!
“These people were not being tortured in the true sense of the word. ”
We prosecuted those Japanese War Criminals for NOTHING? We need to issue apologies!
You know what… I think the WWII war crime tribunals were a terrible precedent to set. There should have been no such trials. The winners (USA) should have had their military investigate and then the Nazi/Japanese war criminals simply shot. No show trials. No muss, no fuss.
The problem is that these trials made it seem as if “the world” had the right to try leaders of nations. This was the first major destruction of state sovereignty which in itself is an attack on democracy.
Just as in this war, we should take these terrorists, get as much info as possible, and dispose of them. Period. If “the world” doesn’t like it… too bad.