Thursday, July 3, 2008

Chilling

Via a post at Crooks and Liars this morning I came across two articles well worth reading. The first is an absolutely chilling Vanity Fair article in which the piece's writer subjected himself to waterboarding. Here's a snippet:
You may have read by now the official lie about this treatment, which is that it “simulates” the feeling of drowning. This is not the case. You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning—or, rather, being drowned, albeit slowly and under controlled conditions and at the mercy (or otherwise) of those who are applying the pressure. The “board” is the instrument, not the method. You are not being boarded. You are being watered. This was very rapidly brought home to me when, on top of the hood, which still admitted a few flashes of random and worrying strobe light to my vision, three layers of enveloping towel were added. In this pregnant darkness, head downward, I waited for a while until I abruptly felt a slow cascade of water going up my nose. Determined to resist if only for the honor of my navy ancestors who had so often been in peril on the sea, I held my breath for a while and then had to exhale and—as you might expect—inhale in turn. The inhalation brought the damp cloths tight against my nostrils, as if a huge, wet paw had been suddenly and annihilatingly clamped over my face. Unable to determine whether I was breathing in or out, and flooded more with sheer panic than with mere water, I triggered the pre-arranged signal and felt the unbelievable relief of being pulled upright and having the soaking and stifling layers pulled off me. I find I don’t want to tell you how little time I lasted.
The second is a New York Times piece that reveals that Guantanamo interrogation "techniques" (such a nice, sterile word, that) are based on those used by the Chinese in the 1950s against American soldiers.
The military trainers who came to Guantanamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of “coercive management techniques” for possible use on prisoners, including “sleep deprivation,” “prolonged constraint,” and “exposure.”

What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners.
Make of this information what you will.

5 babbles:

Mike in the D said...

But the Presdint told me that the USA doesn't torture!

Hitchens is an idiot. But kudos to him for going thru with it. Its too bad that he later, after saying that water boarding is flat out torture, he then decided to define Real torture, as if there were degrees of torture, so he could justify his hawkish beliefs that the CIA was doing it for the common good. That's sort of like being a little bit pregnant.

todd brakke said...

Is that in the article? I know on the second page he presents the case in defense of waterboarding (along with the case against it), but I didn't get a sense of personal bias in the piece.

But yeah, I agree with you. I'm not sure you how you can hide behind the notion of degrees of torture. You pretty much are torturing someone or you're not, it seems to me. The only question is whether or not you think it's okay to do it.

Mike in the D said...

Here's the quote from that article

"When contrasted to actual torture, waterboarding is more like foreplay. No thumbscrew, no pincers, no electrodes, no rack. Can one say this of those who have been captured by the tormentors and murderers of (say) Daniel Pearl? On this analysis, any call to indict the United States for torture is therefore a lame and diseased attempt to arrive at a moral equivalence between those who defend civilization and those who exploit its freedoms to hollow it out, and ultimately to bring it down. I myself do not trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint."

todd brakke said...

I guess I read that bit as it's important to understand this viewpoint, not necessarily to agree with it. If it hadn't been followed immediately by the counterpoint, I might've read more into it.

But yeah, I do see what you mean there. :)

Mike in the D said...

I believe what he's trying to convey is his agreement with Bush that if it doesn't "shock the conscience" its okay, or not actual torture. As long as you don't mame, permanently disable or disfigure someone then its fair game. I disagree.