Intelligence Nominee Won't Say Waterboarding Is Torture

by politisite | January 23, 2009 at 02:30 pm

602 views | 54 Recommendations | 36 comments

By Albert N. Milliron, Editor Politisite.com, Iron Mill Interactive Media, Inc

Many Americans protested the Bush Administration use of Water Boarding on high value prisoner calling the practice un-American and torture. In todays hearing one of President Obama's Nominees would not say that water boarding is torture. Water Boarding seems to have become a litmus test on presidential nominees. One should be aware that actions similar to water boarding occur everyday in our military training units. The Navy Seals typically use large amounts of water targeted at a candidates face, causing him/her to have similar if not equal effects that water boarding produces. In Army and Marines training, many Basic Trainees go through a CS Gas training that causes the trainee to choke and gasp for air. This process is used to show how well a troops Protective Mask works in a hostile environment. Depending on what level of training like Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) School, Trainees are exposed to a level of the CS gas that causes vomiting, respiratory distress, dizziness and fainting not unlike Water boarding.

So this piece is not considered Opinion, the writer is a Desert Storm Veteran and has NBC Training. Based upon what the writer has experienced in training compared to a training video and a leaked video of water boarding, the experiences produce identical physiological and psychological reactions.

The question for discussion would be, if our military soldiers are routinely exposed to similar stimuli, how can water boarding be considered torture?

Another question for discussion would be why has water boarding become a litmus test for presidential nominees?

One further topic would be, how is it that an Obama Nominee would refrain from answering the question whether water boarding is torture, when it has been so demonized by the left.

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's nominee as director of national intelligence declined to say Thursday whether waterboarding is torture, marking a fissure with attorney general nominee Eric Holder, who said that it is.

"I'm hesitating to set a standard here which will put in jeopardy some of the dedicated intelligence officers who checked to see that what they were doing was legal and then did what they were told to do," said Dennis C. Blair, nominated for the intelligence post, at his Senate confirmation hearing. He did declare, however, that "there will be no waterboarding on my watch. There will be no torture on my watch."

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a member of the intelligence panel that held the hearing, said Mr. Blair's answer was "troubling" in comparison to Mr. Holder's clear statement last week.

Overall, senators expressed support for Mr. Blair, a retired admiral who spent 34 years in the Navy, and he is expected to be confirmed.

1 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Amy Judd

at 14:47 on January 23rd, 2009

Very interesting and thanks for your personal perspective.

politisite

at 15:03 on January 23rd, 2009

Thanks Amy. I thought it was time for a story from the other side of the issue.

Amy Judd

at 15:09 on January 23rd, 2009

Definitely!

158

at 15:12 on January 23rd, 2009

If descriptions of waterboarding I have read are accurate, then it is torture, whether Under Bush or Obama.

politisite

at 15:16 on January 23rd, 2009

Thanks for your comment. How about explain your definition of torture and how water boarding is such. I think your comments would stimulate a good conversation/ debate on the issue. Thank you for the recommendation and I appreciate your view.

Heritage

at 22:44 on January 23rd, 2009

It seems waterboarding is only considered torture when it is used against US citizens:

Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.

"Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. "We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II," he said.

politisite

at 23:09 on January 23rd, 2009

Thank You for bringing that fact. It is a fact that Japanese soldiers were prosecuted for water boarding as part of a wider trial on torture. One should look at the original documents to see that they were not tried JUST for waterboarding. The subject would choke the victim and beat them in the stomach to get them to gasp. This is quite different from the form that was used on a US detainee. There was also many other charges included, so when Senator Kennedy brought this up he was fully aware of the wider trial that included other torture.

It's like a guy who was speeding, lost control of his car, crashed into another vehicle, and killed the driver. He gets 15 years. Would it be approprate to say the man got 15 years for speeding?

Heritage

at 23:10 on January 23rd, 2009

Kennedy was discussing "one" case. That of Yukio Asano. Asano was convicted of war crimes for carrying out waterboarding. Attempting to dodge this fact is as bad as saying waterboarding isn't torture.

in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian..

Heritage

at 23:23 on January 23rd, 2009

It's like a guy who was speeding, lost control of his car, crashed into another vehicle, and killed the driver. He gets 15 years. Would it be approprate to say the man got 15 years for speeding?

Using an analogy of a car accident to discuss torture is immature and inappropriate.

politisite

at 23:55 on January 23rd, 2009

Using an analogy of a car accident to discuss torture is immature and inappropriate.

You may debate my comments by it is Inappropriate to attack the writer. Please see the no flaming policy. One does not have to take shots based on an individuals opinion. I am aware of the case you were speaking of and Senator Kennedy and others leave out the wider charges associated with the case. The analogy fits well in my opinion.

Heritage

at 00:17 on January 24th, 2009

I know the flaming policy well. I had an issue with the analogy not the writer.

Apologies if it has offended you in any way. Comparing car accidents and war crimes seems, in my opinion, designed to reduce the significance of the war crimes.

Yukio Asano was convicted of war crimes. One of which was water boarding. Water boarding was considered, in 1947, both torture and a war crime.

Heritage

at 23:28 on January 23rd, 2009

US Soldiers in Vietnam use the waterboarding technique on an uncooperative enemy suspect near Da Nang in 1968 to try to obtain information from him.

Heritage

at 23:46 on January 23rd, 2009

The question for discussion would be, if our military soldiers are routinely exposed to similar stimuli, how can water boarding be considered torture?

The NY Times described "water boarding training" as torture.

Media also referred to the practice as torture when it was used by the U.S. to train intelligence agents and military personnel who were at risk of being captured by enemy forces. In a column tracing the origins of the word “waterboarding,” New York Times columnist William Safire (3/9/08) noted that a 1976 article had referred to U.S. Navy trainees being

strapped down and water poured into their mouths and noses until they lost consciousness. . . . A Navy spokesman admitted use of the “water board” torture . . . to “convince each trainee that he won’t be able to physically resist what an enemy would do to him.”

politisite

at 23:59 on January 23rd, 2009

The case in GITMO did not cause unconsciousness. So one may consider to what lengths the instrument is used. Thanks for all of your comments and your opinion is respected.

158

at 17:24 on January 23rd, 2009

My definition would be limited to physical torture, intentionally inflicting pain on someone, for revenge, from sadism, or to get him to talk.

Cutting, beating, electric shock, partial drowning, burning, starving,such things.

Noise, sleeb deprivation, scaring, embarassing, humiliating, while not nice, would not be torture.

Heritage

at 23:01 on January 23rd, 2009

It seems the definition of torture has changed over time. “Coercive management techniques” used in the 50s by the Koreans and Chinese on American soldiers were torture. But now when the US wants to use the techniques they are not torture any more.... how convenient!

China Inspired Interrogations at Guantánamo
WASHINGTON — The military trainers who came to Guantánamo 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.

The recycled chart is the latest and most vivid evidence of the way Communist interrogation methods that the United States long described as torture became the basis for interrogations both by the military at the base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said after reviewing the 1957 article that “every American would be shocked” by the origin of the training document.

“What makes this document doubly stunning is that these were techniques to get false confessions,” Mr. Levin said. “People say we need intelligence, and we do. But we don’t need false intelligence.”

eastvanray

at 18:10 on January 23rd, 2009

It is only torture when they do it to you.

politisite

at 18:32 on January 23rd, 2009

I know the gas chamber (described in the story) was Torture LOL

duo

at 18:17 on January 23rd, 2009

Maybe we should insist that he undergo a 30-minute session before making up his mind.

Mary Neal
http://wrongfuldeathoflarryneal.com

politisite

at 18:34 on January 23rd, 2009

You know, that is not a bad idea.. so tell me potential Obama Cabinet member, is this torture?

Emilio Lizardo

at 18:33 on January 23rd, 2009

It just seems to me that saying waterboarding isn't torture is precisely the same thing as saying cigarettes aren't addictive ...

What's going on here? Haven't we been through all this before? Are we all stuck in some kind of a revolving door or something ? Why am I asking so many questions ? Haven't I learned anything ? Should I shut up now ?

politisite

at 18:37 on January 23rd, 2009

The issue is again in the news. The issue must not be resolved as now an Obama nominee can't make up his mind. You should speak you mind. Thanks for the comment

158

at 18:38 on January 23rd, 2009

I am not sure if concentrating on water boarding is a good idea. The goal should be to stop all forms of torture.

nyctuber

at 18:42 on January 23rd, 2009

Absurd. As much as I'm impressed by what Obama has been accomplishing, it's precisely this scenario, his own intelligence nominee refusing to call torture torture, that makes hard to ever fully trust any politician. Waterboarding is torture, this is rediculous and pathetic.

politisite

at 21:32 on January 23rd, 2009

Thanks for your well thought out comment. You are right, this makes one wonder which party will tell us the truth. Obama made it clear that his administration would look much different.

Emilio Lizardo

at 18:59 on January 23rd, 2009

The reason 'interrogators' like waterboarding so much is that it 'strongly motivates' the 'interviewee' to 'cooperate' ... ( read : it puts the prisoner into a genuine fear of his life ) and yet leaves no physical marks, no chemical residues in the tissues, and rarely results in the actual loss of life ...

In a sense waterboarding is an interrogator's best friend ( short of those tricky chemicals, that is ) ...

politisite

at 21:40 on January 23rd, 2009

I think you have it about right. I do not think that psychotropics should ever be used but it is another easy way to get information if you can interpret what is delusion and what is truth. It takes a great deal of skill to make that determination.

My view is that if we have a high value prisoner, and there is intel that says a large target will be hit imminently I am a Yes for water boarding any day of the week. I would rather save thousands and deal with the repercussions after.

The problem with what I just said is our intel is usually terrible and connecting the dots to a high value prisoner and target are less likly then wonning the lottery. Having said that, before the readers call me a right wing nut, it would make the use of these instruments very rare.