Mr McConnell said it would also be torture if water-boarding, which involves simulated drowning, resulted in water entering a detainee's lungs.
He told the New Yorker there would be a "huge penalty" for anyone using it if it was ever determined to be torture.
The US attorney-general has declined to rule on whether the method is torture.
However, Michael Mukasey said during his Senate confirmation hearing that water-boarding was "repugnant to me" and that he would institute a review.
| | Whether it's torture by anybody else's definition, for me it would be torture Mike McConnell US Director of National Intelligence |
In December, the House of Representatives approved a bill that would ban the CIA from using harsh interrogation techniques such as water-boarding.
President George W Bush has threatened to veto the bill, which would require the agency to follow the rules adopted by the US Army and abide by the Geneva Conventions, if the Senate passes it.
'Painful'
In the interview with the New Yorker, the US Director of National Intelligence said he would regard water-boarding as torture if it was used against him.
The controversial technique involves a prisoner being stretched on his back, having a cloth pushed into his mouth and/or plastic film placed over his face and having water poured onto his face. He gags almost immediately.
"If I had water draining into my nose, oh God, I just can't imagine how painful!" he told the magazine.
| | WATER-BOARDING Prisoner bound to a board with feet raised, and cellophane wrapped round head. Water is poured onto face and is said to produce a fear of drowning |
"Whether it's torture by anybody else's definition, for me it would be torture."
Mr McConnell said the legal test for torture should be "pretty simple".
"Is it excruciatingly painful to the point of forcing someone to say something because of the pain?" he added.
But the retired vice-admiral declined for legal reasons to say whether the technique should be considered torture by the US government.
"If it ever is determined to be torture, there will be a huge penalty to be paid for anyone engaging in it," he said.
CIA officials have been quoted as saying that water-boarding has been used on three prisoners since 2001, including al-Qaeda recruiter Abu Zubaydah, but on nobody since 2003.
In July 2007, President Bush signed a controversial executive order on the treatment of suspects detained by the CIA which did not outlaw the agency's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" such as water-boarding.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7185648.stm
But is it "enhanced interrogation"? In all seriousness, it's nice to see someone put it into perspective--that is, if it were done to them would they consider it torture.? Interestingly, I have read some (odd) posts on other blogs where people subjected themselves to this technique or had someone else do it, and the resulting opinions seem to be unanimous. One person even said they would take having their fingernails pulled out over the induced feeling of drowning this procedure produces. But then, they didn't try that on themselves, so you have to take that opinion with a grain of salt. Still, it seems pretty awful to me.
7 comments:
This is one issue that I am actually totally with Senator McCain on. Water-boarding is torture. We cannot torture and consider our nation in anyway a force for the betterment of mankind.
I agree with both of you whole heartedly.
I don't think there's any doubt in my mind that waterboarding is torture, even if is is mostly psychological.
I understand the level of temptation involved here...If we have someone in custody that we know has been involved in the deaths of dozens, maybe even hundreds, of people, and we know he has information that would betray the names of his colleagues, their locations, means of communication, etc, I think any reasonable person would stop for a moment and think "surely torturing this one man would would be worth the hundreds of lives it would save?"
But virtue means doing the right thing, not only when it's easy, but also when it is hard. Especially when it is hard.
My position has been that torture, in any form, even waterboarding, should be absolutely illegal. But then again, that's an easy thing to say when the lives of other people are not my responsibility. The issue is grayer than I would like it to be.
If I am in the employ of our government, and I think that waterboarding a captured operative will save the lives of others... Well, I would be hard pressed to say what I would do. I find the notion of torturing someone, anyone, repugnant. I consider myself a decent human being, and don't particularly relish the idea of doing physical or psychological harm to anyone, even a terrorist piece of shit.
But if I did nothing, I would feel negligent in my duties and responsible for further deaths at the hands of this man's colleagues. What is the right thing to do?
I don't know. But I do believe this: If I went through with it, if I decided to violate this man's rights because I firmly believed it would save lives, I should fully expect and be willing to face a jury of my peers as a result. Period.
If 12 men and women come to the conclusion that my actions were justified, so be it. But if they decide the price was too great, that my decision was grossly negligent and a betrayal of our laws and our values, then I should be prepared to go to jail as a result.
Virtue also means being prepared to face the consequences of your actions. And if we're not prepared to make public the circumstances of these interrogations, to face public opinion and explain why these acts are being carried out in our name, then we have no business doing it, national security be damned.
Does this make any sense? Am I contradicting myself?
"Let those who fight monsters take care, lest they become monsters themselves"
While I understand Beck's moral conundrum, I would like to point out a couple of things: 1) How would we ever "know" someone was culpable or had "actionable" information? That is what the judicial system is for, and very, very few of the people held at Gitmo even access to attorneys, let alone get to go to trial. 2) More importantly, there is a ton of evidence that torture is not an effective way to get information. People will tell the abuser anything they want to hear just to get them to stop. So why even bother resorting to that kind of measure?
You are mostly correct, Reed. Torture in general is not an effective means of gleaning useful information. Waterboarding, though, HAS produced actionable intelligence, and from what I understand, it's way more effective than most other methods of physical coercion at getting it. Why, I'm not entirely sure. Maybe the fear of drowning is something so primal that it trumps other psychological defense mechanisms.
But that's neither here nor there. Regardless of how effective it is, it is still torture. And I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.
Now, epistemic standpoint, I should not have used the word "know". That implies a lot of things that were not necessarilu applicable the scenario I presented. "feel" or "believed" would be more appropriate.
But that's a bit of a niggle anyway, Reed. I don't "know" that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, that the weather will necessarily be overcast, or that you will have red hair the next time I see you. Very little of the assertions we make on a day to day basis involve "knowing" anything on any level of absolute certainty.
But if I capture a key figure in a kidnapping ring known to be holding a dozen aid workers, and is threatening their execution after failed negotiations, then I think you and I both as intelligent people could safely assume that he probably knows something that could lead to their rescue before the deadline tomorrow.
If verbal interrogation is not working, what's the right thing to do in this scenario? Try to physically coerce that information from him? Or stay our hand, and try to continue negotiations ("knowing" that they are unlikely to succeed) until the hostages are executed?
We can creatge scenarios all day long to support either side of the issue, frankly. But then, that's exactly why this issue isn't exactly as cut and dry as we'd like it to be.
Which brings me to another point that isn't discussed often enough:
Are enemy combatants captured in other lands considered PoWs?
If they are, we could not legally try them in our courts anyway, as that would be a violation of the Geneva Convention, correct?
If they are NOT PoWs, then who's jurisdiction do they fall under? Ours? Their country of origin? Their country of capture?
And most of the prisoners taken on a battelfield are not going to come packaged with a rap sheet, or a box full of forensic evidence. The reality of the situation is that it's simply not plausable to do the police work necessary to gather the evidence needed for a full blown trial for the vast majority of the combatants captured.
If you're fighting a war, you don't try the prisoners you take... and you sure as hell don't just let them go. You detain them until the war is over.
But the problem therein is: when exactly is this "war" going to end?
It's absolutely negligant to let enemy combatants go free just to enter the fight again (as the vast majority of them have), but neither is it right to hold them indefinately over the duration of a war that is likely to not ever have an "end", per se.
Soooo.... what's the answer?
When is the last time we actually declared war (as per the guidelines set forth in the Constitution)?
Against Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary in 1942. Since then, all military actions have been ordered by the president without a declaration of war. Most have been "authorized" or approved by Congress to some degree. I have always wondered why they are willing to do that but not go ahead and declare war. It just seems to undermine their authority.
And to answer Beck's question, even militia troops, irregulars, and other non-conventional combatants are covered in the Geneva conventions. So technically, if they aren't being prosecuted for specific crimes (which is possible under US and international law), they have to be returned to their county of origin after the cessation of major hostilities.
I understand the problem with just letting dangerous people go, but you cannot hold people without access to trial indefinitely. Doing so undermines the very nature of what the US claims to be fighting for.
Post a Comment