Blue Crab Boulevard

Questioning Techniques

Allah has video of Brian Ross from ABC News making an appearance on The O'Reilly Factor. Ross confirms that the harsh questioning technique called "waterboarding" did, with absolute certainty according to Ross, produce detailed information that saved lives. Ross said the information came, in part, from CIA sources firmly opposed to the practice. Those sources appear to also have acknowledged that the technique worked.

It is very harsh. While it will not kill or produce permanent harm, it apparently makes a person feel like they are drowning. But, according to Ross, it also makes the subjects talk and give good information. There is no doubt, to me, that the techniques that the White House now wants approved, which do NOT include waterboarding, are not torture. Waterboarding appears to be very close to the line, however. It produces no permanent physical damage, but it sure inflicts severe psychological distress. While I am not fully comfortable with it, I would certainly have to – however reluctantly – agree that in a ticking time bomb situation, I would be a lot less squeamish about it.

So, I invite comments here, but I do not want to hear platitudes, high-minded principles or talking points thrown out with no justification. Let's make it specific so we're all starting from the same place. Let's make it a very limited discussion and put hard rules on it: A terrorist suspect is captured with detailed plans for a nuclear bomb, a target list that includes major US cities and a piece of paper that says the detonation date is three days from now.

What would you do? Would you or would you not agree to use waterboarding? Justify your answer.

War | Gaius September 20, 2006

By Rico, September 20, 2006 @ 10:03 pm

Here’s the question that knocks the pedestal right out from under these preening posers (Powell, McCain, Graham, Warner, Collins): If one of the people saved in heading off the planned attacks were their spouse or their child, would they have still forbid using “harsh” questioning?

Someone is going to ask that question soon.

McCain has just been “Dukakis’d”.
By Buck, September 21, 2006 @ 3:13 am

What would you do? Would you or would you not agree to use waterboarding? Justify your answer.

Waterboarding? Absolutely. It’s been mentioned a LOT on right-wing blogs (and elsewhere), but if waterboarding is part of the SERE training curriculum, then I see no reason to NOT use it. No physical harm, no lasting trauma; thousands of US fighter pilots can attest to that fact. Just severe duress/distress. It’s a hard world out there. Waterboarding is effective and doesn’t BEGIN to approach the classic definition of torture…not by a long shot. If we DON’T use the technique on the “hard cases” then we’re not playing to win. Simple as that.
By Guy, September 21, 2006 @ 6:46 am

I would certainly be inclined to use the process. The lives of my family and fellow citizens are far more important than any potential harm to the “psychological health” of a captive terrorist.
By squidgrunt, September 21, 2006 @ 7:11 am

Absolutely! I am not opposed to this treatment. In fact any treatment that will not cause permanent harm or death but does produce results should be allowed. We are at WAR! If you look back at WWII and compare Patton to Ike you will find that Patton’s style of fighting; i.e. never retreat, never dig in, always attack saved American lives. Look at the casualty numbers of Patton’s battles compared to any other general in WWII and you will find that they are significantly lower. The old motto “the best defence is a great offence is true. In war our first obligation is to defeat the enemy. The second is to save the lives of our citizens. We do this by gathering intelligence on our enemy by all means necessary.
By NFO, September 21, 2006 @ 10:07 am

My expereince with SERE training was in 1968 prior to deployment as a Naval Flight Officer to Viet Nam. Going in, we fully understood that prisoner of war treatment in the North was horrible. It was worse than any training to which we were to be subjected. SERE was preparatory. “Don’t be capatured, if there’s any way to avoid it” was clearly imprinted by the SERE experience. However, we knew that SERE instructors weren’t allowed to kill or permanently injure us. Like all survival training, the main goal is to teach a soldier or airman not to make stupid mistakes or underestimate the enemy. Tough treatment of prisoners is expected by anyone who is captured. Making them think they may die is reasonable – that’s what happens in combat. It’s a war. So, waterboard away!
By old_dawg, September 21, 2006 @ 7:27 pm

In this scenario, I would use waterboarding and any other technique that was necessary. Once the usefulness of the individual was completed, I would execute him and dispose of the body so it would never be found. Terrorists do not have rights, having abandoned them by operating covertly and attacking non-military targets. The best thing we can do is extract all the useful information we can get, then cause them to disappear.