Media Obsessed With Wet Terrorists
October 28th, 2006 | by Todd W |So Dick Cheney agreed with an interview question that ‘dunking in water’ is a reasonable form of interrogation, and the White House Press Corps went nuts. Tony Snow bears the expression of a man who can’t quite believe the spectacle before him. You’d think the Press was on the verge of uncovering American crematoriums packed with political dissenters.
Because, you know, Bush is a fascist.
Can we talk about what compromises torture? When I hear the word, I think of a dank cell, a sweaty, weaselly man with a short cigarette tending to battery cables, and a wretched soul strapped to a table while someone else gets busy with a pair of pliers. Usually, these scenarios don’t end with the subject being able to walk back to his cell under his own power.
I don’t condone that.
Now how about waterboarding? The subject is strapped to a board, inclined with their head lower than their feet, and then a cloth or cellophane is placed over the mouth and nose for short durations. Water is then poured over the covering. While little to no water is entering the airway, the brain mis-reads the situation and triggers a drowning reflex. The subject is then permitted to breathe before any damage is done (if conducted properly). Repeat as needed.
According to ABC News, CIA trainees last an average of 14 seconds before giving in. Khalid Mohammed gave up the mass airline bombing plot after a two minute session on the board.
Some say that ‘torture’ will prompt the prisoner to lie, or say anything to end the practice. Note that Khalid gave up the details on a real plot.
Is this really so bad? Information is extracted, lives are saved, and the prisoner walks back to the cell with little to no physical harm. I’m having a hard time finding a real problem with this.
That being said, I should offer some caveats before I get gang-piled by the opposition. I do not support the practice against American citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not permit this sort of action against persons covered by those documents i.e. American Citizens. I do not support this practice against uniformed soldiers of signatory nations to the Geneva Conventions. Nations that observe the Convention and attire their soldiers in clearly identifiable uniforms on the battle field have a valid expectation that their personnel will be treated within the dictates of the Convention. We would expect the same.
A nation-less, non-uniformed, murderous thug intent on killing civilians in large numbers does not qualify for protection. In fact, extending protections to them simply encourages them to continue, since they can be assured that capture isn’t all that unpleasant. Why make your murderous job harder by donning a uniform and fighting openly when there is little consequence in violating the ‘Laws of Warfare’?
If the technique can be shown to extract important information without resulting in the permanent harm to the subject, I’m not all that troubled by it.
I invite disagreement, but can we limit the conversation to things I’ve endorsed? I think it’s safe to assume that no one wants to see us employ ‘Vlad the Impaler’ techniques.
Except for maybe Bush. Because he’s evil. And he enjoys it.
