I’m not sure if you’re agreeing or disagreeing with me. At any rate, I quoted the relevant part of the GC, and it clearly excludes more than medics and priests. Whether someone like KSM falls outside the category of “protected persons” is open to debate. Of course, US operatives are bound by the laws of this country, and we have laws against torture. If someone wants to stretch the law, then it’s up to the courts to figure things out. That can be a lengthy process, and sometimes it becomes moot. We might be seeing one of those cases now.
Not sure exactly what experts you mean, experts are rarely cited. Generally, the ones talking about it do not refer to the legal definition you cited. They will tie themselves up in circles to avoid referring to the legal definition. Bush won’t, Mukaskey wouldn’t, Gonzales wouldn’t, etc. One might even say their evasions are somewhat torturous.
Thank you (and everybody else) for taking time with my question. The experts I’m talking about are the experts the Salon writer is talking about, and exactly who they are I do not know and that was a part of my question. Sorry for being unclear on that point.
As a European, I didn’t know there was a great waterboarding debate in the USA, and half or your responses are not too enlightening. But since I’m sure you’re not writing posts mainly for my particular benefit I’m happy with the crumbs I do get, and it’s been very interesting read nonetheless.
Thank you (and everybody else) for taking time with my question. The experts I’m talking about are the experts the Salon writer is talking about, and exactly who they are I do not know and that was a part of my question. Sorry for being unclear on that point.
As a European, I didn’t know there was a great waterboarding debate in the USA, and half or your responses are not too enlightening. But since I’m sure you’re not writing posts mainly for my particular benefit I’m happy with the crumbs I do get, and it’s been very interesting read nonetheless.
(Ok, the infamous lagging of this site made me double post.)
Waterboarding does not “simulate” drowning. It IS drowning, except it’s done on dry land.
During the Spanish Inquisition, it was called tortura de agua* and involved covering a person’s face with a cloth and then pouring water from a jar over their face until they could not stop water from filling their lungs.
Same thing now. It can also be done repeatedly.
Just clarifying.
I seem to recall reading that the Army Field Manual defines waterboarding as torture, or that it defines it as something not sanctioned by the military. Does anyone have access to that document? Of course, I also believe that it was the CIA doing all (or most) of the (alleged) waterboarding, so that might not be applicable to them. I honestly don’t know what rules they have to play by, especially outside US territory.
The army field manual on interrogation was updated in 2006 to include waterboarding as prohibited.
5-75. If used in conjunction with intelligence interrogations,
prohibited actions include, but are not limited to—
• Forcing the detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a
sexual manner.
• Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee; using duct tape
over the eyes.
• Applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical
pain.
• “Waterboarding.”
• Using military working dogs.
• Inducing hypothermia or heat injury.
• Conducting mock executions.
• Depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care.
Before that I presume it didnt mention it specifically. The manual can be found here (pdf)
I would say that is an accurate, if polite, way to describe many of the legal arguments that Bush administration has made on rights of the individual in the context of terrorism. As the branch of government both interpreting and executing the law in these instances, they get to define the terms in the way they want (“serious” pain and suffering only that like losing your arm or kidney) and then apply those definitions.
To date, they have been quite successful at keeping their, well tortured, definitions of things like torture out of the court system, often on national security grounds. I think the courts have been reluctant to accept challenges to the administration’s national security claims because of the climate of fear after the September 11, 2001 attacks.
I think that whether things like waterboarding meet the legal definition of torture will be addressed by the U.S. court system in the next few years, particularly after the administration changes. Until then, we have the administration’s views, on the one hand, and the views of many scholars and experts on the other, with no real way of settling the dispute.
I still don’t understand exactly how waterboarding works. Does the water go through the cloth, or does is just saturate the cloth so the person can’t breathe and they have some subjective feeling of drowning?
The wikipedia article on it seems to be a catalog of all the different things you can do to someone using water and a cloth.
Actually, they do give me human rights. Not anyone else, though, just me. I get to live in an argent tower high above all you savages, while you guys will all be arrested and tortured when the military dictatorship takes over.
I don’t know either – you could always contact Salon. On the other hand, I don’t know of any independent legal expert who thinks that waterboarding is not torture. If that’s true, than the writer may not have been thinking of any specific experts, but giving a general read out of the legal community.
So…as long as the captive is not being actively questioned when he is getting waterboarded it’s not prohibited? So a prisoner could be subjected to waterboarding, and then a week or two later be questioned with the memory of what he went through curled up in the back of his mind like a snake, and answer all questions for fear of getting waterboarded again?
This theory is inoperative, as Bush leaves no room for now-POW torture in his statements.
For example, from November 2005:
Doing it to our marines as training is not the same thing. You know it is an exercise and will be stopped. Prisoners do not have that knowledge.
On the radio yesterday I heard about a soldier suing the marines because when he was waterboarded he got mentally screwed up. So even that knowledge will not always save you.
I would respect the opinion of any person who felt waterboarding was not torture, if he reiterated that opinion on each of a number of iterations of being waterboarded himself assuming he does not know the number. Otherwise, it’s a politically motivated lie.
TrisThe person being tortured is usually lying down on a low table with her or his head hanging off. Someone may be holding the head which is wrapped in a cloth or hood. The cloth is saturated with water. A person continues to pour water into the facial area – especially the now upside down nasal passages of the prisoner. It causes the process of drowning to begin.
The prisoner moves her or his head from side to side to fight for air. Also, I guess it is possible for the torturers to stop pouring the water sometimes for just a little while to drag out the process of torture. Or maybe the torturer will pour the water very slowly.
The purpose is the process – not actually killing the prisoner, but it probably happens. (See hundreds of hours of CIA tapes…Nevermind.)
Also, as **Pravnik **pointed out, torture is illegal under a US law which applies to torture performed by US citizens outside the US.