Is waterboarding torture? : The Swamp

Posted January 23, 2009 2:38 PM

by Frank James

At yesterday's confirmation hearing for Adm. Dennis Blair who is President Barack Obama's nominee for director of national intelligence, there was a fascinating exchange between Blair and Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.)

Levin sought a bright-line opinion from Blair on whether the intelligence official considered waterboarding torture.

Blair refused to be pinned down. While he said about as declaratively as possible that the controversial technique wouldn't be used on his watch, he refused to pronounce the practice torture. He explained that didn't want to put at risk for legal prosecution intelligence community interrogators who believed the Bush Administration had authorized them to use harsh techniques on terrorism suspects since 9/11.

Here's the exchange:

SEN. LEVIN: Going back to the question that a number of us have asked you about, which is the treatment of detainees. There's a new Executive Order which has now been signed. In your judgment, is waterboarding torture?

ADM. BLAIR: I think in answering that question, Senator Levin, I would say that there will be no waterboarding on my watch. There will be no torture on my watch.

SEN. LEVIN: Let me ask the question again, though. From what you know of waterboarding, is it torture?

ADM. BLAIR: In answering that question, Senator, I'm very much aware that there were dedicated officers in the intelligence service who thought they were carrying out activities which had been authorized at the highest levels and properly authorized. They had vouched them out originally. So they asked and they asked again. Then they were given direction and they took action. And I don't intend to reopen those cases of those officers who acted within their duties. So 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.

SEN. LEVIN: Now, the problem with that answer is the attorney general nominee has given us his judgment. I just -- your reluctance to give your own judgment on that question -- it seems to me is troubling to me because I don't think there's a slightest doubt about it, regardless of what the former vice president said. So I'm looking for your judgment on that question. What you know of waterboarding, in your judgment, is it torture? The attorney general designee can answer that. It seems to me you ought to be able to give us an answer as well.

ADM. BLAIR: Senator, you'll just have to make the inference from my answer that on my watch, we will not waterboard.

SEN. LEVIN: We had a senior intelligence officer in front of us -- Colonel Steve Klineman -- in front of the Armed Services Committee, I believe -- it may have been a hearing of this committee -- and this is what he said -- and this has to do with the use of abusive tactics. He said:

"I was privileged to join 14 of America's most accomplished intelligence and law enforcement professionals in an intensive discussion of best practices in interrogation. Representing the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, we collectively represented 350 years of operational experience in conducting thousands of interrogations and debriefings. Our respective professional experiences led us to a single, emphatic conclusion: The most effective method for consistently eliciting accurate and comprehensive information from even the most defiant individuals, to include terrorists and insurgents, was through a patient, systematic and culturally enlightened effort to build an operationally useful relationship."

Do you agree with that?

ADM. BLAIR: Based on everything I know, I agree with that. Yes, sir.

Blair will no doubt get points from those in the intelligence community for protecting them. He'll need that goodwill if he's to have any chance to achieve the kinds of changes long overdue, like improving the human intelligence gathering capabilities of the Central Intelligence Agency and other organizations. That requires officers willing to take risks and they're unlikely to do so if they believe the chain of command won't protect them in ambiguous cases.

Comments

No...it is just good clean fun and believe all those who believe like myself, should try it.

Posted by: bill r. | January 23, 2009 3:07 PM

Sounds as if President Obama himself needs to grab Mr. Blair and straighten him out, pronto. Waffling in your words is waffling in your mind.

We can't have that and Blair needs to be clear where the line is because he sounds like he wants to protect the past torturers from BushCo.

Posted by: Big Orange Satan | January 23, 2009 3:12 PM

Sorry lefties, but...
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | January 23, 2009 3:14 PM

Sorry lefties, but...
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Posted by: Paulo | January 23, 2009 3:14 PM

Dream on, Paula

Posted by: Gus | January 23, 2009 3:48 PM

It depends on the definition of what is,is. All I know is it works, and for everyone that is crying about due process these people were trying to kill Americans in the field of battle. So what is so wrong holding them in prison like we did during WWII? And since they are being held at A U.S. base, which is considered US property I don't seen the problem. I certainly don't want them in being tried in our courts were they would be allowed the same rights as US citizens, the bottom line is that if given an opportunity to kill again they certainly would. So many of those that were released found their way back to the battlefield to kill more American soldiers.

Posted by: Paul | January 23, 2009 4:38 PM

@ Posted by: Big Orange Satan | January 23, 2009 3:12 PM

OK, lets go after the past. How far back?

FDR for getting into World War 11.

How about prosecuting everyone involved in the Manhattan Project, and Pres. Truman for dropping the bomb. (saving lives)

Pres. Kennedy/Johnson for Vietnam.

Because it's the internet I don't know if your in America or your a Middle East terrorist. But hey you have your views, just like Hamas, Iran, Hezzbolah or your just an anti Bush, terrorist sympathizer.

Otherwise your very unbalanced, factually and ..........

Posted by: PG | January 23, 2009 5:07 PM

Blair's nomination won't last long if he insists on covering up for the BushCo war criminals.

Posted by: Alabama Andy | January 23, 2009 6:30 PM

Posted by: PG | January 23, 2009 5:07 PM
.....

24 is a fictional tv show. Jack Bauer is a fictional tv character. Rush Limbaugh is a draft dodging chickenhawk who doesn't know any better.

Keep reminding yourself of that Repugs and maybe some day you'll get it right.

W. didn't keep you safe, he made the world a more dangerous place and him and the rest of the Bush crime family are not going to get away with torturing in our countries name, period, end of story.

Posted by: Alabama Andy | January 23, 2009 6:37 PM

OK, lets go after the past. How far back? FDR for getting into World War 11.How about prosecuting everyone involved in the Manhattan Project, and Pres. Truman for dropping the bomb. (saving lives)Pres. Kennedy/Johnson for Vietnam.Because it's the internet I don't know if your in America or your a Middle East terrorist. But hey you have your views, just like Hamas, Iran, Hezzbolah or your just an anti Bush, terrorist sympathizer.

Posted by: PG | January 23, 2009 5:07 PM

I hope the GOP follows your idiotic logic. I know the average Repub IQ is kind of low but sheeeeesh.

The radical right just loves themselves some down home torture and illegal spying, all of which would actually be consistent with the three Attorney General predecessors (Ashcroft, Gonzo, Mukasey), all whom were responsible for ushering in an era of torture and a violation of the most basic rights afforded to Americans by the Founding Fathers and all of whom were wholeheartedly supported by Republicans.

I guess someone forgot to tell the out-of-the-mainstream rightists and Congressional republicans that they got their butts kicked in two straight elections and the country has moved decidedly in a direction that desperately wants to reverse the disgrace of the past 8 years and get back to actually addressing the problems that effect millions of Americans. And even though there are some hypocrites that suddenly feel it is ok to question the President’s motives or fight tooth and nail for the sake of fighting (after calling those who did the same to Bush traitors), they are becoming marginalized and irrelevant.

The questions for the Repulicans should be why they think that torture and illegal spying are acceptable. And for the "strict constructionists", they should say where the Constitution allows for torture and illegal spying. But the bottom line is that the Attorney General, just like a United States Senator, has an obligation to uphold the US Constitution.

Posted by: Senaca Doanne | January 23, 2009 6:58 PM

Is waterboarding torture? That’s actually a trick question. If it is done to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon a person, then it is torture. However, if it is done to cure acne, train others in water safety, teach others to waterboard, stimulate the somnambulant, moisten a separated epiglottis, satisfy bill r’s masochistic needs for good clean fun, or for any other intent, then it is not torture. If you think I’m kidding, I’m not.
.
18 U.S.C. § 2340 is our federal anti-torture law. It defines torture as “an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering ... upon another person within his custody or physical control ...” Did you notice the “specifically intended to inflict” language? That means an act does not constitute torture if committed accidentally, negligently, recklessly, or for any intent other than to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering - even if there is some awareness that the act might cause such pain, suffering and so on. Parenthetically, the wording of the UN Compact Against Torture is where we get this language.
.
So: Is waterboarding torture? It certainly can be. Chances are, it was employed as torture by our intelligence gathering community (the three admitted times it was used) because they needed to cause sufficiently severe pain and suffering to coerce statements from those who were interrogated. That would make it torture - because the ultimate goal of gaining information doesn’t negate the intermediate goal of inflicting pain and suffering that makes it torture.
.
Now just let them try and use any information gained that way in a civilian trial against any alleged terrorists. It would be excluded as unreliable regardless of whether the defendant was the victim of the torture.

Posted by: John W. | January 23, 2009 7:43 PM

He understands the "classified" world of reality in dealing with terrorist. If a major imminent threat, such as 9/11 was in the works, how do you established a "patient, systematic, culturally enlightened relationship" to learn the operational facts before the attack, especially if we had only hours or a couple of days? After reading his Miranda rights, a candy bar and cigarette should do it. Adm. Blair states "no torture on his watch", let us take his word as an distinguished officer. We're supposed to believe that our new designated Treasury Sect. and Charley Rangle just forgot to pay their proper federal taxes and there will be no lobbyists in the administration. Confirm him, he might just be the man to save us.

Posted by: Bubba Porter | January 23, 2009 7:44 PM

@Alabama Andy

I'll give you a chance, what did you leave out of your response to me?

And by the way, I didn't mention TV or talk radio, you did. Kinda weird don't you think?

Posted by: PG | January 23, 2009 8:13 PM

Just like Alabama Andy, Senaca Doanne I'll give you chance as well.

Is there a common thread connecting some, apart from the convenient lack of facts.... (just like the new IRS guy).

And just to be nice I'm not going to get into what Pres. Clinton didn't do, what Pres. Bush did and how Pres. Obama attacked Pakistan.

He's new to the job and deserves time. It's just sad to see so much hate developed on Alabama Andy's tv's viewing.

Posted by: PG | January 23, 2009 8:25 PM

Why hasn't his nomination been withdrawn? Admiral Blair is not representing the positions President Obama took during the election season. How can he be his representative in the Intelligence community, if he disagrees with President Obama's position ? I hope President Obama reconsiders this nominee. We have had enough duplicity from the previous administrations. Water-boarding is torture, plain and simple. Practicers of this type of interrogation should be charged with a crime and should be punished, accordingly. Loyalty is preferred to following the law? I sure, in the heck, hope not !!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | January 23, 2009 9:28 PM

Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | January 23, 2009 9:30 PM

And just to be nice I'm not going to get into what Pres. Clinton didn't do, what Pres. Bush did and how Pres. Obama attacked Pakistan.

Posted by: PG | January 23, 2009 8:25 PM

Not ONE of your examples has anything to do with state sponsored (BushCo) torture.
That is why no one is answering you the way YOU want. That's quite the active fantasy world that you have there.
Facts have a well known liberal bias, chucklehead.

Posted by: mJ | January 23, 2009 10:58 PM

Just like Alabama Andy, Senaca Doanne I'll give you chance as well.Is there a common thread connecting some, apart from the convenient lack of facts..
Posted by: PG | January 23, 2009 8:25 PM

I love it when GOPer's like PG make up their own little facts and then wonder why no one answers them. It's hilarious and I see it all the time. GOPer's make up some sort of fantasy situation(s) in their head, they call these fantasies "facts" and then wonder why no one can understand what the hell they're talking about. And sure enough, when no one can understand them, they assume that that some how cements their status as a genius. People like PG used to be called sociopaths but now days they're just called "Republicans".

So far you've given NO examples of torture. None, Zero, Zip, Nada!

Posted by: Senaca Doanne | January 23, 2009 11:31 PM

Don F@930pm...

Following your logic, Obama should resign-he is not the as same man who ran for prez...whoever that was.

Posted by: Heartburn | January 24, 2009 12:21 AM

...
OK, lets go after the past. How far back? FDR for getting into World War 11.How about prosecuting everyone involved in the Manhattan Project, and Pres. Truman for dropping the bomb. (saving lives)Pres. Kennedy/Johnson for Vietnam.Because it's the internet I don't know if your in America or your a Middle East terrorist. But hey you have your views, just like Hamas, Iran, Hezzbolah or your just an anti Bush, terrorist sympathizer.

Posted by: PG | January 23, 2009 5:07 PM
...

Bush violated our own laws and treaties. None of those you named did.

Bush tortured. Those you named above went out of their way NOT to. When we did find wrong doing (such as torture etc) we proceeded to prosecute both enemies and our service men for torture, including water boarding.

Our entry into WWII was defensive, in response to an attack. The Manhattan Project was a race to beat Hitler to the Bomb, and Hitler came damn close. Dropping it... you can argue that one either way, especially Nagasaki, but if you do be damn sure you don't forget the Rape of Nanking, the Siege of Stalingrad, the Siege of Leningrad, the concentration camps, etc. The atomic bombs were the crowning horrors of a war so full of horrors they almost get lost.

Vietnam... Tonkin is still being debated. But again, we jumped into a civil war in progress. Bush created one by attacking a country at peace. Illegally. And then tortured. Which had never before been official U.S. policy, since Washington himself laid down the law with regard to treatment of British prisoners.

As for sympathizing with terrorists, if you want to beat terrorism you can't engage in terror. You can only beat it by showing that you believe in the rule of law. And isn't the whole point of opposing "Islamofascists" (not my term of course) to defend Western values like law and civil rights?

I understand that making false equivalences are a wingnut's stock and trade but you guys are not just losing you're making fools of yourselves.

I guarantee you that Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzo, Rummy and the rest of the Bush crime family won't be traveling oversea's during the rest of their lifetimes because in the eyes of the international community they are war criminals and they know it.

The grown ups are in charge now so, grab a stuffed animal and sleep tight... and we'll let you know when we've scheduled the seminar on walking while concurrently masticating gum.

Posted by: icebergslim | January 24, 2009 3:35 AM

Well it seems I'm the "wing nut", I'm the bad guy here just like Pres. Bush, yet in all your attacks at me, Bush, his Admin, not one of you have mentioned 9/11, 2001.

Now that's what I find telling about the people who responded to me.

I didn't even mention all the attacks from years (decades) before upon soft targets. Women, children, the old the young.

All you want to do is attack an Administration, and whatever you want to say kept America strike free after 9/11.
You have more hatred for Pres. Bush than Osama Bin Laden and his non uniformed murderers who are waging this war. And how many tortured people (water-boarding) have died in Gitmo?

I'm not going to change your mind, I know that. All I was doing was pointing out facts that are to often left out.
I'm quite happy discussing what the terrorist's have done and what was or not done to protect 300 million American's.

Using your logic, with the air strikes in Pakistan killing some by the Obama Admin, Pres. Obama is the same as Pres. Bush.

And Gitmo, I hope Chicago can take good care of the terrorist's when it is shut down.

Posted by: PG | January 24, 2009 2:24 PM

And Gitmo, I hope Chicago can take good care of the terrorist's when it is shut down.

Posted by: PG | January 24, 2009 2:24 PM

Dude, you've been schooled so badly that it's getting hard to watch.
When you're in a hole, STOP DIGGING!

Posted by: Laura | January 24, 2009 4:11 PM

Oh Laura, ... Dude, please educate me. Because you said nothing on what I've said. But I will make one point. How can I be "schooled so badly", when I can turn a TV on (not a show that some think is real life) and watch a live war, in realtime in any part of the world where there is a camera? Or watched a new "administration" take over, pass executive orders, and continue targeted bombings as the Bush Admin' did. dude.....

Oh and the Gitmo thing, where in Chicago would you like to see them go, you no those innocent tortured gentle people?

I've seen people buy homes before then fill them up with furniture but I've never seen someone buy the furniture then look for a home.

Posted by: PG | January 24, 2009 5:13 PM

Oh and the Gitmo thing, where in Chicago would you like to see them go, you no those innocent tortured gentle people?

Posted by: PG | January 24, 2009 5:13 PM

We're going to send them to your house.

If America had agreed with your idiocy, John McCain would be the President right now.
The war's over, you LOST.
See ya in 2012.

Posted by: icebergslim | January 25, 2009 12:27 AM

Frank James. Thank you for printing my comments. I didn't think you would. Am pleased. I guess your allowing me to dig a deeper hole. hehehe

icebergslim,
do you know how your response reads. Please re-read your comment and add Nahnah nah nahnah.

That should surly solve the America's and World problems.

Oh and you have no idea who I did or didn't vote for.