Home
Refresh   Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ;  (less...)
Add to My Group
November 2, 2007 at 17:19:41

View Ratings | Rate It

A Brief on the Use of Water Torture by American Officials in the War on Terrorism

submit to twitter
submit to reddit
submit to digg

Tell A Friend

By William John Cox (about the author)     Page 2 of 3 page(s)

opednews.com     Permalink

In 1957, French forces in Algeria tortured Henri Alleg, a journalist, by strapping him to a plank and wrapping his head in a cloth placed under a running water tap. Alleg later talked about his torture in The Question: "The rag was soaked rapidly. Water flowed everywhere: in my mouth, in my nose, all over my face. But for a while I could still breathe in some small gulps of air. I tried, by contracting my throat, to take in as little water as possible and to resist suffocation by keeping air in my lungs for as long as I could. But I couldn’t hold on for more than a few moments. I had the impression of drowning, and a terrible agony, that of death itself, took possession of me. In spite of myself, all the muscles of my body struggled uselessly to save me from suffocation. In spite of myself, the fingers of both my hands shook uncontrollably."

In 1968, the Washington Post published a photograph of an American soldier supervising the use of water torture on a North Vietnamese prisoner. The victim was being held down as water was poured over a cloth covering his nose and mouth to induce "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning meant to make him talk." The soldier was charged, convicted and discharged from the Army.

In 2005, the U.S. State Department’s review of Tunisia’s poor human rights record included "submersion of the head in water" as a form of "torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" of detainees.

RECENT USE OF WATER TORTURE BY THE UNITED STATES

On September 17, 2001, President Bush signed a secret Presidential finding authorizing the CIA to hunt, capture, detain, or kill designated terrorists wherever they might be located.

In a secret memorandum dated February 7, 2002, President Bush stated that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to al-Qaeda or Taliban detainees, but that the United States would "continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva." In doing so, the president authorized extraordinary rendition of detainees and their secret detention; however, the findings were silent regarding the use of enhanced interrogation techniques.

In March 2002, the CIA created a list of six "enhanced interrogation techniques" including the attention grab, attention slap, belly slap, long time standing, the cold cell, and waterboarding. At least one detainee in Afghanistan died of hypothermia after being forced to stand naked throughout a cold night after being doused with cold water and another died after being suffocated in a sleeping bag.

In August 2002, the Justice Department secretly issued a legal opinion stating that no interrogation practices were illegal unless they produced pain equivalent to organ failure or death. A second secret memorandum described approved practices and the frequency and duration of their application. The legal opinion was withdrawn in June 2004 after it became public knowledge. The Justice Department subsequently published a new opinion that stated, "Torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and to international norms." However, a footnote stated that previous actions by the CIA were not being declared illegal.

The public legal opinion was quickly followed in early 2005 by yet another secret opinion that, according to a recent article in the New York Times, "provided explicit authorization to barrage suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures."

In March 2005, Porter J. Goss, the then director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was unable to assure Congress that the CIA had been using lawful interrogation methods in the past few years. He did say that waterboarding fell into "an area of what I will call professional interrogation techniques" and he defended such techniques as an important tool in efforts against terrorism.

On April 5, 2005, one hundred U.S. professors of law signed and sent an open letter to then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, which stated in pertinent part:

"We are particularly concerned about your continuing failure to issue clear statements about illegal interrogation techniques, and especially your failure to state that "waterboarding"—a technique that induces the effects of being killed by drowning—constitutes torture, and thus is illegal. We urge you to make such a statement now.

"The Convention Against Torture prohibits practices that constitute the intentional infliction of "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental." The federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2340A, similarly prohibits acts outside the United States that are specifically intended to cause "severe physical or mental pain or suffering."

"Waterboarding is torture. It causes severe physical suffering in the form of reflexive choking, gagging, and the feeling of suffocation. It may cause severe pain in some cases. If uninterrupted, waterboarding will cause death by suffocation. It is also foreseeable that waterboarding, by producing an experience of drowning, will cause severe mental pain and suffering. The technique is a form of mock execution by suffocation with water. The process incapacitates the victim from drawing breath, and causes panic, distress, and terror of imminent death. Many victims of waterboarding suffer prolonged mental harm for years and even decades afterward."

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 prohibited the "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" of detainees and provides for "uniform standards" for interrogation by the military; however, it does not apply to interrogations by the CIA. In signing the Act in January 2006, President Bush declared his authority to set aside the restrictions if they interfered with his constitutional powers. His ability to get away with it is enhanced by the secret Justice Department opinion allowing even the use of water torture in certain circumstances.

President Bush issued yet another secret executive order in summer 2006 regarding enhanced interrogation techniques; however, he has refused to disclose whether water torture is included among the approved techniques.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

http://www.thevoters.org

William John Cox authored the Policy Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department and the Role of the Police in America for a National Advisory Commission during the Nixon administration. As a public interest, pro bono, attorney, he filed a class (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Book Recommendations for "American Foreign Policy Congress"
The Price of American Foreign Policy: Congress, the Executive, and International Affairs Funding
by Willliam Bacchus

$27.00

Number of pages: 360
Publisher: Pennsylvania State University Press

Congress and American foreign policy;: A background book on the presidential-congressional struggle,
by Richard J Walton

$0.01

Number of pages: 234
Publisher: Parent's Magazine Press

The Price of American Foreign Policy: Congress, the Executive, and Foreign Affairs Funding
by William I. Bacchus

$27.95
Lowest New Price $122.29

Number of pages: 368
Publisher: Pennsylvania State University Press

View All Book Recommendations

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

FACEBOOK      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      NETSCAPE      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
4 comments

Torture

Perhaps those that condone it and those who agree to carry it out should be required to experience it. In my opinion you at least should know what you're talking about before you okay it to be used on others.  Let's start with Cheney, then Bush and on down the line including the rubber stampers among the elected.

by Rae (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 230 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 5:35:17 PM

Recommend  (0+)

Reply: Similar to "This product not tested on animals" ?

Perhaps we could design a logo that identifies news sources etc as "This information not obtained through torture."  Instead of the little bunny with the bar/circle, it might be the shape of the hooded and wired-to-a-box Iraqi with the bar/circle.  FOX won't be displaying it, of course, since they volunteered a staff member to try waterboarding on himself and then said it wasn't that bad.  And I think the John Kerry camp would not get the logo on any of their documents and speeches after allowing the tasaring of the U of Florida student.  The list of who can't display such a logo increasingly seems to outnumber the list of who CAN...

by Mars Caulton (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Sunday, Nov 4, 2007 at 12:08:02 AM

Recommend  (0+)

Whereas, Senate Democrats want to have it both ways

" The Senate had a chance to settle the question in September 2006 when Sen. Ted Kennedy offered an amendment to declare waterboarding and other coercive interrogation techniques a violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. His amendment lost 46-53. So Senate Democrats are now demanding that Mukasey declare waterboarding a violation of Common Article 3 when the Senate declined to do the same just a year ago."

Full article here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTE1NGU4NDQxOWU2YTZiOWM2N2Q4YjQ4OGEzZjZhZGM=&w=MQ==

by tim bristol (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 89 comments) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 6:42:28 PM

Recommend  (0+)

Certain proper uses of otherwise deplorable techniques...

I think that in certain cases waterboarding may be justified. For instance, consider the matter of a president or vice president, sworn to uphold the Constitution (which includes provision for the separation of powers) who wilfully and consistently refuses to recognize a justified call by the Congress for information or testimony from that elected official pertinent to the investigative duty of the Congress. In such instances, the security and welfare of the people of the United States may be severely compromised, for we have no other protection against an adminstration bent on its own course despite their sworn oath to abide by the provisions of the Constitution.

Yes, we do have the recourse of impeachment — or we once did — but waterboarding is so much more expedient!

by Irvthom (8 articles, 2 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 93 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 8:42:03 PM

Recommend  (0+)

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment


 

 

 

Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews

Powered by Populum