re: #17 Charles

Waterboarding is the only one of the “harsh interrogation techniques” used on terror suspects that I think you can make a real case to say it’s torture.

As for the argument that it doesn’t cause permanent harm — it absolutely can cause death by stress-induced heart attack. When Christopher Hitchens did his experiment, he had to sign a waiver holding harmless the people who administered it, for that reason. It’s serious business.

You’re right it’s serious business, which is also why it was used on two individuals, for a grand total of five sessions before the plug was pulled on the technique. Those individuals: Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, Abu Zubaydah.

Zubaydah apparently gave up intel on how to find Ramzi Binalshibh. KSM gave up intel on the followup plans to 9/11 including Operation Bojinka.

The tradeoff between getting that intel quickly and hoping beyond hope that these jihadis will give up the intel under the comfy chair is a tough decision and one that was not made lightly.

It was still the right thing to do, Mancow notwithstanding. The problem that remains is if this technique and all the other extraordinary interrogation techniques are taken off the table is that should the ticking time bomb scenario come to pass, how exactly are we supposed to shake that information loose from suspects who have information to stop the attack? Tickle ‘em with feathers?

The real issue isn’t waterboarding, but how best to shake intel from those who have information we need in a timely fashion. Waterboarding is the most controversial technique, but it’s not the only one. What techniques are the left going to find acceptable? Any?

The fact is that Pelosi and other Democrats had no problem when informed of this very scenario when the CIA did pick up KSM and Abu Zub. They knew that these techniques were used in very limited circumstances and appears to have yielded good intel. They want to label this torture all while claiming that they didn’t know and wouldn’t have approved (hypocrites one and all who did so out of partisan politics and not national security - their decision to assent was national security bipartisanship; their actions thereafter was rank hyperpartisanship).

Heck, I’ve seen people claim that listening to my music playlist is torture - considering that it contains Metallica, NIN, and other heavy metal, industrial, and hard rock acts. Play it at 120db, and you might have lasting and permanent hearing damage; play it 24/7/365, and you might drive a terrorist loony, or at least seriously sleep deprive the terrorist. Will that give intel in any way that’s better or more timely than the waterboarding that apparently did work?