September 28, 2006

This Is What Waterboarding Looks Like


As Congress has debated legislation that would set up military tribunals and govern the questioning of suspected terrorists (whom the Bush administration would like to be able to detain indefinitely), at issue has been what interrogation techniques can be employed and whether information obtained during torture can be used against those deemed unlawful enemy combatants. One interrogation practice central to this debate is waterboarding. It's usually described in the media in a matter-of-fact manner. The Washington Post simply referred to waterboarding a few days ago as an interrogation measure that "simulates drowning." But what does waterboarding look like?

Below are photographs taken by Jonah Blank last month at Tuol Sleng Prison in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. The prison is now a museum that documents Khymer Rouge atrocities. Blank, an anthropologist and former Senior Editor of US News & World Report, is author of the books Arrow of the Blue-Skinned God and Mullahs on the Mainframe. He is a professorial lecturer at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and has taught at Harvard and Georgetown. He currently is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic staff in the Senate, but the views expressed here are his own observations.

His photos show one of the actual waterboards used by the Khymer Rouge.


Here's the first:

http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/Waterboard1-small.jpg

Here's another view:

http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/Waterboard2-small.jpg

How were they used? Here's a painting by a former prisoner that shows the waterboard in action:

http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/Waterboard3-small.jpg

In an email to me, Blank explained the significance of the photos. He wrote:

The crux of the issue before Congress can be boiled down to a simple question: Is waterboarding torture? Anybody who considers this practice to be "torture lite" or merely a "tough technique" might want to take a trip to Phnom Penh. The Khymer Rouge were adept at torture, and there was nothing "lite" about their methods. Incidentally, the waterboard in these photo wasn't merely one among many torture devices highlighted at the prison museum. It was one of only two devices singled out for highlighting (the other was another form of water-torture--a tank that could be filled with water or other liquids; I have photos of that too.) There was an outdoor device as well, one the Khymer Rouge didn't have to construct: chin-up bars. (The prison where the museum is located had been a school before the Khymer Rouge took over). These bars were used for "stress positions"-- another practice employed under current US guidelines. At the Khymer Rouge prison, there is a tank of water next to the bars. It was used to revive prisoners for more torture when they passed out after being placed in stress positions.

The similarity between practices used by the Khymer Rouge and those currently being debated by Congress isn't a coincidence. As has been amply documented ("The New Yorker" had an excellent piece, and there have been others), many of the "enhanced techniques" came to the CIA and military interrogators via the SERE [Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape] schools, where US military personnel are trained to resist torture if they are captured by the enemy. The specific types of abuse they're taught to withstand are those that were used by our Cold War adversaries. Why is this relevant to the current debate? Because the torture techniques of North Korea, North Vietnam, the Soviet Union and its proxies--the states where US military personnel might have faced torture--were NOT designed to elicit truthful information. These techniques were designed to elicit CONFESSIONS. That's what the Khymer Rouge et al were after with their waterboarding, not truthful information.

Bottom line: Not only do waterboarding and the other types of torture currently being debated put us in company with the most vile regimes of the past half-century; they're also designed specifically to generate a (usually false) confession, not to obtain genuinely actionable intel. This isn't a matter of sacrificing moral values to keep us safe; it's sacrificing moral values for no purpose whatsoever.

These photos are important because most of us have never seen an actual, real-life waterboard. The press typically describes it in the most anodyne ways: a device meant to "simulate drowning" or to "make the prisoner believe he might drown." But the Khymer Rouge were no jokesters, and they didn't tailor their abuse to the dictates of the Geneva Convention. They-- like so many brutal regimes--made waterboarding one of their primary tools for a simple reason: it is one of the most viciously effective forms of torture ever devised.

The legislation backed by Bush and congressional Republicans would explicitly permit the use of evidence obtained through waterboarding and other forms of torture. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and other top al Qaeda leaders have reportedly been subjected to this technique. They would certainly note--or try to note--that at any trial. But with this legislation, the White House is seeking to declare the use of waterboarding (at least in the past) as a legitimate practice of the US government.

The House of Representatives voted for Bush's bill on Thursday, 253 to 168 (with 34 Democrats siding with the president and only seven Republicans breaking with their party's leader). The Senate is expected to vote on the bill today. Its members should consider Blank's photos and arguments before they, too, go off the deep end.


http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2006/09/this_is_what_wa.php


Sorry I had to go Django on you guys. :fingersx:

But certain people are lazy and won't read the whole thing.

Bottom line: Not only do waterboarding and the other types of torture currently being debated put us in company with the most vile regimes of the past half-century; they're also designed specifically to generate a (usually false) confession, not to obtain genuinely actionable intel. This isn't a matter of sacrificing moral values to keep us safe; it's sacrificing moral values for no purpose whatsoever.

As far as the bolded part, says who? Interesting. I was hearing about this the other day. I seem to remember I heard we got valuable intel from an Al-Qaeda higher-up with this technique, and it wasn't a confession of his guilt, and other intel from using this method.

So, where they're coming from by saying "they're also designed specifically to generate a (usually false) confession" is beyond me.

I have my daughter this weekend, and right now I'm working on a rush deposition, or I'd dig more deeper into this. Maybe they're right. I'll find out.

One thing I do remember is that, so I've heard, the people trained in this method of "torture light," "torture," whatever you want to call it, have to undergo it, as well, as part of their training.

I would call this a form of "light torture," but if it's used to get valuable intel that saves American lives it should be done.

Now, if it's used to get confessions solely, as the picture this article seems to be trying to paint, then it shouldn't be done.

I'll dig into this later. For getting confessions, this is a bad idea. For getting intel, if said intel will disrupt Al-Qaeda cells, stop attacks on our soil, then anybody that goes against it I believe, though while a humane human being, doesn't realize that sometimes to break your enemy you can't just feed them McDonald's and Subway sandwiches, give them five times to pray a day, and treat them with kid gloves. :rolleyes:

Sorry I had to go Django on you guys. :fingersx:

But certain people are lazy and won't read the whole thing.

LOL. Hell, I appreciate it. I skimmed it. I'll read it all later.

It's good to bold relevant parts, which is what I do, too, when I put up a big article. Some people, though, AND YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE, prefer to put up a novel and not bold dick or even explain why they put it up in the first place. :rolleyes:

Though, I did figure it out after a brief skim of the NOVEL in question.

You see, I like ham, but turkey bores me.

Because the torture techniques of North Korea, North Vietnam, the Soviet Union and its proxies--the states where US military personnel might have faced torture--were NOT designed to elicit truthful information. These techniques were designed to elicit CONFESSIONS.


I'm sorry, but this statement is just plain meaningless.

I tried and tried to see where they're coming from, but this makes the whole article look stupid.

– Who said this?
– How do you design something to 'NOT elect truthful information'?
– And who the fuck can tell if a confession is true or not?

It makes no sense. There are far too many purely subjective factors here.
I smell spin.

And no, I'm not defending torture.

As far as the bolded part, says who?

Blank, an anthropologist and former Senior Editor of US News & World Report, is author of the books Arrow of the Blue-Skinned God (http://www.amazon.com/Arrow-Blue-Skinned-God-Retracing-Ramayana/dp/0802137334/sr=8-1/qid=1159466427/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-9371752-9126544?ie=UTF8&s=books) and Mullahs on the Mainframe. (http://www.amazon.com/Mullahs-Mainframe-Islam-Modernity-Bohras/dp/0226056775/sr=8-5/qid=1159466427/ref=sr_1_5/102-9371752-9126544?ie=UTF8&s=books) He is a professorial lecturer at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and has taught at Harvard and Georgetown. He currently is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic staff in the Senate, but the views expressed here are his own observations.

Interesting. I was hearing about this the other day. I seem to remember I heard we got valuable intel from an Al-Qaeda higher-up with this technique, and it wasn't a confession of his guilt, and other intel from using this method.

Link please.

So, where they're coming from by saying "they're also designed specifically to generate a (usually false) confession" is beyond me.

What don't you understand? False confessions would show the American public "Look we got 'em, they admitted it, you are all safer now". Fact is most people wouldn't question if someone admitted a crime they didn't committ while they were being tortured. A huge majority of people will say anything for the torture to stop. If you were not guilty, and had no intel,(AKA most people at Gitmo) and you were being tortured for intel you didn't have or a crime you never committed and were continually "Waterboarded" day after day wouldn't you break eventually?

I have my daughter this weekend, and right now I'm working on a rush deposition, or I'd dig more deeper into this. Maybe they're right. I'll find out.

Please do. The more research the better.

One thing I do remember is that, so I've heard, the people trained in this method of "torture light," "torture," whatever you want to call it, have to undergo it, as well, as part of their training.

Training is not the same no matter how you put it. Would they be waterboarded until they pass out? Even if they did they have no pressure on them. They aren't accused of being terrorists or having specific intel. They are just receiving the physical part, and probably for a set amount of times.

I would call this a form of "light torture," but if it's used to get valuable intel that saves American lives it should be done.

If you have any evidence that torture stops terrorism I'd love to read it. Most articles or evidence I've read points to saying that we need to torture, but doesn't say how it works, why it works, where torture has been successful, etc.

Now, if it's used to get confessions solely, as the picture this article seems to be trying to paint, then it shouldn't be done.

I'll dig into this later. For getting confessions, this is a bad idea. For getting intel, if said intel will disrupt Al-Qaeda cells, stop attacks on our soil, then anybody that goes against it I believe, though while a humane human being, doesn't realize that sometimes to break your enemy you can't just feed them McDonald's and Subway sandwiches, give them five times to pray a day, and treat them with kid gloves. :rolleyes:

We will never know who is guilty and who is not when torture is employed. Confessions or intel given under torture will hardly ever be correct. So we will be less safe. Is there any military leader who has said torture works? You admit yourself this is torture albeit torture "lite" :rolleyes: whatever that means.

Who said this?

Blank, an anthropologist and former Senior Editor of US News & World Report, is author of the books Arrow of the Blue-Skinned God (http://www.amazon.com/Arrow-Blue-Skinned-God-Retracing-Ramayana/dp/0802137334/sr=8-1/qid=1159466427/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-9371752-9126544?ie=UTF8&s=books) and Mullahs on the Mainframe. (http://www.amazon.com/Mullahs-Mainframe-Islam-Modernity-Bohras/dp/0226056775/sr=8-5/qid=1159466427/ref=sr_1_5/102-9371752-9126544?ie=UTF8&s=books) He is a professorial lecturer at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and has taught at Harvard and Georgetown. He currently is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic staff in the Senate, but the views expressed here are his own observations.


How do you design something to 'NOT elect truthful information'?

If you aren't looking or trying to get truth than you are designing something not to elect truthful information. If all you want is someone to say "I did it" so the government would look good, which you know that is how it will be spun, then it works. If a news report comes across the screen saying "14 detainees admit to committing atrocities in Afghanistan" would you question it or not? You wouldn't know if they were tortured or not to say it, but hell the government looks competent and it seems they are protecting you. It's all about protecting their own asses.

And who the fuck can tell if a confession is true or not?

Confessions can be truth. But we will never know if confessions coming from torture are truth or not.

Imagine you are getting waterboarded for 10 hours straight. You have no clue when it will stop. You may have correct information, you might not, you really have lost all your train of thought and focus under all this stress. It continues for hours on end. You pass out a few times. You are telling the truth but the torture doesn't stop because that isn't what the torturers want to hear. They don't want to hear how you were set-up or arrested wrongly even though that could be what really happened to you. They want a specific answer and you know it. Do you say what they want to hear or just take the torture even though you have done no wrong?

And yes I'm assuming the tortured victim is innocent. I guess that is how I am crazy and what-not assuming people are innocent until proven guilty of something.


And no, I'm not defending torture.

Is waterboarding torture?

You see, I like ham, but turkey bores me.

Turkey owns, but only on thanksgiving.

Oh and I think indian corn looks cool.

If you aren't looking or trying to get truth than you are designing something not to elect truthful information. If all you want is someone to say "I did it" so the government would look good, which you know that is how it will be spun, then it works. If a news report comes across the screen saying "14 detainees admit to committing atrocities in Afghanistan" would you question it or not? You wouldn't know if they were tortured or not to say it, but hell the government looks competent and it seems they are protecting you. It's all about protecting their own asses.

That's a position, it doesn't explain anything.
I see the angle they're taking, but it's weak. That's like someone arguing that bullets were originally designed not to hit people in the head, but in the hand.
I have an idea of how you view the government so I'll just say I completely disagree with the rest of your statement and leave it at that.


Confessions can be truth. But we will never know if confessions coming from torture are truth or not.

Or from any other method. We can't discern true from false, but we can pursue details and see what they lead to. If someone gives names, places, dates etc...they can be checked.



Imagine you are getting waterboarded for 10 hours straight. You have no clue when it will stop. You may have correct information, you might not, you really have lost all your train of thought and focus under all this stress. It continues for hours on end. You pass out a few times. You are telling the truth but the torture doesn't stop because that isn't what the torturers want to hear. They don't want to hear how you were set-up or arrested wrongly even though that could be what really happened to you. They want a specific answer and you know it. Do you say what they want to hear or just take the torture even though you have done no wrong?

Who cares what I would do or say, this isn't about me.
That's a complete fantasy of your own, you have no reason or basis outside of your own imagination to see it as valid. You're gona have to come to your own conclusion.

I personally don't believe that's what's happening.

And yes I'm assuming the tortured victim is innocent. I guess that is how I am crazy and what-not assuming people are innocent until proven guilty of something.

Why? Why are you so sure the government is just grabbing up all these innocent people and manipulating them?


Is waterboarding torture?

Depends on who you ask.
It doesn't sound as bad as a power drill to the neck, or a nice slow beheading.
Then again it's not a blowjob either.

If I say it's not, and you say it is. What is it?
If I say it is, and you say it's not. Then what?

It's pretty subjective.

You see, I like ham, but turkey bores me.

It's just the tryoptophan man, have a Mountain Dew and give turkey another chance.

I beg you.

iF SOMEONE YOU LOVED HAD BEEN IN THE wtc YOU WOULD WANT THEN TO WATERBOARD AS MANY PEOPLE AS THE AD TO TO PREVENT 911.




And so you know, I have done worse to crackheads and bums that have I have caught breaking into my buildings to sleep. My favorite is to blindfold em and put em in plastic handcuffs then drive em up to Flint or downriver somewhere in the back of the truck and leave em in an alley. Let em be bums in some other city... (FYI i'm smart enough not to cross state lines with em. THAT would be bad)

Why are you so sure the government is just grabbing up all these innocent people and manipulating them?

Because a majority of these innocent people aren't convicted of anything, that is why. Until the government convicts them, they are innocent.

Because a majority of these innocent people aren't convicted of anything, that is why. Until the government convicts them, they are innocent.


I appreciate your dedication to people's rights, but this statement isn't a truth:


Until the government convicts them, they are innocent.


It's a right we grant them. Do you see what I mean here? I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I'm pleased we have people who think like you do in our country, but simply not being convicted does not make you innocent.

They are deemed Innocent until proven guilty. They can be guilty, yet proven innocent by way of the same facility that places innocent men in jail.

So again I have to ask, why are you so determined the government has detained innocent people?

iF SOMEONE YOU LOVED HAD BEEN IN THE wtc YOU WOULD WANT THEN TO WATERBOARD AS MANY PEOPLE AS THE AD TO TO PREVENT 911.

Can't those related to the prisoners being tortured use that exact same train of thought to want to attack the USA or to redouble their efforts even? What I mean to say Ray, is that your logic is weak at best and I know you can damn well see it. Also, I know that you weren't trying to write in caps as everything that should have been capitalized is lowercase.


And so you know, I have done worse to crackheads and bums that have I have caught breaking into my buildings to sleep. My favorite is to blindfold em and put em in plastic handcuffs then drive em up to Flint or downriver somewhere in the back of the truck and leave em in an alley. Let em be bums in some other city... (FYI i'm smart enough not to cross state lines with em. THAT would be bad)


You realize that that can get you in prison for a long ass time for kidnapping, assault and probably attempted manslaughter depending on the weather. Not to justify shitdicks breaking into your properties or anything, but really it doesn't come up as a shinning example unless you want to demonstrate how little respect you have for the law.

I appreciate your dedication to people's rights, but this statement isn't a truth:



It's a right we grant them. Do you see what I mean here? I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I'm pleased we have people who think like you do in our country, but simply not being convicted does not make you innocent.

They are deemed Innocent until proven guilty. They can be guilty, yet proven innocent by way of the same facility that places innocent men in jail.

So again I have to ask, why are you so determined the government has detained innocent people?


In our country and by our country's laws one is considered innocent at all times until proven to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Now then Zen, since we are using the legal definition of innocent or guilty they have to be assumed to be guilty by the legal system that is detaining them. Now I know you have me on ignore and maybe someone will even quote me just to spite you but it doesn't change the fact that your logic is non-existant.

Can't those related to the prisoners being tortured use that exact same train of thought to want to attack the USA or to redouble their efforts even? What I mean to say Ray, is that your logic is weak at best and I know you can damn well see it. Also, I know that you weren't trying to write in caps as everything that should have been capitalized is lowercase.

first: no, second: yes i'm a lazy bastard causei didn't realize the caps lock was on, and when I did i said fuck it I aint retyping it.



You realize that that can get you in prison for a long ass time for kidnapping, assault and probably attempted manslaughter depending on the weather. Not to justify shitdicks breaking into your properties or anything, but really it doesn't come up as a shinning example unless you want to demonstrate how little respect you have for the law.

Thats why I don't take em across state lines. I don't leave em in danger. Its my one little "crackhead bussing/intergration/relocation program". Oh and guess what. The DPD cops have said to me and my guyson several occasions where WE called them after catching one of these guys and holding them for them to come get "we don't arest them. We ticket them and let em loose at the station which is about 1/2 a mile away. You'er better off not calling us and having to wait 2 hours cause nothing is going to happen".


They even told us that once when we caught a guy coming down the hallway from a ladies apartment with her VCR. Cause "nobody saw him come out the door with it".

first: no, second: yes i'm a lazy bastard causei didn't realize the caps lock was on, and when I did i said fuck it I aint retyping it.

It's the same train of thought Ray. You feel it's justified and so do they. I'm sure they are just as willing to change their way of thinking as you are.



Thats why I don't take em across state lines. I don't leave em in danger. Its my one little "crackhead bussing/intergration/relocation program". Oh and guess what. The DPD cops have said to me and my guyson several occasions where WE called them after catching one of these guys and holding them for them to come get "we don't arest them. We ticket them and let em loose at the station which is about 1/2 a mile away. You'er better off not calling us and having to wait 2 hours cause nothing is going to happen".


They even told us that once when we caught a guy coming down the hallway from a ladies apartment with her VCR. Cause "nobody saw him come out the door with it".

So you don't have respect for the law, but yet you are defending it? Or do you think incompetence is limited to Detroit?

That is a fucked up torture

I know it doesn't look that painful but if anyone who has almost drowned would be scarred shitless of that

The time I almost drowned I almost killed my friend that was trying to save me. It's weird, you no longer think or care about anything except trying to stop dying.

I can imagine people saying anything to stop that shit

It's a right we grant them. Do you see what I mean here? I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I'm pleased we have people who think like you do in our country, but simply not being convicted does not make you innocent.

They are deemed Innocent until proven guilty. They can be guilty, yet proven innocent by way of the same facility that places innocent men in jail.

So again I have to ask, why are you so determined the government has detained innocent people?


Rights are not granted by the government. They are inherent.

in‧her‧ent  /ɪnˈhɪərhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngənt, -ˈhɛr-/ Pronunciation Key (http://www.multiconsole.com/forums/) - Show Spelled Pronunciation (http://www.multiconsole.com/forums/)heer[/B]-[I]uhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngnt, -her-] Pronunciation Key (http://www.multiconsole.com/forums/) - Show IPA Pronunciation (http://www.multiconsole.com/forums/)
–adjective 1.existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute: an inherent distrust of strangers.

You are not deemed innocent. You are presumed innocent.

Rights are not granted by the government. They are inherent.

in‧her‧ent  /ɪnˈhɪərhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngənt, -ˈhɛr-/ Pronunciation Key (http://www.multiconsole.com/forums/) - Show Spelled Pronunciation (http://www.multiconsole.com/forums/)heer[/B]-[I]uhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngnt, -her-] Pronunciation Key (http://www.multiconsole.com/forums/) - Show IPA Pronunciation (http://www.multiconsole.com/forums/)
–adjective 1.existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute: an inherent distrust of strangers.

You are not deemed innocent. You are presumed innocent.


Yes, I realize that. I know what the laws are.

What makes something inherent? If it was truly inherent then it would apply in every country and every planet at any point in time for anyone anywhere. Ok, so who says? In our country we say.
What about in Turkey? Does the USA alone hold the truth simply because we say so?
It's great that these are our inherent rights, don't get me wrong. But where and who we are is exactly what makes them inherent.

Now, if you want to go deeper and tell me that God says their inherent, I'll agree. But try that shit in Turkey and see what happens.

Don't you see what I'm asking? Rights do not equal truth.

Let's use you as an example and stick only to a criminal act, not one of war.
Say you break into someone's house and cut them to pieces with an axe. You are later detained and tried. Your inherent right is that you're innocent.

But you know damn well you did it, you're not innocent. Even if the court "proves" you are innocent, you aren't.

Rights are not the truth.
So, when I ask you why you think the government is detaining innocent people, I'm not asking you legal question. I'm asking you what you feel and why you feel that way.

The goal of the legal system is to align with truth, not dictate it.