Water Water everywhere and not a drop to drink

The overwhelming amount of chatter on “Water boarding “as an enhanced interrogation technique piqued my interest in the subject. I wanted to find out what exactly water boarding is so I went to YouTube and watched a video of such a session. A famous magazine writer named Christopher Hitchens underwent the technique as part of a hit piece by Vanity Fair that made the case to their readership that water boarding is torture. ( google “Hitchens YouTube water boarding”) The video is actually very instructive and not horrifying to watch. ( seriously ! ) What I learned is that water boarding is not at all what I thought it was.
The subject is strapped to an elevated board platform, on their back. They are hooded, and a towel is placed over their face. The purpose of the session is of course to get bad guys to spill actionable intelligence information, not drown them. As such the subjects have the ability to immediately stop the session by dropping a metal cylinder in their hand, or by saying a code word, such as “Red”
Water from a 1 gallon milk container is poured on the towel and the effect is to simulate something between suffocation and drowning. Definitely not a pleasant experience. It is meant to scare the wits out of the subject causing them to reveal terrorist plans to the interrogator, not to kill, maim, or cause any permanent physical harm to the subject. As a side note, when the news came out that we had done this technique to only 3 specific subjects, but one subject had it done 83 times, I thought that number of “sessions” seemed a bit much. What I learned is each pour of water is counted as one “session”. Watch the video and judge for yourself. The "enhanced" techniques include not only water-boarding but sleep deprivation, subjection to cold and long periods of standing and some slapping.

The debate about this subject is a very classically American argument. On one side – harsh interrogation techniques such as water boarding are considered disgusting but necessary to break terrorists into exposing their terror plots. The position this group holds is that the intelligence data gathered was key to exposing several post 9-11 plots such as a Los Angeles based terror action designed to kill tens of thousands of Americans. That specific plot was revealed by a key Al Qaeda operative, Abu Zubaydah, during one session, and subsequently stopped by the FBI.
The actionable intelligence they received from these 3 high value suspects is well documented, but not yet public. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, America has not suffered another violent terrorist episode on its soil. That is not in dispute. The former vice president Dick Cheney believes these tough interrogations and other aggressive anti-terror moves were the cornerstones of the shield.
The other side of the argument says that any form of enhanced interrogation is un-American and terribly wrong. We are a civilized society that has laws, values and obligations to the rest of the world to reject any form of interrogation that can be considered as torture. America is the beacon of Freedom and Liberty to the rest of the world that is largely dominated by governments run by thuggish dictators. Any hint of our Government sanctioning interrogations even close to torture reduces us to the equivalent of those 3rd world Dictators. Their other claim is that these techniques do not even work, and that the data gathered is suspect as to its veracity. Their belief is that whenever we harshly punish terror suspects dozens more rise to the Jihad cause, the equivalent of a modern day Hydra.
The Obama administration recently released classified interrogation memos but did not release the follow-up reports detailing what was gleaned by water boarding. This administration has now pulled water boarding across the line from legal to illegal. The new harsh interrogation methods now consist of handing the detainee an iPod full of Obama speeches, and forcing them to watch. Just ask the Queen of England.
I am one who believes that the only good defense against terrorists is a very strong offence. As we move forward let’s hope our new administration doesn’t go the way of Jimmy Carter, doing the weakest, wimpiest move at every turn. If we are hit again by the jihadists, we may need a stronger response than threats of endless lawsuits against terror suspects.