Would you give up your life for your children? Or your spouse (or significant other)? Most of us would. I would gladly give up my remaining years for my children or grandchildren; or for my sister or brother if I knew that doing so would save their lives.
I believe that most of us would give up our lives in order to save the lives of those closest to us – those we love. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s what I believe.
Would I volunteer to be waterboarded if I knew it would save lives – even of strangers, yes, I would. Waterboarding, as practiced by our CIA was not, nor was it ever intended to be, lethal. I understand that it may be perceived by the person undergoing the waterboarding to be life-threatening and the individual may believe that he or she is drowning. Now don’t misunderstand, I do not believe that waterboarding could be considered remotely pleasant and I certainly don’t want to be water boarded, BUT, if I knew that it would save lives – bring it on.
I'm attempting to draw a distinction, an important distinction, between an unpleasant and scary procedure (waterboarding) and some other action which could result in "severe physical or mental pain or suffering".
I believe that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans would agree to undergo waterboarding if it would save lives. By saying that, I’m implying that anyone who would agree to be waterboarded is not likely to believe that waterboarding known terrorists should be outlawed.
You may have noticed that until now I’ve purposely not used the “T" word. And that’s because I’m avoiding the trap intentionally laid by the democrats to attempt to equate waterboarding with that word.
They’ve done their best to equate the two terms to create the impression among the inert in our population that waterboarding = torture (there, I said it). And I’ve no doubt that it was done purposefully. The term “waterboarding” doesn’t have the ugly, negative connotation that “torture” has, (at least, not yet) thus it was not sufficient to cause revulsion among the populace. But “torture,” ah ha, that will do the trick. It is part of the democrat plan to use the terms interchangeably so that waterboarding can be interpreted as repulsive and abhorrent, and by association, the Bush team approved actions which were repulsive and abhorrent.
Because we’ve all heard tales of the rack, the iron maiden, bamboo shoots under the fingernails, electric shocks to the genitals, etc., we have mental images of hooded sadists gleefully inflicting pain on innocent victims and enjoying every minute of it. We don’t, despite the accusations of the democrats inflicted with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome), torture prisoners.
The Bush administration sought legal advice to identify a line of demarcation separating permissible interrogation techniques from crossing over into what could be called “torture.” By doing so, that PROVES that they did NOT want to torture, but did want to use all permissible methods to secure information that could used to stop additional terrorist attacks.
I believe that to do less would have been a dereliction of their duties.
Now, the Obama administration has a different opinion. His lawyers say that Bush’s attorney’s advice was flawed. Well whoop-de-do, opposing lawyers disagreeing on each other’s interpretation of the law. STOP THE PRESSES! Isn’t that what lawyers do? When I engage an attorney, I expect him/her to take my position and oppose the other side’s stance. Obama would certainly not hire an attorney unless he or she was terminally infected with chronic BDS.
So, Obama releases redacted memos showing that administration attorneys professed the opinion that waterboarding was legal. And (according to Dick Cheney) withheld other memos that revealed that attacks were actually thwarted because of information gained from waterboarding – thus, showing the technique to have had positive results. Obama seems to have a penchant for withholding information that could prove embarrasing – e.g., his birth certificate, his college papers, and the “positive” memos. Transparent administration, indeed [sarcasm].
NOTE: If you haven't seen or heard Dick Cheney's speech refuting Obama's national security policies, you've missed the kind of rebuttal that we conservatives have been craving for years. He pulled no punches. American Sweetheart has a bang-up piece on Dick's speech and covers many of his most important points - it is well worth a stop. Here's a link: Dreams of an American Sweetheart
Water boarding by itself invokes a different mind-image when not equated to the “T" word. It is an interrogation technique, perhaps unpleasant, certainly instilling fear, but not life-threatening. In order for the democrats to score more anti-Bush points, it was necessary to promote a vastly more unpleasant connotation for “waterboarding” and that, friends and neighbors, is the reason for the association of the word “torture.”
Our military has waterboarded over 26,000 of our personnel as part of its Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) training, so our military hasn’t considered waterboarding to be torture. All 26,000 survived the experience, by the way.
In two of the memos released by the Obama administration, both dated May 10, 2005 (Memo 3 and Memo 4), Assistant Attorney General Stephen Bradbury explains in precise detail exactly how the CIA treated its prisoners during the administration of George W. Bush and under what conditions they could be waterboarded.
It is important to remember when reading the quotes (or the memos themselves) that these opinions and directives were never intended for public release - they were internal to the administration and therefore are not written to make political points. They were accurate representations of the deliberation internal to the Bush team to be sure that things were done legally and within applicable law. In other words, absorb the information as being factual rather than filtering statements as one must do when dissecting an Obama speech.
The following quotes are taken from Memo 3 and refer to waterboarding:
“We understand that for a small number of detainees in very limited circumstances, the CIA may wish to use the waterboard technique. You have previously explained that the waterboard technique would only be used if: (1) if the CIA has credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent; (2) there are “substantial and credible indicators the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or delay this attack;” and (3) other interrogation methods have failed or are unlikely to yield actionable intelligence in time to prevent the attack.”
Did you note the three (3) specific circumstances that must be present in order to undertake waterboarding? I believe that if the American public were asked the question "Should we waterboard" under these three conditions, the answer would be a resounding YES.
And,
“As in Techniques, we understand that in the event the detainee were perceived to be unable to withstand the effects of the waterboard for any reason, any member of the interrogation team has the obligation to intervene and, if necessary, to halt the use of the waterboard.” Sounds like we're coddling a detainee who has already qualified for waterboarding under the three required conditions.
And this one from Memo 4:
“Technique-specific advanced approval is required for all “enhanced” measures and is conditional on on-site medical and psychological personnel confirming from direct detainee examination that the enhanced technique(s) is not expected to produce ‘severe physical or mental pain or suffering.’ As a practical matter, the detainee’s physical condition must be such that these interventions will not have lasting effect and his psychological state strong enough that no severe psychological harm will result.”
To further expand on one point noted in the previous quote, the term "severe physical or mental pain or suffering" is generally regarded as the defining factor in identifying "torture." Absent that, no torture is deemed to have taken place.
And, one more:
“As an additional precaution, and to ensure the objectivity of their medical and psychological assessments, OMS personnel do not participate in administering interrogation techniques; their function is to monitor interrogations and the health of the detainee.”
For anyone who has doubt about the Bush administration's adherence to the various applicable rules of law, I encourage you to read through the Memo 3 (20 pages) and Memo 4 (46 pages) of detailed discussion regarding all aspects of the types of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques – especially waterboarding. I concentrated on the waterboarding specifically, and was surprised at the amount of consideration given to the health and well-being of the detainees.
I challenge anyone who believes that waterboarding is torture to read the memos. It may come as a surprise to see the extent of deliberation applied to making sure that the interrogation techniques DID NOT rise to the level of torture. Specific controls were in place for each type of interrogation to assure that "severe physical or mental pain or suffering" DID NOT TAKE PLACE, including the presence of medical and psychological personnel. I think that most reasonable people (even liberal democrats) would expect "torture" to include "severe physical or mental pain or suffering."
I think that it is important for us to refuse to debate "torture" by the Bush administration. We DID NOT torture, we DO NOT torture. We should not be suckered into discussing "torture" as if waterboarding IS torture. That's what the democrats want. We can debate waterboarding, but NOT torture by the Bush administration. And, we should not allow the three conditions that must be present in order for waterboarding to occur to be ignored as if they weren't there.
Once again, the democrats are depending on our inert population to accept the media headlines and politician’s talking points as gospel truth that the Bush administration tortured detainees. The public really does deserve to be told the truth.
Unfortunately, the democrat-controlled media is not gonna do it.