What is waterboarding? (part II)

About a month ago, I pointed out that the Washington Post and other publications have published contradicting definitions of the interrogation tactic known as "waterboarding," which is either strapping someone to a board and submerging them under water until they think they are about to drown, or placing a wet towel over their face and dripping water into their nose until they think they are about to drown. While both tactics are brutal, the first seems especially horrific, at least to me.

So what is the right answer? When I contacted Post reporter R. Jeffrey Smith, he claimed that he was sure that the towel definition was correct based on his reporting. But New Yorker writer Jane Mayer uses the submerging definition in an article in the latest issue of the magazine:

According to the [New York] Times, a secret memo issued by Administration lawyers authorized the C.I.A. to use novel interrogation methods—including "water-boarding," in which a suspect is bound and immersed in water until he nearly drowns. Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, told me that he had treated a number of people who had been subjected to such forms of near-asphyxiation, and he argued that it was indeed torture. Some victims were still traumatized years later, he said. One patient couldn't take showers, and panicked when it rained. "The fear of being killed is a terrifying experience," he said.

The New Yorker is a carefully fact-checked magazine. It's possible Mayer is depending on the Times reporting, which uses the submersion definition, but it's hard to believe that wouldn't have been independently verified. Once again, what's the right definition? The mainstream media is continuing to fail to precisely define a key term in the debate over US interrogation practices.

Comments

[tof]

if we are talking about pyschological trauma, both techniques may in fact cause the same long-term results, so the concern to discern the definition doesn't really seem so important.

[Tongodeon]

I've written a more detailed description of waterboarding here. I've also tried a bit of it on myself this weekend. It's every bit as horrible as it's described, and the cloth makes it worse in my experience.

http://tongodeon.livejournal.com/535961.html

I'm planning a public waterboarding of consenting participants on the west coast in the near future. If you'd like to find out what it's like, you are invited to attend.

[Hondacivic]

I think performing a public waterboarding
will be a great anti-war statement. All the better if the participants are arrested for disorderly conduct or some such charge,
as it will shine an ever sharper spotlight
on the illegality of Bush's torture chambers.

[Brent]

Waterboarding is a wonderful way to gain information to protect your freedom to be so naieve. If I remember right, the 9-11 terrorists didn't care about all of the people who were literally burned to death. I believe if it can be used to protect us from another incident such as 9-11, then go for it! It's funny how you will stand up for the protection of terrorists, but knock those of us who stand up to protect you and your freedoms. "Turn the other cheek, and soon you are left covered in bruises." No thanks, I'll fight back. So walk along your sheepish cowardly way, but stand out of the way of the Sheepdogs who are willing to protect you, and let us do our job!

[Lonnie L. Bailey]

If waterboarding terrorists saved one American life in this century, without shame or guilt, I say, "Fill up the pool and buckle up".