Video of Waterboarding of Journalist

[Pure]

paid for by the journalist. interview after.

[NOT for the faint of heart! do NOT watch this if you are a "sensitive viewer" who may be upset. graphic coercive technique]

anybody have trouble watching this?

(click on tv screen in the middle of the article)

http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/15053-getting-waterboarded

or

http://terrorism.about.com/gi/dynam...ttp://www.current.tv/pods/controversy/PD04342


====

article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kaj-larson/a-lesson-for-mukasey-why_b_70651.html


Kaj Larsen



A Lesson For Mukasey: Why I Had Myself Water-Boarded
Posted October 31, 2007 | 05:48 PM (EST)

As a journalist for Current TV, a former military officer, and a student of public policy I have been involved in the debate about the War on Terror from the frontlines in Afghanistan to the policy discussions of academia. In the spring of 2006 a battle was brewing between the Bush Administration and some influential members of Congress over the use coercive interrogation techniques.

The conflict over what techniques were legally and morally permissible had been a subtext of the War on Terror for years, but for the most part the debate was occurring inside of the intelligence community, the human rights community, and in small legal circles. It was outside the purview of the American public.

By April of 2006 the debate about coercive interrogation and its most controversial technique, water-boarding, had started to spill into the headlines. I was in graduate school at the time. As I watched the debate unfold, and listened to both pundits and policymakers give their opinion on whether this technique constituted torture, I was struck by the strangeness of the debate. All of these people were lobbying opinions about a subject they had never seen or witnessed, and that struck me as problematic in a healthy democracy.

See, in full disclosure I had a unique knowledge of water-boarding. I had the technique performed on me during my time in the service as part of my SERE training (Survival Evasion Resistance Escape). I, like all Special Forces operatives who deploy overseas, was sent to a training camp where we learned to resist interrogation and survive captivity, god forbid that ever happened to us overseas.

Ironically, one of the many techniques we learned during this training was to assert our rights as told under Article III of the Geneva Convention. So, because I was familiar with water-boarding, I was intrigued by this national conversation that was going on about this thing that few people really understood. But, like many Americans, the pre-occupations of everyday life, for me the pressure of mid-terms and exams, pushed the controversy to the back of my mind.

Then, in mid March I traveled to Cambodia for Spring Break. While there I visited the Tuol Sleng (also known as S-21) prison in Phnom Penh. The Tuol Sleng prison had been converted to a museum and memorial for the victims of the Cambodian Genocide under the Pol Pot regime. As I walked through the museum and saw the photographs of the victims of the genocide, I was shocked to see a picture of the Khmer Rouge Water-boarding a Cambodian villager.

At that moment I saw a throughline between the debate we were having domestically and the picture I was standing in front of. I was spurred into action, and upon my return to the United States, I decided to have myself water-boarded, this time on national TV, as a public service, so that this controversial technique could be judged in the court of public opinion.

Kaj Larsen's water-boarding video airs Wednesday at 7pm PST/10PM EST in a one hour special report on Current TV.

===

Mukasey's Nomination to Federal Court may not go through because of waterboarding issue:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...e_could_threaten_mukasey_senate_confirmation/

 

[Belegon]

Anyone who can watch this and then turn around and say that it is not torture has a very different moral construct than the one I exist in...

 

[Pure]

i found it pretty upsetting.

i do like the proposal in the interview: let a high official 'sign off' on torture, put his signature on a document saying "I authorize this for this case on grounds of imminent danger to national securithy." for abu ghraib everyone points a finger at someone else responsible.

 

[Powertone]

let's have the military supply the video of waterboarding rather than this guy
in a basement with his friend in camo gear and ski masks.
I bet far more bizarre and "torturous" techniques go down in a FRAT house
than this...sorry,but I'm not freaked out by this.

read the shit that our military went through in WWII and Vietnam if you
want to educate yourself about torture/brutality/horror.
this waterboarding is childsplay compared what the vets of those wars endured.
oh__some didn't survive their experience(s)__but whatever.

 

[The_Fool]

let's have the military supply the video of waterboarding rather than this guy
in a basement with his friend in camo gear and ski masks.
I bet far more bizarre and "torturous" techniques go down in a FRAT house
than this...sorry,but I'm not freaked out by this.

read the shit that our military went through in WWII and Vietnam if you
want to educate yourself about torture/brutality/horror.
this waterboarding is childsplay compared what the vets of those wars endured.
oh__some didn't survive their experience(s)__but whatever.

I think the line attributed to Senator McCain answers this. "It is not about who they are, it is about who we are."

The other comment that stuck out to me was (paraphrased) " 'These guys are terrorists, the Geneva Convention does not apply,' however the current administration has not come up with an alternative to the Geneva Convention for the treatment of terrorists."

I don't know what the answer is. The US is in a no-win situation. Conducting these types of coercive interrogations my lead to information that saves lives. On the other hand, it also lends itself the the perception that the US is the big bully to the rest of the world. The government wants to irradicate terrorism, at least the terrorism that threatens us, but we also want to be everyones friend. At this point those two goals are in conflict.

 

[starrkers]

let's have the military supply the video of waterboarding rather than this guy
in a basement with his friend in camo gear and ski masks.
I bet far more bizarre and "torturous" techniques go down in a FRAT house
than this...sorry,but I'm not freaked out by this.

read the shit that our military went through in WWII and Vietnam if you
want to educate yourself about torture/brutality/horror.
this waterboarding is childsplay compared what the vets of those wars endured.
oh__some didn't survive their experience(s)__but whatever.

What, so because someone tortured our people, it's OK for us to torture someone else?
No.
There was no denial that what was done to this bloke was an accurate representation of waterboarding.
If you're not freaked by it, it just shows you have no capacity to empathy.

 

[TheEarl]

Interesting video; I didn't realise that waterboarding didn't involve actual dunking head under water till I watched that.

I actually agree with the gentleman who called for torture to be available, but accountable. It's not something that we can afford to strike off a list of options, because there is the possibility of a situation where that information is more important than a human life (the oft-repeated nuclear bomb on a timer in a city example, for example). If the option is there, but the Prime Minister/President has to sign a piece of paper (that is freely available to find) that says, "I authorise this, for these reasons," then it would start landing things back in the democratic will of the people again, because there would be accountability.

The Earl

 

[Huckleman2000]

I think the 'ticking time-bomb' exemption is a crock. It's easy enough to go from there to the idea that "this terrorist is so dangerous that he undoubtedly knows something that would save lives if we knew it sooner rather than later."
Then you've got the FBI and CIA chasing wild geese over lies, delusions, and desperate rantings, instead of doing the investigative and undercover work that may actually prevent terrorist attacks.

In the world's eyes, America is the monster. And still, Bush (& Cheney) seem to want 'terrorists' to think we torture, while denying it to the rest of the world. More force is Bush's answer to everything. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[Pure]

notes to earl and huck

earl Interesting video; I didn't realise that waterboarding didn't involve actual dunking head under water till I watched that.

that's right. as you could see in the interview afterwards, not much water went into the guy's windpipe or lungs, some drops, and "vapor" as one person called it. but that much water on the nose and face, the cloth, the lowered position is apparently enough to affect the person into fear of drowning. even though in the journalists case his mind might tell him he's not (maybe he had an advantage over a captive).

i think the thing is great physical discomfort plus fear/terror. i suppose there are a number of ways to do this, indeed maybe just the latter can be done with mock executions, or--as we know for real-- threats to 'sic' dogs on the person who can't defend himself. i'm sure you remember the climax of the interrogation of Winston in "1984"; there would be terror, but no marks, just as the Bush folks say is OK.

====
huck I think the 'ticking time-bomb' exemption is a crock. It's easy enough to go from there to the idea that "this terrorist is so dangerous that he undoubtedly knows something that would save lives if we knew it sooner rather than later."
Then you've got the FBI and CIA chasing wild geese over lies, delusions, and desperate rantings, instead of doing the investigative and undercover work that may actually prevent terrorist attacks.

i think the ticking time bomb is mostly a crock. i'm not sure it's ever arisen, certainly not for the dozens or hundreds tortured. rather as in the case of Khalid what's his name, the CIA wants info on ongoing operations, some of whose critical events are possibly days, but more likely weeks or months off. so in fact the argument is more like "lives saved in the long run" than "lives in imminent peril."

one might mention, too, that the torture defender has it too easy when he proposes thousands of lives lost; MOST likely you have low level person, e.g. in iraq. and he has placed a roadside bomb. it may kill, ftsoa, 5 people, not 5,000 or 50,000. i'd argue that the defender's need to 'ramp up' the numbers betrays a basically weak position--so to say, an act that indefensible for 99% of the times it's used, and defensible only in the rare case of impending catastophe.


the other problem about the 'ticking (nuclear) bomb' is Do you have its placer there in custody? Do you have in custody a person who knows where it is?

In actual fact, maybe you have ten guys, one of whom might know. indeed none may know. but ALL are going to talk. make up something to stop the torture. so you're going to have mostly garbage with a few facts in there, hard to ascertain. further, maybe the one with real info slightly distorts it, i.e., says "postal station 42" when it's 43, and says "NE corner of the basement," when it's the SW corner.


if we assume for the sake of argument that the 'ticking bomb' will go off in 3 hours, there may be lots of running around pointlessly--enough to consume the 3 hrs.

i remember too, an interview with an israeli interrogation person. his argument is that the 'yield' from torture is often minimal. in deed, in the long run, simply befriending someone may work better.

===
And still, Bush (& Cheney) seem to want 'terrorists' to think we torture, while denying it to the rest of the world. More force is Bush's answer to everything. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

this is essentially the French strategy in the Battle of Algiers, as exemplified in the film. it's also related to Nixon's 'madman' strategy.

i'd argue that if Bush and Cheney make the 'terrorists' think the US tortures, they've likely make large sectors of the Arab world think the same. so, while it's possible that the chestbeating works, as it does for the gorilla, it's also possible that having the US be so "black" is an excellent recruiting tool and motivator. further, one might argue that a given person, possible recruit, is MORE willing to be a suicide bomber if he knows for certain he'll be tortured horribly.

 

[TheEarl]

I think the 'ticking time-bomb' exemption is a crock. It's easy enough to go from there to the idea that "this terrorist is so dangerous that he undoubtedly knows something that would save lives if we knew it sooner rather than later."
Then you've got the FBI and CIA chasing wild geese over lies, delusions, and desperate rantings, instead of doing the investigative and undercover work that may actually prevent terrorist attacks.

I get what you're saying on that, which is why I'd be in favour of the accountability angle, with every torture order coming unequivocably from the Prime Minister/President and open to the public gaze. They'd better have a damned good reason before they authorise it.

The Earl

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SEMEN4HER

Ah! Yes! In Vietnam the Communists didnt play nice.

 

[keeblercrumb]

SEMEN4HER

Ah! Yes! In Vietnam the Communists didnt play nice.

Neither did we, Brother.

And the "torture" and "inhumane" treatment we currently subject on our enemies is far less than any we have employed in the past.

And it is our anquish.... our shame as a civilized people.... that it is difficult and perhaps impossible to fight a "war" humanely. And we continue to try.

And if this war on terror is to have any moral meaning at all, it is only right that we keep trying... We will either be something worth fighting for, or we will not.

Take your pick.

-KC

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

KEEBLERELF

We do a lot worse then torture, mon ami. We torture when we want info, we assassinate when youre a pest.

 

[Carnevil9]

Of course it's torture. And of course we have to do it. When you try to "play nicer" than your enemy, you are going to lose. End of story.

You want security? You want to stay alive in the big bad world? You want your government to protect you? Then you can't bitch when they do what is necessary.

I don't recommend going into the back of a Chinese restaurant while they are preparing your meal, either. Just enjoy the food when it's ready. National security works the same way.

 

[slyc_willie]

When i was in the service, I had the opportunity to watch a couple of Mossad agents interrogate a suspect.

Took them about ten minutes before he started giving up the goods.

There's a reason terrorists fear Israel.

 

[Pure]

hi slyc,

it's worth mentioning that the same debate has occurred in Israel over coercive methods like "shaking", and cases have reached its Supreme Ct.

SWI had the opportunity to watch a couple of Mossad agents interrogate a suspect.

Took them about ten minutes before he started giving up the goods

P: hey, i've seen a LA cops deal with a subject and get him spilling his guts in five minutes. where no traces are wanted, while questioning down at the station, large telephone books are used.

so is quickness of getting someone's cooperation the sole or main yardstick? do you care if, when arrested, the police get out the blow torch and pliers?

of all the nasty methods that "work", are there any that the US as a civilized society should avoid?

 

[Fuzzy_Peach]

started giving up the goods

or at least said something, anything, to get it to stop

-fp

 

[cloudy]

or at least said something, anything, to get it to stop

-fp

Indeed.

I know, let's learn from Torquemada and his herd of minions. He got people "to talk," too.

 

[Pure]

(rose)

good points, fuzzy and cloudy!

 

[slyc_willie]

hi slyc,

it's worth mentioning that the same debate has occurred in Israel over coercive methods like "shaking", and cases have reached its Supreme Ct.

SWI had the opportunity to watch a couple of Mossad agents interrogate a suspect.

Took them about ten minutes before he started giving up the goods

P: hey, i've seen a LA cops deal with a subject and get him spilling his guts in five minutes. where no traces are wanted, while questioning down at the station, large telephone books are used.

so is quickness of getting someone's cooperation the sole or main yardstick? do you care if, when arrested, the police get out the blow torch and pliers?

of all the nasty methods that "work", are there any that the US as a civilized society should avoid?

I didn't say it was good or bad. I was making a statement. Obviously, the Mossad feels they need to resort to extreme tactics to get what they want. For them, it's always been a holy war.

While what I watched turned my stomach into knots, I can't deny its effectiveness. Necessary? I'm not qualified to make that decision, nor do I really know enough about it to give a decent debate. Again, I'm just making a statement. An observation.

 

[Pure]

hi slyc,

not trying to paint you as torquemada...

While what I watched turned my stomach into knots, I can't deny its effectiveness.

i didn't think that was at issue,


Necessary? I'm not qualified to make that decision,

who is? [deletions]

i think all citizens need to think about their country's methods, and if they don't like them, say so; not ask some gung ho general: "Hey do you think it's necessary to use poison gas on them "insurgents"?"

 

[Fuzzy_Peach]

While what I watched turned my stomach into knots, I can't deny its effectiveness.

I hear what you're saying, but I think it's useful to take a good look at the idea that it's awful but useful. I think there's good reason to deny its effectiveness.

As others have said, torture puts our own troops at risk of having the favor returned. Once on the books the use of torture becomes more widepsread. Invariably word gets around and that damages our reputation, making it harder to gain favor in hostile areas which in turn damages other intelligence gathering methods. And what do we gain? Too often, torture gathers misinformation requiring lots of dangerous legwork in order to verify what is true or untrue. Considering the high costs, there's real debate over whether it's useful at all. That being said, torture is not the only way to gain intelligence.

It's easy to assume that because it's so brutal, it must be brutally effective.

-fp

 

[Pure]

excellent point, fuzzy.

it's like the poison gas problem. heck it works wonders on the 'other guy'... "ooops!!! what's that yellow cloud coming this way???!!!!"

----
torture puts our own troops at risk of having the favor returned.

not just risk, but certainty! further, this practice makes any person fight to the death, rather than be captured; and if captured try to kill himself...

 

[Carnevil9]

......As others have said, torture puts our own troops at risk of having the favor returned.....

Are you kidding? Or haven't you been paying attention? Watch the Daniel Pearl video again if you don't think they are already doing it to us. The gloves are off, and have been for a long time.

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall."

 

[Fuzzy_Peach]

Are you kidding? Or haven't you been paying attention? Watch the Daniel Pearl video again if you don't think they are already doing it to us. The gloves are off, and have been for a long time.

from Washington's Crossing by David Hacket Fischer:

"Always some dark spirits wished to visit the same cruelties on the British and Hessians that had been inflicted on American captives. But Washington's example carried growing weight, more so than his written orders and prohibitions. He often reminded his men that they were an army of liberty and freedom, and that the rights of humanity for which they were fighting should extend even to their enemies. ... Even in the most urgent moments of the war, these men were concerned about ethical questions in the Revolution."

People have always resorted to torture and equated it with taking the gloves off or playing hardball, but that doesn't mean it works and, as Washington argued, that doesn't mean we should do the same in response to turture.

-fp