During the Spanish-American War, a U.S. soldier, Major Edwin Glenn, was suspended from command for one month and fined $50 for using “the water cure.” In his review, the Army judge advocate said the charges constituted “resort to torture with a view to extort a confession.” He recommended disapproval because “the United States cannot afford to sanction the addition of torture.”
…
Stephen Rickard, Washington director of the Open Society Institute, says that throughout the centuries, the justifications for using waterboarding have been remarkably consistent. “Almost every time this comes along, people say, ‘This is a new enemy, a new kind of war, and it requires new techniques,'” he says. “And there are always assurances that it is carefully regulated.”
(excerpts from Waterboarding: A Tortured History)
It’s been said that waterboarding created quick, effective results after 9/11. That turned out to be a lie, an oft-repeated lie, but a lie nonetheless. The specific case mentioned was that of Abu Zubaydah. Problem is, interrogators had already gotten excellent, actionable information from Mr. Zubaydah, including the identification of José Padilla, the dirty bomber. That information was not obtained by torture, it was obtained through traditional methods. (Zubaydah provided this information between March and June of 2002; waterboarding was authorized in August of that year) In addition, recently declassified memos show that Zubaydah was waterboarded “at least 83 times,” [Ed.—or 83 pours, as noted in the comments below] not the 30-35 seconds that Rush Limbaugh and others like to talk about.
I could go on and on, but plenty has been written about the foolishness of using torture techniques that have been proven historically to provide false confessions, much has been reported following the declassification of the memos about torture. What is important for us to remember, though, is that we were deceived. Again. We put our trust in politicians and professional soldiers to give us reliable information about what they were doing and why. As the people of God, we cannot place ourselves blindly in the hands of ungodly people, letting them make decisions about whom we should hate, whom we should kill, whom we should torture and what is right and what is not. The kingdoms of this world, all of them, promote their own interests. They do not put God’s kingdom first. They will lie to us to get us to do what they want. They will hide information from us, distort the facts, and present partial truths. A quick look at history confirms this fact. Monarchs and revolutionaries, Democrats and Republicans, capitalists and communists, … we dare not let them make our moral decisions. They will promote their own interests by any means necessary.
Our government will never do that, for our king cannot lie.
In the interests of fairness and balance, there is some confusion for laymen reading the interrogation documentation.
It is far more likely that he received 83 POURS during considerably fewer actual interrogation sessions. The interrogators are required to document # of sessions, duration of sessions, and # of water-pours per session.
Normally I don’t recommend Christopher Hitchens for dogcatcher, but his Vanity Fair article on waterboarding is pretty strong.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808
Nick, I’ve noted your clarification in the post.
Again, not arguing yea or nay on the water boarding thing but Abu Zubaydah was water boarded to find out that info. I understand your time line but it does not take into account that Abu Zubaydah was sent to a CIA “black site” not in the U.S. or on U.S. controlled territory and he was water boarded to find out the info about Mr. Zubaydah, and the identification of José Padilla.
Again… just letting you know that water boarding was used as part of the Padilla information “retrieval system” used to get info from Abu Zubayah- according to Zubayah’s own attorney.
That’s not what interrogators that were present have testified. Follow the links in the post. One is written by a man that was there. It’s not my timeline; it’s the timeline of an eyewitness.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Once again you missed my point. I simply told you what HIS OWN LAWYER is now making the circuit and saying……
I was helping your case but since you read everything this “rightwinger” says or writes with a stilted mindset……
Hope your career really takes off- but you may not want to limit your “self promotion” (absolutely your words) to just one side because progressives are not very LIBERAL when it comes to financial support. I believe that your present employers wouldn’t see themselves all that far left.
BTW: Something that always escapes most of this generation’s commentators/preachers/pundits is that when you report in a pro or positive way or accept or promote an idea or philosophy or any matter of information (including theological)— that idea or philosophy or story or theology BECOMES yours. You can’t have a thought and then not own it……
Don,
I guess I still don’t understand. Part of my point was that the information wasn’t obtained through waterboarding. You posted something contradicting that, which you say somehow helps me make my case. You also referred to “my timeline” and I pointed out that it wasn’t mine.
As for the rest, thanks for the warning. I have no idea why you felt the need to share all that, but I’ll accept that you’re looking out for my best interests. I’ve always been too liberal for the conservatives and too conservative for the liberals. Some people are smart enough to say the things that will promote their career and please everybody. All I know to do is call them as I see them. Hopefully it will please the one I’m setting out to please.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Pingback: TimothyArcher.com/Kitchen » Blog Archive » Willingly deceived?