Blog > News > Waterboarding Definition

Waterboarding Definition

Posted on April 20, 2009

Waterboarding is a form of torture[1][2] that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water the subject experiences drowning and is caused to believe they are about to die.[3] It is considered a form of torture by legal experts,[4][5] politicians, war veterans,[6][7] intelligence officials,[8] military judges,[9] and human rights organizations.[10][11] As early as the Spanish Inquisition it was used for interrogation purposes, to punish and intimidate, and to force confessions.[12]

In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates a gag reflex almost immediately.[13] The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, ultimately, death.[4] Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.[14]

In 2007 it was reported that the CIA was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners and that the United States Department of Justice had authorized the procedure,[15][16] a revelation that sparked a worldwide political scandal. Al-Qaeda suspects upon whom the CIA is known to have used waterboarding include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.[17][18]

Technique

The waterboarding technique was characterized in 2005 by former CIA director Porter J. Goss as a “professional interrogation technique”.[10] According to press accounts, a cloth or plastic wrap is placed over or in the person’s mouth, and water is poured on to the person’s head. As far as the details of this technique, press accounts differ – one article describes “dripping water into a wet cloth over a suspect’s face”,[19] another states that “cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him”.[13]

The United States’s Office of Legal Counsel stated the CIA’s definition of waterboarding in a Top Secret 2002 memorandum as follows:

In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual’s feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth… During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths… The procedure may then be repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with a spout… You have… informed us that it is likely that this procedure would not last more than twenty minutes in any one application.” [20]

Dating back to the Spanish Inquisition, the technique has been favored because, unlike most other torture techniques, it produces no marks on the body.[21] CIA officers who have subjected themselves to the technique have lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in.[13]

Information retrieved from the waterboarding may not be reliable because a person under such duress may admit to anything, as harsh interrogation techniques lead to false confessions. “The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law”, says John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.[13] It is “bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture’s bad enough”, said former CIA officer Bob Baer.[13]

Reported demonstrations

Two televised segments, one from Fox News and one from Current TV, demonstrate a waterboarding technique.[22][23] In the videos, each correspondent is held against a board by the interrogators. In the Current TV segment, a rag is then forced into the correspondent’s mouth, and several pitchers of water are poured onto the rag. The interrogators periodically remove the rag, and the correspondent is seen to gasp for breath. The Fox News segment mentions five “phases” of which the first three are shown. In the first phase, water is simply poured onto the correspondent’s face. The second phase is similar to the Current TV episode. In phase three, plastic wrap is placed over the correspondent’s face, and a hole is poked into it over his mouth. Water is poured into his mouth through the hole, causing him to gag. He mentions that it really does cause him to gag; that it could lead to asphyxiation; and that he could stand it for only a few seconds.

There are several different varieties of interrogation techniques referred to as waterboarding.

n the medieval form of waterboarding, a victim was strapped to a board and tipped back or lowered into a body of water until he or she believed that drowning was imminent. The subject was then removed from the water and revived. If necessary the process was repeated.

There are other forms, but all of them have in common that the victim almost drowns but is rescued or re-animated just before death occurs. The technique is designed to be both psychological and physical. The psychological effect is that the victim is led to believe that he or she is being executed. This reinforces the interrogator’s control and makes the victim experience mortal fear. The physical effects are extreme pain and damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation and sometimes broken bones because of the restraints on the struggling victim.

A similar technique was applied to punish scolds and detect supposed witches. In a trial by ordeal called “dunking” or “ducking,” supposed witches were immersed into a vat of water or pond, and taken out after some time, when the victim was given the opportunity to confess. If she confessed, she was killed; if she did not confess, she was submerged again. This process was usually repeated until the victim either drowned or submitted herself to execution in another way (hanging or, rarely, burning).

Current uses of waterboarding

The current practice of waterboarding was known previously as “the water cure.” It involves tying the victim to a board with the head lower than the feet so that he or she is unable to move. A piece of cloth is held tightly over the face, and water is poured onto the cloth. Breathing is extremely difficult and the victim will be in fear of imminent death by asphyxiation. However, it is relatively difficult to aspirate a large amount of water since the lungs are higher than the mouth, and the victim is unlikely [but quite possible] actually to die if this is done by skilled practitioners. [No definition of skilled practitioners provided by Wikipedia, but when used with the word torture, it should probably be found in close proximity to executioner or bully. Required qualities for such a practitioner would be a rather low self esteem and a desire to see others suffer. These qualities are regularly found in armed services and guards. Furthermore, people doubt this are generally those same people who would perform torture on others. It is nothing more than a sadistic practice that has no positive outcome on gaining truthful information. Quite the contrary, even the military has stated repeatedly that tortured prisoners state what their torturers want to hear in order to stop the torture. This fact is obvious once someone experiences waterboarding. Experiencing waterboarding is to experience drowning.] Waterboarding may be used by captors who wish to impose anguish without leaving marks on their victims as evidence.

This is a technique demonstrated on U.S. military personnel by other U.S. military personnel when they are being taught to resist enemy interrogations in the event of capture (see SERE below).

On Nov. 18, 2005, Brian Ross and Richard Esposito described the CIA’s “waterboarding” technique as follows in an article posted on the ABC News web site: “The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda’s toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess. ‘The person believes they [sic] are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law,’ said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.” [1]

Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, has treated “a number of people” who had been subjected to forms of near-asphyxiation, including “water-boarding,” in which a suspect is bound and immersed in water until he nearly drowns. An interview for the New Yorker states:

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. [2]

References

(1) CIA’s Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described Sources Say Agency’s Tactics Lead to Questionable Confessions, Sometimes to Death
BRIAN ROSS and RICHARD ESPOSITO / ABC News 18nov2005

(2) Outsourcing Torture: The Secret History of America’s “Extraordinary Rendition” Program JANE MAYER / The New Yorker 14feb2005

In an editorial Thursday (free registration required), the Wall Street Journal describes waterboarding as “the most coercive interrogation technique that was ever actually authorized” against Al Qaeda. According to the Journal, “it involves strapping a detainee down, wrapping his face in a wet towel and dripping water on it to produce the sensation of drowning.” This, the Journal says, “is pushing the boundary of tolerable behavior” but the editors ask for a debate on the question of whether it is “immoral, or unjustified, in the cause of preventing another mass casualty attack on U.S. soil.”

This afternoon, James Taranto quotes the Journal’s definition in his Best of the Web Today column on the WSJ’s OpinionJournal.com site, using it to mock Ted Kennedy, who referred to descriptions of waterboarding as “drowning someone to that kind of point” during confirmation hearings for Alberto Gonzales yesterday.

But dripping water on a towel didn’t sound like what I had read about in the past, and it turns out that other journalists describe the practice very differently than the Journal. The New York Times reported in May that waterboarding was used by the CIA on Khalid Shaik Mohammed, an Al Qaeda leader. This is how the paper described the practice: “a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown.” No towels, no dripping — the prisoner is pushed under water. And today the Washington Post defined waterboarding as “an interrogation technique in which a detainee is strapped to a board and pushed underwater to make him think he might drown.”

So who’s right? This is a hugely important issue, both for US policy toward its prisoners and for the Gonzales confirmation hearings. It would be nice to get some clarity from the press.

Update 1/19: Taranto points out by email that a January 4 story in the Post uses the Journal’s definition. I’m emailing the paper to try to get some clarity on this. I’ll update this post if I find out more.

Update 1/20: R. Jeffrey Smith, one of the authors of the January 4 story cited above, responded to my email to say that he is confident that the dripping-water definition is correct:

Mr. Nyhan —
Thank you for calling attention to conflicting accounts in the Post and other newspapers of the interrogation technique known as waterboarding. I am utterly confident — based on careful reporting — that the description of this technique in our recent article about Mr. Gonzales is a correct and complete account, and that the other depictions are, at best, loosely paraphrased accounts of this technique.

All best regards,
R. Jeffrey Smith

source: http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/01/what_is_waterbo.html 24dec2005

What is Waterboarding? (Part II) BRENDAN HYHAN / Blog 13feb2005

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.
[source: http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/02/what_is_waterbo.html 24dec2005]

Categories: News

Leave Comment

(required)

(required)