"Torture"  &  "WaterBoarding"

some unfinished thoughts of an ex-combat pilot
(who won't likely be subjected to it himself)

Ike Sweesy,  US Air Force Fighter Pilot, Retired 
F-4D, F-4E South East Asia
EF-111 Iraq, Desert Storm

re: re-defining 'Torture':   "the last one holding the chalk wins" the discussion

Torture is a legal, international & definition issue, and shouldn't be an emotional or political one.   I wholeheartedly agree that 'torture' is repugnant to us as Americans. WWII & Vietnam vets are all fully aware of what our fellow soldiers & airmen have suffered. It’s unacceptable.

But, next comes 'defining' torture. I've thought about this a lot, and I just haven't gotten it clear in my mind yet.   However, the 'embarassing' of Abu Ghraib prisoners isn't.  Nor is 'Insulting' the Koran at Gitmo. A 'beating' with bodily damage probably is.   At the Air Force Academy POW training we didn't even 'slap around' our "prisoners" (Cadets) even for training.  But, there were real psychological methods "demonstrated" on each of us.  I’m grateful for that training.

Before I went to Southeast Asia I already knew a lot about Torture - academically.  I was horrified at its prospect, but prepared.  I personally know two Vietnam POW's who were horribly tortured, and we all know about Senator McCain.  Before Desert Storm, we aircrew saw the intelligence photos of Iraqi torture rooms in Kuwait - it was horrifying to us, but we needed to be prepared.   So, I thought I knew what torture is, and so did most people.  But now, changing the ‘definition’ is a political issue.  Even some Conservatives are surrendering the definition, and are assuming that WaterBoarding is "Torture".

For 'detainees' clearly the issue is NOT punishment for being an enemy soldier (so the Constitutional "cruel & unusual" doesn't apply), but it's instead the getting of information. Why? To save the lives of our troops and citizens which is valid. That's where it gets complicated - the End does NOT justify the Means, otherwise any method of getting important information could be 'justified'. The Constitution doesn't apply to this, but the Geneva Convention and our American decency DOES apply. So we're back to definitions of what acts & methods are torture. 

Waterboarding involves personal, psychological 'panic' even though the intent & result is not actual drowning.    So do we define torture in relation to the subjective mental state of the prisoner! No.    If we do that, then we're back to 'embarrasment' & 'insult' as torture.  What about tickling?  You can see how subjective it can get.

But I'm still not ready to include or exclude waterboarding. It's not so easy for me yet.   To take it out of an academic discussion consider the relatives of those killed in 911, or of those who were beheaded by Islamic terrorists. Or, watch the Liam Neeson movie "Taken". You find yourself approving & taking satisfaction in his application of his "certain skills" from his "government job".

OK, Ike:    Here's something to consider: What if American service members were waterboarded?   Do you think the US government or the American people would think it was torture, or the proper treatment of prisoners?   What if it was your wife or children who were receiving this treatment?   Would you consider it to be torture then?

Very good question.    I understand what you are getting at Bruce, but emotion and attachment really isn’t the measure of objective truth & legal or moral definitions.  Would I like it?  Of course not.   Is it immoral.  I'm still not decided, but I have a hard time saying that it's included in 'torture", or is immoral, or illegal.  Could I change my mind, of course.

But, there are three questions.  The first is how should POW’s be treated in general, and the second is that there is a ‘new’ category of “Terrorist”; and these are completely different questions from the third of the Definition of Torture.   In general, Geneva Convention legal warfare POW’s (yes “legal warfare”) who are captured in battle should be treated according to the Geneva Convention.   What do we do with terrorist who really aren't covered?  Are there really "Enhanced Interrogation Methods" that are more than polite questions, but aren't Torture?   How do we protect civilians?  Is ‘waterboarding’ to get information ‘outside’ of the Geneva Convention?  Is it “torture.”  These are all legitimate questions that are gradually getting answers.  

But what someone ‘thinks’ is torture because of assumptions, sentiment, or emotional attachment is not relevant, and that includes me. Even 'intent' of the methods isn't relevant.  What is relevant is definition.    I know lots of people that ‘think’ that the Bible is the Word of God (and lots of people who ‘think’ that the Bible and Hell is myth).  Who cares what they think when it comes to fact (you know, “true facts”!).   Perception IS NOT reality - just ask the druggies on LSD who 'think' that they can fly.   Theologically, Jesus ‘thought’ that he was God, and so did Emperor Nero of Rome.  Were they both ‘right’, both wrong, or is there objective reality, objective truth?  Some ‘think’ there isn’t – a friend of mine doesn’t think that there is such a thing as objective ‘truth’.  Ravi Zacharias (and the Bible too) has a lot to say about that. Does the Biblical standard of 'treatment of your enemies' apply to Individuals and Government?  Does an individual have the right to kill someone who has broken the law, or does the Bible restrict that to Government?  Is all war immoral?    I settled in my mind long ago my positions on those issues.

So, if my child was a terrorist (not just a Geneva Convention POW), then I would expect them to give up information about immoral acts and plans either before the first ‘episode’ or after being convinced by the first experience.   Now part of that is the definition and application of “immoral acts”.  The “Code of Conduct” which I had to memorize defines a soldier’s responsibilities when it comes to “illegal (and immoral) orders”.  The WWII Allies assumed that principle as ‘truth’ when they prosecuted the Nazis.   They weren’t swayed from ‘justice’ because the Nazis had mothers and wives and children too (even Goering).  Neither are American courts for criminals swayed by emotion or connection.

As to American soldiers and airmen, if I were a legal warfare POW but was waterboarded I’d know exactly what to do from my training.   I'd sing like a bird with superfluous, technical, or ‘plausible’ data, and data that has the minimum impact.  And I’d resist to the max extent that I could, but we all have different breaking points, and that’s reality also. 

Yes, I’m struggling with this issue because people are asking me all the time what I believe about it.   So I’m analyzing it legally, logically, technically, and ‘verbally’.   I’m searching for reality and truth, not so that I can feel good about what I ‘think’, or what the world ‘thinks’. 

And Bob, I enjoyed your metaphor of an ‘air combat training mission debriefing’  with who the actual winners are who define things. I guess the Democrats are winners, so they get to re-define words.  I don't think so!!   You can say that Horseshit is "Fudge", but I won't be having dessert with you!   Reality & Definitions mean something, not just words.

But in WWII, the “last ones holding the chalk” were the Allies who put on trial Hermann Goering  et. al. at Nuremburg and hung 10 of them.  Last night I watched the History Channel about those trials (and I've visited Nuremburg & Dachau myself), and I just can’t be so cynical about that ‘justice’.  The massive and extensive (and well-documented) Nazi atrocities throughout Europe & Russia for which they were punished somehow just can’t be compared in the same breath with ‘waterboarding’.  

In the range of Interrogation Methods, actual "Torture" is at one end, polite questioning at the other, police sessions somewhere upstream of that, and "WaterBoarding" even further.  
But exactly where the line is, so far I'm inclined to make it at "Physical Torture" like was used historically and not to redefine it.  In the language of logical fallacies that’s called “Guilt by Association” and also “Slippery Slope” arguments, rather than addressing the actual specifics of the ‘waterboarding’ issue.

But Yep, humans are experts at ‘terror’ regardless of their political or religious label – Islamic, Jewish, Catholic, “Christian”, American, Japanese, Chinese, Babylonian, Assyrian, African, Californian, Iowan (I’m tortured by the Iowa Primary every 4 years), etc. etc.  And it isn’t just a matter of ‘religion’, but of power.  Those “Christians” of the middle ages just weren’t as imaginative as the Assyrians, Japanese, or Vietnamese.      Whatever happened to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”??    I’ll take Jesus’ principles any time over those of Muhammad (“convert or die”), or the middle-ages Popes’ (convert or die”), or “the masses’ concept of what is Godly”, or the Hindu social system.

But as to “waterboarding” of terrorists to get information about attacks, which is the real issue under consideration, you can say that I’m “splitting hairs”, but I just can’t put that into the same category as bone breaking, fingernail pulling, the rack, redheaded witch testing, or beheading, or Vietnam UH-1D ‘lethal’ interrogation methods.  Waterboarding may not be a pleasant bubble bath; but it is mental panic, not physical “torture”.   

Now having said all that, I’m still not ready to exclude waterboarding as ‘torture’.  Here's why.

Included in the accepted, verbal definition of the word is the phrase “extreme anguish of body or mind”.    Now the problem with that broad academic definition is that the historical military or criminal usage of the word “torture” has been in the physical realm (see WWII or Crime TV).  On the other hand, in the emotional usage we do say such things as “I was tortured by doubt”.  So, it’s the application of the word that’s also important.   In Criminal Justice we still don’t excuse or acquit a spouse of murder because of mental abuse.

So, maybe I’m “hairsplitting”, but I’m still undecided as to whether ‘waterboarding’ is truly “Torture” in the Geneva Convention sense of the word.  Definitions do mean something.  It’s what legal systems (sometimes called “justice systems”) are based on.  I’m glad to be an American since we can ‘debate’ these things. But they must be debated with logic, legal, and verbal reality; not assumptions or emotions however strong or convincing.

This is an important issue because I don't want enemies justifying real torture & murder.

Now Bob, as to your dilemma about finding in California sufficient quantities and types of ammunition…   
I too am stocking up for my 9mm, because I’m tortured by my doubts about Obama’s intentions for America.    And since I’m "holding the chalk" now, I say we prosecute Obama because he’s torturing with “extreme anguish” many in the American population.