Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How Waterboarding Got Out of Control

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-21-09 08:20 AM
Original message
How Waterboarding Got Out of Control
Source: TIME

For years, the Bush Administration defended its harsh interrogation methods against accusations of torture by portraying them as a measured intelligence gathering tool that wouldn't be allowed to get out of hand. But with the release of the Justice Department interrogation memos ordered by President Obama last week, it has become clear that the use of waterboarding seemed to occasionally get out of control.

In sometimes graphic detail, the memos issued by the department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) reveal how the key conditions laid-down by the Administration were not always adhered to. Those guidelines were that the techniques were supposed to mimic the mock-torture of service personnel in an U.S. Army training program, they were to be used as a "controlled acute episode," and they were not to be used "with substantial repetition." (See pictures from inside Guantanamo Bay's detention facilities.)

One of the OLC memos, dated May 30, 2005, quotes an internal investigation by the CIA inspector general (IG), revealing that two detainees were waterboarded on scores of occasions in the space of a single month. In August 2002, Abu Zubaydah, the first prisoner put through the CIA's overseas detention program, was waterboarded at least 83 times; and in March 2003, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, was waterboarded 183 times. (These numbers were redacted in one version of the released memos, but were noticed in a separate version by Marcy Wheeler of the blog emptywheel.)

(snip)

According to two OLC memos in May of that year by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury, the Agency had informed the lawyers the waterboarding technique was being used on a detainee on a maximum of five days during a single 30-day period. On each day, there could only be two "sessions," in which the detainee was strapped to an inclined bench, a cloth placed over his nose and mouth, and water poured over the cloth - to induce a sense of drowning. In each "session," there could be no more than six applications of water to the cloth lasting 10 seconds or longer. No session was to exceed 40 seconds.

(snip)

In the 2002 memo, Bybee notes the CIA's assurance that "a medical expert with SERE experience will be present" when Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded, to prevent severe mental or physical harm. However, the IG investigation found that the waterboarding technique used on the CIA's detainees was significantly different from that used in the SERE program: most notably, the Agency's interrogators used much larger volumes of water.

The IG also cites the CIA's Office of Medical Services (OMS) in saying that the "the expertise of the SERE psychologists/interrogators ... was probably misrepresented." The IG concluded: "Consequently, according to OMS, there was no a priori reason to believe that applying the waterboard with the frequency and intensity with which it was used ... was either efficacious or medically safe." In fact, the IG report also hints that the CIA didn't consult the OMS on waterboarding until quite late: "OMS was neither consulted nor involved in the initial analysis of the risk and benefits of ."

Full Story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090420/us_time/08599189270800
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-21-09 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
1. what nonsense stories will the Corp GOP Establishment Media bury these facts in
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-21-09 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. They'll just ignore it, most likely.
I see this as 'Obama's Out'. This shows the interrogators exceeded what they believed to be the legal guidelines. Proof they did not act in 'good faith' to the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 01:59 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC