http://stream.luxmedia501.com/?file=clients/aclu/olc_08012002_bybee.pdf&method=dlFrom the Aug 1, 2002 memo (emphasis mine):
You have informed us that other services ceased use of the waterboard because it was so successful as an interrogation technique, but not because of any concerns over any harm, physical or mental, caused by it.
WTF? If it was such a successful technique, why would they cease use of it? Not only that, but the claim is that BECAUSE it was so successful, THAT'S why they ceased using it. W.T.F.???
No, really. WTF?
The next sentence makes clear that it's not a typo above, that it wasn't meant to say that they ceased using it because it was NOT effective. No, the author really wants to make it clear that it is effective.
It was also reported to be almost 100 percent effective in producing cooperation among the trainees. ... also indicated that he had observed the use of the waterboard in Navy training some ten to twelve times. Each time it resulted in cooperation but it did not result in any physical harm to the student.
Am I just stupid today? (no! don't answer that!)
My only possible explanation is that the reference is to training, and that once they proved to themselves that it was effective, they didn't need to continue the training exercises. Is that it?
OK. maybe. Even so, "100 percent effective in producing cooperation" just means what we already know: the subject will "cooperate" -- even if that means providing false information, if that's what the interrogator wants. So, when Cheney et al keep saying how effective it is, we need to keep reminding them of what "effective" actually means.
Or is this just more euphemistic language, "100 percent effective" = "REALLY good torture!" (So good that they learned very early on that it would elicit the desired result, and didn't need to subject their own trainees to it any further)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
