What waterboarding feels like
The water fills the hole in the saran wrap so that there is either water or vaccum in your mouth. The water pours into your sinuses and throat. You struggle to expel water periodically by building enough pressure in your lungs. With the saran wrap though each time I expelled water, I was able to draw in less air. Finally the lungs can no longer expel water and you begin to draw it up into your respiratory tract.Link (Thanks, Danny!)It seems that there is a point that is hardwired in us. When we draw water into our respiratory tract to this point we are no longer in control. All hell breaks loose. Instinct tells us we are dying.
I have never been more panicked in my whole life. Once your lungs are empty and collapsed and they start to draw fluid it is simply all over. You [b]know[b] you are dead and it's too late. Involuntary and total panic...
So, is it torture?
I'll put it this way. If I had the choice of being waterboarded by a third party or having my fingers smashed one at a time by a sledgehammer, I'd take the fingers, no question.
It's horrible, terrible, inhuman torture. I can hardly imagine worse. I'd prefer permanent damage and disability to experiencing it again. I'd give up anything, say anything, do anything.
the latest
latest episodes
"I'd give up anything, say anything, do anything."
Which is why they do it and why it's worthless intelligence at the end of the day.
When the objective is to obtain truthful information then torture is less then useless. Nobody would use torture for this purpose. Although it might be a useful lie to pretend you do.
When the objective is to obtain confirmation of what you already believe to be true then torture will be very effective: You can get people to confirm any delusion you might have.
Okay, it's torture. But is it drowning? Nah, it's "simulated drowning", you're a godless liberal and nothing you say is true, and therefore it isn't really torture; you just want to believe it's torture because you hate America.
This is what we're up against.
I heard this line a while ago...and think it holds pretty true.
"The illusion of torture gets results. Torture only works in the movies".
Waterboarding is no more torture than redaction is kidnapping.
Wait...
There's no question that it is torture.
FTA:
"I'd give up anything, say anything, do anything."
GaryG:
"Which is why they do it and why it's worthless intelligence at the end of the day."
The first half of your conclusion is logical, but the second isn't. If the subject knows something of value, it will come out. It may be accompanied by dozens of falsehoods, but is that really a problem? With ample manpower, all statements can be tested. Also, do you really expect a panicked subject to be able to invent detailed lies that are indistinguishable from the truth on cue?
In an ideal world there would be no abortion, but a realist understands that we don't live in an ideal world and that sometimes abortion is the lesser of various evils. Likewise torture is abhorrent. However, real world situations exist where there are no better solutions. Take an extreme example... Your child has been kidnapped and will shortly be subjected to things too awful for words. You have captured one of the kidnappers who knows the details of the plans. You have only minutes before the information is worthless. What do you do? Call his lawyer?
#6: "It may be accompanied by dozens of falsehoods, but is that really a problem?"
It is when one of those falsehoods is, say, "Iraq has WMDs", and this "evidence" is then used to justify an invasion. Or "these people are terrorists", and those people are abducted and similarly tortured based on the falsehoods. Sure, with ample manpower, all statements can be tested -- but ample manpower's one of those things you'll only find in your ideal world.
hrm.. being captured and interrogated vs. being a passenger on a flight knowing you're going to burn in a fiery crash, and being alive for a split second as your skin melts and you gasp for air as burning jetfuel fills your lungs before you *actually* die...
Sympathy for terrorists and their plight is hard to come by...
#5,
I'm quite sure you meant "rendition" (here a transfer of a person to another country, e.g. from the US to Syria--see Arar v. Ashcroft) and not "redaction" (which, in the present context, is the act of censoring information before releasing documents to the public).
#8: "being captured and interrogated vs. being a passenger on a flight knowing you're going to burn in a fiery crash"
Is that really the choice? How about:
being captured and interrogated vs. being taken to a prison, having a lawyer assigned to you and enjoying the protections of the law under which you are being accused;
being captured and interrogated vs. having a really horrible experience in an uncaring system that, at least, is fundamentally designed for the protection of all people; or
being captured and interrogated vs. eating cake.
You can make emotional claims like "being alive for a split second as your skin melts and you gasp for air as burning jetfuel fills your lungs before you *actually* die" and I can make funny claims like "eating cake," but both of us are going to have to actually show that our claims have some basis in reality.
...Actually, I don't have to show that about my claim, since it's just satire and isn't intended to be taken seriously. Perhaps we can receive your claim the same way.
Even if torturing someone gets them to spill the truth among a bunch of lies, you're going to waste enough time and manpower sorting through the lies that the truth might be useless. In the mythical "ticking time bomb" scenario, this means you've just made things worse. (And as others have said, if you know that there is a bomb and you know for a fact that this guy knows exactly where it is, then you already know enough to find the bomb.)
But of course the "ticking time bomb" scenario is crap anyway. More likely is that you're torturing someone who doesn't actually have anything to spill. Then you just get a lot of made-up stuff, whatever the victim thinks you want to hear.
There's a reason that torture is generally used to coerce confessions the torturers know to be false. It's good at that.
And the thing is, maybe the guy that you tortured might have been able to tell you something useful, something that would have led you to the actual terrorists. But you tortured him until he told you about some fanciful plot to blow up an apartment building in Peoria, because you wanted to score some points and claim that your agency "foiled a terror plot."
Torture is not only immoral. It's also completely irrational.
I oppose waterboarding, but I was struck by some of the things the guy said. For starters, he said he was fine ten minutes afterward and he also said that he would give up anything to prevent it from happening again. Perhaps that's why the government does it. Victims are okay in a matter of minutes and they are now willing to squeal on their cohorts. I previously had the impression that people were dying as a result of this torture. Even with that fresh insight, however, I still oppose it. Humans shouldn't treat each other that way.
@prince andrei: The suspect won't have to make anything up; usually false confessions are simply exactly what the interrogator wants to hear, and it's very possible that the torturer will make known what his suspicions are during the process.
Take an extreme example... Your child has been kidnapped and will shortly be subjected to things too awful for words.
Of course this is a bogus example because we are not talking about individual actions but about public policy. There is a big difference between what individuals do in extreme circumstances and what governments do as a matter of policy. The one is an illegal act which might be justifiable in some circumstances (Depending on your own moral compass. I am expressing no opinion on the subject here.) The other is contrary to the entire moral and ethical basis of our nation. (In my opinion anyway.)
Even with that fresh insight, however, I still oppose it. Humans shouldn't treat each other that way.
Agreed. Now go explain to the world's terrorists that humans shouldn't fly airliners into buildings, blow up subways, or behead reporters and we'll be all set. Until you get around to convincing them of that, the waterboarding to get information to prevent them from doing that will probably continue.
@6: "Take an extreme example... Your child has been kidnapped and will shortly be subjected to things too awful for words. You have captured one of the kidnappers who knows the details of the plans."
This isn't an example, it's a fantasy.
In the real world, as opposed to your fantasy, you can't specify "you have captured one of the kidnappers." What you can specify is, "you have captured someone who you think might be one of the kidnappers."
You then have a choice to torture them or not, based on your belief about what they are.
This is one of the things that is inherent to "ticking bomb" scenarios: there is absolutely no plausible situation where you have the time to objectively ascertain whether the person you are proposing to torture is innocent or not. So in a ticking bomb scenario you necessarily have a very large risk of torturing innocents because you don't have the time to determine if you're torturing the right person. If you had the time, it wouldn't be a ticking bomb scenario.
Ergo, even in your fantasies, torture isn't an effective way of extracting information.
Likewise, @8, it isn't necessarily that people who are opposed to torture are sympathetic to terrorists. We're sympathetic to the vast majority of the people you would certainly torture who are completely innocent of anything except raising the suspicions of people so cowardly that the miniscule risk of getting killed by a terrorist scares them so much they will torture certainly innocent people to assuage their hysteria.
And all it takes is one innocent person being tortured to start a ball rolling that will crush more and more innocent people. By the inevitable Darwinian logic of torture, the number of innocents tortured will always outstrip the number of guilty.
If you advocate torture, you advocate torturing innocents, in the same way that if you advocate the death penalty you advocate killing innocents, because outside of the world of fantasy innocents will always get caught in the net that the organs of the state cast. And when innocents are tortured they will almost always tell the torturers what they want to hear, which will almost certainly lead to the torture of more innocents, world without end.
I don’t think anyone actually cares if torture produces results. The fact is we get to convert our fears of the made up demons of Islamo-fascism, whom are the scourge of the world, into action. Innocent or not, by punishing people who are different than the freedom loving Americans we (the Americans) send the message to rest of the world that we are crazier than they are so keep your evil eye off the blessed USA, and we can feel like we are doing something to protect ourselves.
Isn’t this the same fear we call justice when we execute people on Death Row in the US even though we aren’t always sure we are executing someone who’s actually guilty of the crime? Those damn Demons! If we can only put a face to them we can win!
Korpo: You seem to know a lot about terrorists' plans. OK with you if we decide you know too much and start waterboarding you until you confess your involvement with terrorists?
You will, you know.
One of the crazier parts surrounding this is that our training programs in torture and allowed forms of torture are based on the torture experiences that Special Forces troops and other groups in the military were forced to go through; this is because the military wanted them to understand that they would break eventually and confess to whatever the torturer wanted. This in turn, is because North Korea, North Vietnam, and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia had used those techniques on American prisoners and gotten nearly all of them to confess to all kinds of imaginary atrocities. (For example, US pilots captured by North Korea confessed to germ warfare after prolonged sleep deprivation, cold, and "stress positions".) We're torturing with the techniques our worst enemies in the Cold War used to extract false confessions, and then pretending that whatever confessions they produce are true, just as they did.
To make it shorter, the US has chosen to become what we once claimed to most hate. (And while I'd like to Believe it's just our government and not our people, the Americans who keep showing up here to defend torture prove that that's wrong.)
I'll add something to what Raland said, ie, the difference between a personal choice and a policy choice.
These sorts of actions should NEVER be standard policy...but, BUT, if you, personally, believe you're in a situation at THAT MOMENT where you HONESTLY believe you can get results in one of these "ticking time bomb" scenarios, well, fine. Do it.
The trick is, afterward, you should also be willing to admit what you did, then voluntarily serve your jail sentence afterward with humility and good will. If you REALLY think it's worth it to torture someone for information, well, then it should also be worth you owning up to your actions andit and submitting yourself to the rule of law afterward.
That sort of "rule" is always in effect anyway. The policy of the USA should be the opposite, otherwise we end up with idiots torturing folks left and right to find out why their Icelandic visas expired.
Have a look at this wiki page on Cheka torture from the early days of the Soviets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheka#Cheka_atrocities
Now *that's* torture.
I'm not saying that water boarding is acceptable, but to classify both water boarding and Cheka "atrocities" as torture seems a bit twisted.
Torture (done by the "good guys") is this century's gas warfare: of limited effectiveness against an enemy and demoralizing to one's own side. Aside from nukes and army capable of occupying at most 1-1/2 countries, all we have (sorry, had) is the soft power of moral suasion--you know, being the country of liberty and all that.
Pettifoggery over the definition of torture isn't moral suasion. Condi's beliefs to the contrary, the other guys aren't gonna think "wow! since you explain it that way, I can see now that you guys don't actually torture. Gosh, I never thought of it that way."
"Ticking time-bomb" scenarios are for people who are already know it's torture and it's being done on their behalf, so they need a magical excuse to soothe what's left of their consciences.
I saw it done in a movie once about some women's prison in the Philippines (about 44 minutes in). It sure didn't look like any fun.
It's the personal equivalent of a neutron bomb -- killing the "soul" but leaving behind a (mostly) healthy body.
Why do we call it waterboarding? It sounds like something that you do on vacation in Maui. It's a very weaselly term, just like 'enhanced interrogation'. We'd have a better time fighting it if we just called it water torture or asphyxiation torture. Why do we let the evil ones set the naming conventions?
How exactly do we know that it's not doing any permanent damage? The drowning cuts off oxygen to the brain, which will inevitably cause cell death. Are the people who waterboard doing medical studies? Of course not, because it would be immoral and unethical to do a study like that. That's because it's unethical and immoral to drown someone.
Waterboarding was torture when we prosecuted Japanese commanders for it after WWII, and it's torture now. Those who authorized it need to go to prison if the US is going to have even an illusion of moral authority.
Then we can focus on synergizing backward overflow.
The war on terror has given us so much new language.
Torture is now "interrogation technique"
War Profiteers are now "contractors"
Kidnapping is now "rendition"
When so many Americans get their jollies watching Jack Bauer pull the fingernails off evil Muslim terrorists and laugh at cops and fake-cops tasering people is the acceptance of this kind of garbage really all the surprising?
I find it remarkable that the right has so successfully stilted the prism through which we gauge morality that our discourse in this area tends to focus on whether or not waterboarding is torture - rather than whether or not being cruel to people in our custody is right in the first place.
Scylla's description of his experience of waterboarding fits well with existing neuroscience concepts of the panic state.
Neuroscientists describe a "hardwired forebrain-midbrain network" that operates in response to levels of threat. At lowest levels of threat, this network includes parts of the prefrontal cortex, which is part of the brain involved in complex thinking, and you can plan your escape. As the level of threat increases, the midbrain components of this network are relatively more active than the cortical areas; and at extreme levels of threat (particularly with decreased confidence of escape) input from the cortical areas may be inhibited altogether.
When he said his experience "bypassed lucidity" (#16 in the thread at Straight Dope) that is probably because his cortical reasoning processes were actually being bypassed. When he felt that he was no longer himself (#13) it was probably because those places in his mind that give him his sense of self were not functioning.
In other words, his description indicates that he experienced an extreme level of threat during the waterboarding experiment, the kind that usually only occurs in life-and-death situations. For me, this has resolved the issue of whether or not waterboarding is torture: it is.
(For a reference related to this, not an easy read and really dealing with panic disorder, see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5841/1079 . The concluding paragraph or two will suffice to get the meaning of the reference, for the general reader.)
f nly ll f th nt-mrcnsm tht cms p n ths dscssns cld b smhw ppld t th Syrns, rnns nd Sd rbns tht d thngs tht mk wtr brdng lk lk ptty-ck, myb w'd mk sm rl prgrss.
dn't qt gt th fcs n mrc-s-th-nmy, spclly whn blggd by Cndns. f y'r gng t trgt frgn msdds, mst f th wrst s dn by mddl strn gvrnmnts nd fctns.
gss t's cmplmnt, thgh. mrc s sn s th dvs chld whch mght cm rnd wth prpr slp n th wrst. W cn gt bttr. rn s sn s rbd dg, nt wrth ttmptng t brng rnd nd bst kpt wll wy frm. S w'll slp nd nslt mrc nd nvr-y-mnd wht rn s dng.
S, thnks, gss.
If my comment is repeated, I apologise.
I have read your waterboarding posting. I am still in the dark about the ABC's of it.
From what I gathered from the aricle I understand waterboarding to be the following:
First a detainee is strapped to a chair. (I get this much). Second, something about saran warp. Third, something about water and saran wrap pores. Fourth, something about lungs and water. Fifth, something about saran warp, water, lungs and dying. Sixth, sledgehammer and broken fingers.
How does it work? I mean, do you drink water and put saran wrap over the mouth or in the mouth... no idea.
I cannot pass a judgement on whether it is cruel and inhumane, as I don't know the process.
See, that's the problem, RealCatholicMen. What you see as Anti-Americanism, I see as patriotism.
For goodness sake, RCM...if Iran and Saudi Arabia are the yardstick by which you want to be measured, then commit to it once and for all and spare the rest of the world your "land of the free" bullshit and put any moral superiority to rest...
I read every comment in this thread, but could not identify a single "anti-american" one...unless not being pro-torture makes it so.
My God puyang and RealCatholicMen, what is the matter with you?
puyang
"First a detainee is strapped to a chair. (I get this much)."
No, you got even this detail wrong. Are you an English speaker? Are you unable to read simple words in English and comprehend their meanings? At least RealCatholicMen can do that much. Though he apparently cannot make the leap that to torture real human beings, even your enemies, is un-American, inhuman and un-Christian.
On this day of all days what the fuck is wrong with you people?
The concept of "anti-[name-of-country]-ism" should not belong in a democracy. It is ridiculous, anti-democratic bullshit, common in dictatorships.
What other democratic countries have this concept? Not for example Finland or Sweden. (Well, there is the concept of "unswedish" in Sweden, but that is used for describing something the user of the word feels is better in the other culture, such as maybe talking to your neighbours. (I feel this is a silly thing to say too, but atleast it's not ridiculous, anti-democratic bullshit.))
#30 RealCatholicMen
This is a lie. Read Overthrow, just for starters. The word you're looking for is anti-imperialism.Couldn't agree more, mannakiosk. It's actually a pretty interesting subject...there are very few countries that keep on flogging that anti-/un- line of argument. The ones that come to my mind are the US, Israel and Australia.
I'm sure there's more...I guess Mugabe wouldn't settle for "un-Zimbabwian" if he can just go for "un-black".
While the US and Israel would probably have some reason to assume that others could be "anti-them", Australia (where I live) has jumped on the bandwagon for no reason whatsoever.
Any old crap can be labelled "un-Australian" to score political points. It remains to be seen whether our recent change in government will make any difference to that.
I'm originally from Germany and the thought of being accused of being "un-German" is...well, pretty absurd, no matter on which grounds.
Is it torture? The Mississippi Supreme Court thought so in 1926 when it overturned the conviction of a black man for killing a white man, based on his confession after the "water cure", as it was called then.
http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2007/11/if_it_was_tortu.html
What total BS. How does this crap get posted to BB?
RealCatholicMen@40:
"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye." -- Jesus (Matthew 7:3-5, NASB)
We need to fix our own problems (encouraging torture, letting power-mad people run TSA without oversight, corruption in government leading to companies like Halliburton and Blackwater getting government money, and so on, the entire mess we caused in Iraq) before the world will take us seriously again. We no longer have the moral high ground as a nation, which makes it hard for us to make the case for being allowed to fix other people's problems.
"You're stoning the water boarder while seemingly ignoring the mass murderers."
And here you are apologizing for torture on the holiest day in the Christian calender. Tell me how that's gonna fly with Christ your Savior? What are you going to say in your defense? "When the weakest among us were tortured I didn't speak up because I couldn't be bothered" And don't give me any BS about them being "terrorists" (as if that makes it right anyway), most of those we've tortured were innocent and we've known that all along.
Perspective? Don't lecture me about perspective. You see, this post and this thread isn't about India or Africa. It is about torture committed in your name and mine by George W. Bush. And here you are on the birthday of Christ our Lord, telling me it's no big deal because everyone does it or worse. Yeah, you go with that, see how it works out for you.
I thought that maybe, just maybe you had some personal integrity. Turns out you're just another coward who denies Christ on the holiest day of the year. Congratulations.
I don't believe in Jesus because of Christians who believe in torture. My brain just can't handle the hypocrisy any more.
Merry Christmas. May you have a soul your God would be willing to have mercy on.
Bat Guano@43: The truth or falsity of the claim 'Jesus exists' is, unfortunately, not something that can be determined by observing that many people who make that claim are hypocritical in ethical areas.
But torturing your fellow man during the winter solstice still makes baby Jesus cry.
From The Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46):
Since suddenly we can’t agree on what constitutes torture, how about this for a definition: It’s not torture if [a journalist/random message board poster/Fear Factor contestant] is willing to undergo it just to see if it's torture.
With so many people trying waterboarding, it’s the radical new extreme sport of 2007!
I don’t see anyone trying bamboo splinters under the fingernails, or having ex-Nazis give them root canals without anesthesia. And this guy says he would sooner have his “fingers smashed one at a time by a sledgehammer” than try waterboarding again. Um, OK. I look forward to that post, which I suppose he’ll have to type with his nose.
Argexpat@46: We know that bastinado is torture, and that placing someone in an Iron Maiden is torture; thus there is no need for a journalist to investigate this. You seem to be claiming "if we don't know if it's torture, it's not", which seems strange. The journalist was willing to undergo it because he didn't understand the terror it causes; now that he does know, he is no longer willing to undergo it. Sounds like torture to me.
@46: How's this for a definition of what isn't torture: If the people who okay it underwent the procedure before they sign off on it. I would love to see anybody debating whether or not waterboarding is torture go through it themselves. Might as well get an expert opinion...
@40: "If we are going to examine the misdeeds of other countries, America should be waaay down on the list of evils to confront."
America is slightly closer to home. As in, it *is* home. Not all of us are Canadians, buddy. (For that matter, if Canada or Mexico were doing this, I might be a bit more concerned than over what is happening further away...)
@30: "the Syrians, Iranians and Saudi Arabians that do things that make water boarding look like patty-cake"
Yes, at least we're better than the worst human rights abusers on the planet. Yeah. I am so proud. So's John McCain. So's our veterans. Yep. Real proud. Yeah, we're not the most evil guys!
I'm curious, is a saline or partial birth abortion also torture? The fetus feels the pain.
I respect those who take an ethical stance against torture, provided they are consistent.
ctlly, fnd nmbr f sts tht sy tht C gnts r rqrd t ndrg wtrbrdng s prt f thr trnng.
ls, th "R" n mltry SR trnng s "Rsstnc", whch s t sy, th trn s trtrd s h cn lrn rsstnc tchnqs shld h vr b cptrd. dn't knw wht ll thy g thrgh, bt cmmnts 'v rd ndctd tht wtrbrdng s nt th wrst f t. Th d s t mk thm rsstnt vn t tchnqs tht th S wld nt s n rl prsnrs, bcs t's nt rsstnc t th S thy'r tryng t dvlp, t's rsstnc t prts tht my cptr thm nd wn't stp wth wtrbrdng.
nd 'v bn ntntnlly vdng gttng rlgs n ths blg, bt prhps jst ths nc...
Th Bbl ds nt sy tht y shld stnd dly by nd pry whl mggr rbs nd klls yr nghbr, nr ds t sy tht y shld twddl yr thmbs whl smn brns dwn yr hs.
Rmns 13:4 (rgrdng gvrnmnt's blty t mprt jstc)
"Fr h s Gd’s mnstr t y fr gd. Bt f y d vl, b frd; fr h ds nt br th swrd n vn; fr h s Gd’s mnstr, n vngr t xct wrth n hm wh prctcs vl."
Mny nn-rlgs ppl lk t qt "Th shlt nt kll" nd wv t rnd s f thy knw smthng bt th Bbl r Chrstnty, bt 'm frd t's mr cmplctd thn tht.
nd s fr prsnl, physcl vlnc, prhps ths:
Jhn 2:13-15
“Nw th Pssvr f th Jws ws t hnd, nd Jss wnt p t Jrslm.14 nd H fnd n th tmpl ths wh sld xn nd shp nd dvs, nd th mnychngrs dng bsnss.15 Whn H hd md whp f crds, H drv thm ll t f th tmpl, wth th shp nd th xn, nd prd t th chngrs’ mny nd vrtrnd th tbls."
Jss hmslf brndshd whp whn h thght t ncssry.
Th Bbl s ssntlly cd fr th dy t dy dlngs wth yr fllw hmns. t s nt n nstrctn t l dwn nd d whn y r cnfrntd by vl ppl nd vl dds. ndd, thnk t rlly ndrstnd, y hv t rlz tht th bsc dsr f Chrstn s t mk sr s fw ppl s pssbl r cnqrd by th Dvl nd snt t brn n Hll fr trnty. f Chrstn nvlvs hmslf n trtr, wll h b dmnd fr t? Wht f, s th x-C gnt clmd, th trtr hs srsly mpdd th nmy nd fld mny f hs plns? Hw wld Chrstn chs, whn frcd t chs btwn svng hmslf r flng th plns f trrbl nmy tht sks nslvmnt nd dmntn fr s ll?
Th nswr s rght thr n vry crcfx y s.
By actively supporting the use of heinous torture as a means of obtaining information (of inevitably doubtful quality or reliability), the US has lost any claims to being morally superior to Al-Qaida. While the actions of terrorists are completely reprehensible and need to be fought as intensely as possible, using torture as a means to obtain information means that the US has lost the psychological war against Al-Qaida by becoming exactly what their enemy has claimed they were all along.
While terrorists are definitely dangerous, evil, and reprehensible, I now consider the US to be the most dangerous political and military force in the world. You are no longer a democracy, no longer stand for what your founding fathers fought and died for, and are now merely another horrible empire in the making. How can you say that "all people are created equal and have certain unalienable rights" in one breath, then deny those same "inalienable" rights to some people at some time, just because you deem them to be possible enemies of your corporate state? By failing to live up to the principles upon which your nation was founded, you show your supposed dedication to them to be nothing more than convenient lipservice, and betray all those who fought and died to ensure those rights in the past.
I sincerely hope the US can withdraw from the current course it is pursuing and return to being a democratic state that supports human rights for all people.
If waterboarding was torture when it was done by the Japanese in WWII, or the Khmer Rouge later on, then its still torture now, and those who are conducting it on behalf of the US now need to be hunted down and tried as war-criminals. Preferably they should be subjected to a few months of waterboarding first to let them know what they have been inflicting on others.