by Eric Martin
Mark Benjamin at Salon has a very disturbing piece that recounts details of the Bush administration's infamous use of the waterboarding technique for torturing certain detainees accused of belonging to al-Qaeda:
Self-proclaimed waterboarding fan Dick Cheney called it a no-brainer in a 2006 radio interview: Terror suspects should get a "a dunk in the water." But recently released internal documents reveal the controversial "enhanced interrogation" practice was far more brutal on detainees than Cheney's description sounds, and was administered with meticulous cruelty.
Interrogators pumped detainees full of so much water that the CIA turned to a special saline solution to minimize the risk of death, the documents show. The agency used a gurney "specially designed" to tilt backwards at a perfect angle to maximize the water entering the prisoner's nose and mouth, intensifying the sense of choking – and to be lifted upright quickly in the event that a prisoner stopped breathing.
The documents also lay out, in chilling detail, exactly what should occur in each two-hour waterboarding "session." Interrogators were instructed to start pouring water right after a detainee exhaled, to ensure he inhaled water, not air, in his next breath. They could use their hands to "dam the runoff" and prevent water from spilling out of a detainee's mouth. They were allowed six separate 40-second "applications" of liquid in each two-hour session – and could dump water over a detainee's nose and mouth for a total of 12 minutes a day. Finally, to keep detainees alive even if they inhaled their own vomit during a session – a not-uncommon side effect of waterboarding – the prisoners were kept on a liquid diet. The agency recommended Ensure Plus.
Naturally, the torture protocol was endorsed by lawyers within the Bush administration:
These torture guidelines were contained in a ream of internal government documents made public over the past year, including a legal review of Bush-era CIA interrogations by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility released late last month.
Though public, the hundreds of pages of documents authorizing or later reviewing the agency's "enhanced interrogation program" haven't been mined for waterboarding details until now. While Bush-Cheney officials defended the legality and safety of waterboarding by noting the practice has been used to train U.S. service members to resist torture, the documents show that the agency's methods went far beyond anything ever done to a soldier during training. U.S. soldiers, for example, were generally waterboarded with a cloth over their face one time, never more than twice, for about 20 seconds, the CIA admits in its own documents.
These memos show the CIA went much further than that with terror suspects, using huge and dangerous quantities of liquid over long periods of time. The CIA's waterboarding was "different" from training for elite soldiers, according to the Justice Department document released last month. [...]
One of the more interesting revelations in the documents is the use of a saline solution in waterboarding. Why? Because the CIA forced such massive quantities of water into the mouths and noses of detainees, prisoners inevitably swallowed huge amounts of liquid – enough to conceivably kill them from hyponatremia, a rare but deadly condition in which ingesting enormous quantities of water results in a dangerously low concentration of sodium in the blood. Generally a concern only for marathon runners , who on extremely rare occasions drink that much water, hyponatremia could set in during a prolonged waterboarding session. A waterlogged, sodium-deprived prisoner might become confused and lethargic, slip into convulsions, enter a coma and die.
Therefore, "based on advice of medical personnel," Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury wrote in a May 10, 2005, memo authorizing continued use of waterboarding, "the CIA requires that saline solution be used instead of plain water to reduce the possibility of hyponatremia."
The agency used so much water there was also another risk: pneumonia resulting from detainees inhaling the fluid forced into their mouths and noses. Saline, the CIA argued, might reduce the risk of pneumonia when this occurred.
"The detainee might aspirate some of the water, and the resulting water in the lungs might lead to pneumonia," Bradbury noted in the same memo. "To mitigate this risk, a potable saline solution is used in the procedure."
That particular Bradbury memo laid out a precise and disturbing protocol for what went on in each waterboarding session. The CIA used a "specially designed" gurney for waterboarding, Bradbury wrote. After immobilizing a prisoner by strapping him down, interrogators then tilted the gurney to a 10-15 degree downward angle, with the detainee's head at the lower end. They put a black cloth over his face and poured water, or saline, from a height of 6 to 18 inches, documents show. The slant of the gurney helped drive the water more directly into the prisoner's nose and mouth. But the gurney could also be tilted upright quickly, in the event the prisoner stopped breathing.
So, accoding to Liz Cheney, Bill Kristol, Chuck Grassley and several other leading Republican legislators and pundits, the lawyers that challenged the use of torture (and other gross perversions of the Bill of Rights) were traitors to the United States and the Constitution, yet the lawyers that signed off on the use of brutal methods of torture were...patriots?
I suppose that perspective depends on what you think of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Mark Isenberg has more.
I'm so happy Obama decided we need to "look forward", except of course, when we decide to look backwards to exonerate these war criminals.
I think I'm going to read nothing but Fail Blog and Espn. Everything else is just too depressing.
Posted by: Awesom0 | March 16, 2010 at 02:11 PM
Perhaps even more telling than not looking back is the consistency with which this administration is following the policies of the last, as the President threatens to veto the Intelligence Authorization Bill, from here
(Bold and Italics mine)
This doesn't sound very new or different.
Posted by: Marty | March 16, 2010 at 02:27 PM
That's a very good point Marty.
Not only has Obama abstained from punishing war criminals, but it is more than likely that he already has, and intends in the future, to utilize some of the Constiutional circumventing powers carved out by Bush/Cheney.
This should alarm us all. Much more than potential majority rule being implemented in the Senate.
Posted by: Eric Martin | March 16, 2010 at 02:29 PM
PS - Nice British Sea Power reference (I assume)in the title.
Posted by: Awesom0 | March 16, 2010 at 02:39 PM
The do-absolutely-nothing approach is making me insane. There has to be at least a real threat of investigation - I don't even care if Obama pardons everyone involved, but they have to be facing a serious threat of prosecution; acceptance of a pardon carries an admission of guilt, and makes it clear that what was done was illegal and that future participants should expect prosecution.
Just blowing the whole thing off is a license for future administrations to violate the clear letter of the Constitution, domestic law and international law, and get away with it. Just politics, you know. Just torturing a few people, just killing a few people - just politics.
It's pretty simple: we took people who were in our captivity and not convicted of any crime and tortured them, including killing quite a few of them. That's the beginning and end of the matter. I don't care what they had done, what they knew, what they thought, all of that is absolutely irrelevant. The US should not torture as a matter of universal moral principle, which is why it says right there in the goddamn Constitution that the US is forbidden to torture prisoners, why the US government has passed numerous laws banning it, and why the US has signed treaties banning it. It's as illegal as anything can be. It's exactly as illegal as walking up to an unarmed person and shooting them in the head. You wouldn't say "Let's not look back" about a murderer and you sure as hell should not say it about torture and murder by officials and agents of the United States of America.
This is not what this country is about. This isn't some pissant little banana republic that can just brush "excesses" under the carpet.
We should call this what it is: a war crime. The invasion of Iraq was a war crime, and institutionalized torture of prisoners of war was a war crime. And if we're not going to belong to the ICC, we need to take care of business right here. I'm a great supporter of America and American power, in general, but this kind of crap makes that position extremely hard to defend.
In practical terms, I think a lot of people just don't understand that it was plainly illegal. I believe that their view of prosecutions as a partisan political move would fade as it became clear that politicians violated the letter of numerous laws on this subject.
Goddammit I hate that this subject makes me go all Greenwald, but on this there is and can be no compromise until the law is brought to bear - and as I say, I could accept pardons, although I think they are a vastly inferior option to prosecutions - but I can't accept nothing.
Posted by: Jacob Davies | March 16, 2010 at 02:40 PM
That was it Awesom0. Well played.
Posted by: Eric Martin | March 16, 2010 at 02:40 PM
So, Marty, was that just a tu quoque, or do you not want Obama to veto the bill, or . . . ?
Posted by: Phil | March 16, 2010 at 02:43 PM
You've got this exactly backwards Eric. This actually proves that the Bush "enhanced" (I hesitate to call them "enhanced," they really don't seem too bad) interrogation techniques aren't torture at all. I mean, look at all the careful steps the CIA went through. They "turned to a special saline solution" to "minimize the risk of death." Would a real torturer do that? I don't think so.
They were so concerned about their charges that they obtained "advice of medical personnel." Who ever heard of a torturer consulting a doctor? And yet the CIA did (not that I support socialized medicine, mind you).
And look at the specially designed guerney, including the feature that allowed it "to be lifted upright quickly in the event that a prisoner stopped breathing." Nothing but compassion from CIA (in fact, I'm getting a bit worried this shows they're soft).
Also, there's this "They were allowed six separate 40-second 'applications' of liquid in each two-hour session – and could dump water over a detainee's nose and mouth for a total of 12 minutes a day." 12 minutes a day! That's all! Who couldn't stand something for 12 minutes a day. Heck I've been known to read tax regulations for more than 12 minutes a day, but do I complain about such torture? Nooooooooo.
Further look at this, "the CIA requires that saline solution be used instead of plain water to reduce the possibility of hyponatremia." I have no idea what hyponatremia is, but apparently it could be fatal. And yet the CIA decided to "reduce the possibility" that this might happen. Don't you see how caring they are? They also did this to "mitigate" the risk of pneumonia, and pneumonia isn't really that bad!!
So, in sum, far from showing that the CIA was torturing people, this memo proves that the CIA was very concerned about killing the detainees. And they should be! If they had killed them, they couldn't torture them anymore. Duh.
Posted by: Ugh | March 16, 2010 at 02:43 PM
Ugh, your logic is overwhelmingly persuasive. I retract everything.
Posted by: Eric Martin | March 16, 2010 at 02:44 PM
Jacob Davies: but I can't accept nothing.
You'll get nothing and like it!
/Smails
Posted by: Ugh | March 16, 2010 at 02:46 PM
Nah, I'll get nothing and bitterly complain about it for the entire rest of my life until I'm one of those cranks who's like "Nixon was a crook!" and your grandkids are like "Who the hell is Nixon" and you're like "NIXON RUINED THIS COUNTRY!" and they're like, "It doesn't look ruined to me" and then you're all like "Stupid kids don't know nothing, get out of here".
Like that.
Posted by: Jacob Davies | March 16, 2010 at 02:55 PM
Ugh, your logic is overwhelmingly persuasive. I retract everything.
The sad thing is, I expect a John Yoo editorial in the WSJ stating that all those facts show how "careful" and "controlled" the process was such that it couldn't have been torture. In fact, I'm pretty sure he's already published something exactly like that in the WSJ (or some other publication that thinks his views are worthy of note).
I'm also reminded of for some reason CIA director Hayden* testifying before congress and being confronted with the fact (discovered for the public by Marcy Wheeler) that KSM had been waterboarded 183 times. He seemed surprised that he was being asked about it and demurred saying that he didn't think that had been declassified, which to me indicated that he had assumed such facts would never become public and he could lie about how the CIA went about torturing its prisoners, "It's not that bad, and it worked!" Motherfnckers.
And, quite frankly, the Obama administration is turning out to pretty goddamned bad too.
*he may have been the former director at the time
Posted by: Ugh | March 16, 2010 at 02:56 PM
and they're like, "It doesn't look ruined to me"
I don't know. Seems to me that the next time the moronic brownshirt fncks get into power they'll be led by Monica Goodling and Bradley Schlozman and Erick Erickson, or at least people who think exactly like them. And they'll make the abuse of power promulgated by the Bush Administration look a lot like how the Bush Administration mad Nixon's abuse of power look like: chump change.
I expect, at a minimum, open and obvious defiance of SCOTUS decisions that went against them. Massive politically motivated prosecutions by the DOJ, orders of magnitude more than what Bush did. Outright theft of gov't funds via gov't contracting that would make Erik Prince blush. Etc. etc. etc. Only question is when, not if. Could be as early as 2012.
Posted by: Ugh | March 16, 2010 at 03:03 PM
The Obama admin has its problems but it does not openly condone the torture and murder of prisoners, which, I don't know, seems like kind of a big difference to me.
Still, not videotaping interrogations is lame. I have a video camera in my pocket the size of a deck of cards (happens to also be a phone), and they want us to believe that well-funded intelligence and military agencies can't provide field agents with the same technology? What a joke.
The recent story about McChrystal taking control of special forces in Afghanistan is a good sign, though, since from the sounds of it they were operating as roving death squads. The difference between Bush/Cheney and Obama is that the former would hear "roving death squads" and think "awesome!", while the latter thinks "better do something about that."
Posted by: Jacob Davies | March 16, 2010 at 03:06 PM
The Obama admin has its problems but it does not openly condone the torture and murder of prisoners, which, I don't know, seems like kind of a big difference to me.
No, they're a bit more discreet about it. See, ie, Bagram (the new, and old, Gitmo).
The recent story about McChrystal taking control of special forces in Afghanistan is a good sign, though, since from the sounds of it they were operating as roving death squads.
The problem with McChrystal's take charge is that it's still not clear that his prohibitions apply to special forces and CIA - as opposed to standard issue military. Roving death squads indeed, however.
Posted by: Eric Martin | March 16, 2010 at 03:18 PM
"So, Marty, was that just a tu quoque, or do you not want Obama to veto the bill, or . . . ?"
(I missed this before) tu quoque? I think the best (if not only) thing Obama has accomplished since entering office is to take a stand on torture. I would be very disappointed to find that he has just been trickier than Cheney, or only marginally better.
Posted by: Marty | March 16, 2010 at 03:48 PM
Complete horseshit.
At the time all this was going on, the Bush admin was not "openly condon(ing) the torture and murder of prisoners." They piously declared "we don't torture" until the evidence became undeniable. Only then, after the fact, did the open condoning start. And actually, there was a period of obfuscation before the open condoning.
At this moment the Obama administration is not "openly condon(ing) the torture and murder of prisoners." We do not know what it is actually doing to prisoners. We do know that it has taken gratuitous steps - things it was under no compulsion to do - to prevent anyone from finding out what it is actually doing to prisoners, and to prevent justice from coming to the Obama administration's predecessors.
Against its concrete steps to keep everyone in the dark about the past, present and future of American detention policies and practices, we can set some pleasant generalities it has uttered. The previous crowd was pretty good with the pleasant generalities as long as that was all they needed.
Posted by: Jim Henley | March 16, 2010 at 04:27 PM
I expect, at a minimum, open and obvious defiance of SCOTUS decisions that went against them. Massive politically motivated prosecutions by the DOJ, orders of magnitude more than what Bush did. Outright theft of gov't funds via gov't contracting that would make Erik Prince blush. Etc. etc. etc. Only question is when, not if. Could be as early as 2012.
I could see that. Or, they go the Full Monty on crazy, and get rejected (I could see that as well in 2012), regroup, and reject the crazy.
Not to get all Godwin, but fascism happens when the conservatives find that they cannot maintain power on their own, and must either cooperate with the radical right or with the left. Normally, this is an easy decision; I think that the left in the 30s was pretty scary and this altered the equation.
I definitely see a proto-fascist run coming, but I suspect by the time it gets here that the financial crisis will be far enough in the rear-view mirror that the normal patterns will re-assert themselves. Unless there's a new crisis to frighten the right into the arms of the nutters, I think we'll be Ok.
Posted by: Carleton Wu | March 16, 2010 at 04:28 PM
Marty's right. (Even if I doubt he'd have been so forthright if it were or will be a matter of a sitting Republican president - as someday it will be.)
Specifically, this: The administration suggests that some interrogations might be conducted when the detainee is in the hands of a foreign intelligence services or “under austere conditions under which recording is not feasible.”
Obama's administration is suggesting that it's difficult to videotape torture sessions in Uzbekistan or Syria. And the system set up by the Bush administration of having particularly interesting kidnap victims shipped off to countries where, far from trying to avoid hyponatremia, they don't even bother to make sure the water's cold.
It was clear since November 2008 that Obama did not intend to have the criminals of the previous administration investigated, nor their crimes prosecuted. Even pardoning them would be awkward, since to pardon them would be acknowledge that the crimes were committed.
George W. Bush can't serve as President again. Dick Cheney probably won't take on any formal administrative role in his state of health. But all the rest of the crew are alive, well, and perfectly able to serve in the next Republican administration.
And they will. And most of the Republicans who were happy to condemn Obama, will suddenly go quiet about the possibility that maybe the people who committed these crimes ought to be impeached, at the very least...
Posted by: Jesurgislac | March 16, 2010 at 04:30 PM
Jim Henley: Complete horseshit.
Friendly suggestion: is your intent to persuade, or to insult? They're kind of mutually exclusive.
Now, the Bush administration was openly condoning specific methods of torture while, yes, claiming that they were not torture. The Obama administration states that those specific methods were indeed torture and are prohibited.
That is a significant difference even if everything else was exactly the same, which, in fact, it isn't, though it certainly isn't the best of all possible worlds (or even "acceptable" in itself). Blurring those real distinctions because everything isn't yet the way it should be isn't very helpful. In order to measure progress you need a scale. In order to have a scale you need to draw distinctions.
On "doesn't look ruined to me", it's not even that In The Future Everything Will Be Great (although I think it mostly will be); it's just that people get used to how things are, however they happen to be.
Posted by: Jacob Davies | March 16, 2010 at 04:44 PM
Benjamin's piece is very good, and a useful recap, but (as she noted) Marcy Wheeler's been writing about the same documents for about a year now. Anything that gives the subject more attention is great, though.
Posted by: Batocchio | March 16, 2010 at 05:32 PM
Here's one of the things that the US Code says puts "aggressive handling" over the line from not-torture to torture:
The purpose of waterboarding is to totally and utterly freak you out, because you are drowning. You're drowning, and you can't do anything about it, because you are immobilized, strapped to the gurney.
You don't have "the impression that you are drowning", you are drowning. You can't breathe, because water is being poured into your airways. You're inhaling water. Water and, apparently, puke.
You're drowning.
If it goes well, you don't actually die, because they stop drowning you before you are actually dead.
The reason they have special gurneys, and physicians to assist, is because it's pretty easy for it not to go well.
The essence and purpose of waterboarding is to implement a credible threat of death by drowning. The threat of death by drowning is *exactly and precisely* what it exists to create.
Thinking that it's not really a threat because you tell them they're not actually going to drown is like dangling somebody by the legs from a 50th floor window and telling them you're not really going to drop them, or laying them on top of a big pile of wood soaked in gasoline while you toss lit matches around and telling them not to worry, your aim is really good, and you're not *really* going to spark it up.
It's not very convincing.
War criminals, the lot of them. We won't do a damned thing about it, if anything happens it will come from other jurisdictions.
Posted by: russell | March 16, 2010 at 05:54 PM
and that refusal to prosecute the perpetrators essentially decriminalizes torture.
Rendition continues, the present administration has announced its intent to hold some prisoners indefinitely without trial or charges, the present administration has fought for (and won) the ability for the Secretary of War to hide evidence of torture. Obama has now threatened to veto the Intelligence Authorization Bill if requires more significant Congressional oversight.
From the evidence available, I cannot conclude that Obama has stopped torturing prisoners. Obama's claims that "America does not torture". Bush said the same.
Posted by: elm | March 16, 2010 at 06:38 PM
Thinking that it's not really a threat because you tell them they're not actually going to drown is like dangling somebody by the legs from a 50th floor window and telling them you're not really going to drop them
I seriously doubt any of the tortured received assurances that they wouldn't be killed. The Haynes/Rumsfeld torture memo explicitly permitted death threats.
Posted by: BooThisMan | March 16, 2010 at 08:35 PM
I have no illusions that the Congress has the stones to do it, but it is not too late to impeach Bush and/or Cheney. Paragraph 7 of Article I, § 3 of the Constitution states:
The expiration of the former president's and vice-president's term did not make impeachment moot; the House can still investigate and vote articles of impeachment, with the Senate to determine disqualification from holding federal office in the future.
This is not a mere academic question. After serving as president, John Quincy Adams served in the House of Representatives and William Howard Taft served as Chief Justice of the United States. After serving as vice-president, Richard Nixon served as president and Hubert Humphrey served as a U. S. Senator. Walter Mondale served as Ambassador to Japan and was nominated to run for the Senate from Minnesota when Senator Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash.
An investigation, impeachment and trial would go a long way to restoring accountability to the executive branch of government, even if the subject matter is not as salacious as whether Bill Clinton stuck his rod in his staff.
Posted by: John in Nashville | March 17, 2010 at 12:42 AM
Heads on stakes
In front of the Oval Office
Facing inwards!
Posted by: Hartmut | March 17, 2010 at 05:29 AM
On these sorts of issues, Obama is just a continuation of Bush.
Or, if you prefer, he's simply put lipstick on the pig.
Boo. So I whine and complain. I give some money to the ALCU. Whatever.
Posted by: Rob in CT | March 17, 2010 at 09:42 AM
elm: ...refusal to prosecute the perpetrators essentially decriminalizes torture.
No, it does not. Torture is still criminal, whether it is prosecuted or not (and whatever the reason it is not prosecuted). And there is still the option, at some point in the future, of prosecution.
All refusal to prosecute does is give the perpetrators some additional time at liberty. And they have to know, on some level, that the threat of prosecution still hangs over them. And, short of a formal amnesty/Presidential pardon, always will -- no statute of limitations on war crimes.
Posted by: wj | March 17, 2010 at 12:13 PM
There is one limitation: Some of the worst offenders are by now quite old or not in the best of health (e.g. Dumsfeld, Chain-Eye, Kissinger). They can still run out the clock and probably do not really care what is said about them posthumously. Cadaver Synods have gone out of fashion.
Posted by: Hartmut | March 18, 2010 at 05:49 AM
There is one limitation: Some of the worst offenders are by now quite old or not in the best of health
Never say "too late": we can always piss on their graves.
Posted by: russell | March 18, 2010 at 09:25 AM
Jacob Davies: "That is a significant difference even if everything else was exactly the same, which, in fact, it isn't, though it certainly isn't the best of all possible worlds (or even "acceptable" in itself). Blurring those real distinctions because everything isn't yet the way it should be isn't very helpful. In order to measure progress you need a scale. In order to have a scale you need to draw distinctions."
Thank you, Jacob Davies. (I once said that I don't usually agree with you, but since I said that I almost always do - must have confused you with someone else.)
It galls me that people here don't take into account Obama's, Holder's, etc., personal history, and the political environment they operate in. Look for a minute (for one tiny example) to see what Obama faces in trying to get his preferred picks appointed to the Justice Department. If Obama were a dictator, I'm sure he'd get it done. Unfortunately, he's working in the context of a cumbersome system. As to the cry that "we don't know whether he continues to torture or not!" - that's quite true, and we don't know whether the commenters here have murdered their parents. The fact is, he has inherited two wars and a horrific policy that's mistreated some people whose cases are difficult to handle, both from a national security and political point of view. Someone should propose, step by step, what should be done, with an analysis of the probably political consequences. If they can't do that, then the complaints are pretty hollow.
Posted by: Sapient | March 18, 2010 at 09:50 AM