On Demand
Is Waterboarding Torture?
Malcom Nance, counterterrorism consultant and blogger at Small Wars Journal, shares his first-hand experience with the controversial technique. And Karen Greenberg, the Executive Director of the Center on Law and Security at NYU Law School, discusses the nomination of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General.
Daily News: I Know Waterboarding is Torture - Because I Did It Myself
Center on Law and Security
- About the Brian Lehrer Show »
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Tapes and Transcripts »
- Latest Episode »
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date.
Subscribe to the Podcast
YOU PRODUCE The Brian Lehrer Show
Be a listener-producer with facts, questions and people you'd like to hear on the air.
More
The Brian Lehrer Show Scrapbook
Visit the scrapbook for daily photos and miscellany from The Brian Lehrer Show.
More
Shop at Amazon!
The Brian Lehrer Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
Refresh
As Executive Director of the Society of American Law Teachers, SALT, the largest membership organization of law faculty, we join in opposing Michael Mukasey's nomination for two reasons:
First, his refusal to acknowledge that an act as heinous as waterboarding is forbidden under United States and international law reveals that he either lacks the most basic understanding of law necessary to serve or he does not have the courage or principles to serve as Attorney General under this President.
A second reason for opposing Judge Mukasey's nomination to serve as Attorney General relates to his defense of the President's assertion of unbridled executive power, including the power to ignore laws enacted by Congress.
Does it work? Let's try it with Mukasey. Let's have him waterboarded until he says "Yes, it's torture!" How long do you think it would take?
Of course, he'd probably start babbling as soon as he was SHOWN the board and the faucet....
What kind of statement is Lehrer making when he says that water-boarding does not lead to a real drowning? Of course, it doesn't. But you don't torture someone to kill him, you do it to manipulate information from your prisoner, in a most heinous way.
"Sorry"....
Like a sullen teenager responding to his parents' disappointment. He's anything but sorry and ought to have been backhanded at that point and the car keys taken away....
Your current speaker is right about the legal firestorm around torture. In the words of the president "Bring it on." This nation should embrace the torture debate and justly prosecute those in the government who support it.
This torture issue is troubling and reason enough to vote down his nomination.
Even worse, however, is that this man, a judge, believes that the President of the United States, is not beholden to the laws and the Constitution of the United States of America. If that is the case do we even need an Attorney General?
And isn't this the problem we've had for the past 7 years, an Administration that believes that it is a law unto itself with no one to reign them in.
Why can't the Bush administration brief him themselves? Bush can declassify anything he wants... right? Wouldn't that solve the dilemma?
President Bush and those who support Torture are throwing a red herring when they say it's unfair for Mr. Mukasey to state whether waterboarding is torture and illegal in general.
He is NOT being asked to express a legal binding opinion on a specific case or crime.
They are implying that by him (who will be the federal prosecutor of the nation responsible for prosecuting the violations of Federal law)making a general statement about torture he will be indicting, prosecuting and judging those in the administration who may have committed a crime.
If Mukasey states that he believes that waterboarding is illegal and is torture - as has been defined in our laws - it will help us to clarify the definition of torture which this administration has blured.
He is not being asked to indict or bring charges against anyone -
Mukasey should not be confirmed because he supports unitary executive theory.
He has stated quite clearly that the President has the right to break the law whenever he sees fit. Why even have law at that point? We obsess over an appointment as being socially conservative or liberal, but this issue of executive power will be the defining issue in the grand scheme of US history in the 21st century. Failure to curb it now will be the death of the republic.
If we, the public, know what waterboarding is via your radio show: what is our government doing considering a Attorney General who feigns ignorance of this knowledge?
There is a much more serious reason to turn away this nomination. Mahcasey's claim that the President can ignore and violate laws enacted by congress even after he signs them. There is no more balance of powers.
Hmm I guess the catholic church can say "hey there "degrees" of molestation..
Battered women, there degrees of verbal and physical abuse...etc
It would be useful if some of the other egregious things that Mukasy said in the hearings would be considered a bright line in whether Mukasy is confirmed; i.e., his belief that the president is allowed to violate the law. Not to diminish the importance of this issue, but if this is the only litmus test, the willingness of conservative/"moderate" Democrats to approve him because of his much-touted fabulous judicial reputation is high.
But torture DOES work. It gets the victim to tell you what you want to here. That's the whole point, and I'm amazed at how few people understand that. That's how the U.S. got al-Libi to say that there was a connection between Saddam & al Qaeda, and how the U.S. got KSM to confess that he was the mastermind of 9/11. Anyone who believes any of that crap is naive to the upmost.
Mukassey should not be confirmed. For this and the other reasons listed in the NYT Op Ed yesterday.
I agree with the guest. Electricity applied to the genitals will not cause death or permanent disfigurement (when done by "experts") but it is obviously torture. Water boarding is torture not because it "simulates drowning" but because it PRODUCES THE PAIN of drowning.
The entire dialog about "simulation" of drowning is not only ingenuous, it is a lie. It is the pain that is experienced that constitutes torture, whether it is caused by electricity, water, drugs or, the Pentagon's latest "humane" crowd control measure: radio waves that induce the pain of fire in the nerves without causing damage to the skin (as mentioned on All Things Considered this week.)
Another reason to turn down Mukasey is his very very very close ties to Ghouliani should he become President.
As for if waterboarding is torture....I agree, let's take all the proponents of it, do it to them and see what they say afterward.
As for that last angry caller who left the Democratic party......stop watching "24" and join us in REAL LIFE.
If two 18 year old senior classmen were to, as a prank, waterboard an underclassman. Would not the local authorities prosecute them for torturing another person? If two people did it during the commission of a federal crime, would not the federal exuctive branch prosecute the crime as torture?
I believe the current "debate" and hearings require that someone who has actually been "waterboarded" be asked to describe the experience.
Senator Schumer is the key, as he introduced Mukasey. Call Schumer (212) 486-4430 or (202) 224-6542. Call him often. You can also easily send him emails. I use the links on the c-span.org site.
I left the following message: would waterboarding be torture if it were done to a U.S. soldier?
That woman is too afraid, so susceptible to rhetoric of fear of this administration.
Bush is a fraud, he's afraid of being called out on it, he has the guilt of thousands and thousands of dead innocents on his conscious and he projects that fear out onto the world. And as the face of this country, the single most influential person on the national psyche, he is sowing that fear and revulsion into the minds of so many of our poor conuntry men and women.
Implicit in the justification of torture is a presumed guilt, or at least a certainity that you will be able to extract useful information. As we have seen from many of the cases at Guantanimo, US military intelligence does not always incarcerate and interrogate guilty parties. Can we justify torture for all, when a few, or many may be entirely innocent?
Mukasey was put up after Gonzales, resigned due to an ongoing scandal. Now if he is rejected, Mr. Bush threatens to hold the country and our system of justice system for the remainder of his term... outrageous. Some of the other issues: Unitary Executive, the politization of prosecution, abuse of NS Letters by FBI, warrentless surveillence, indemification of Telecoms for cooperating in non-FISA survellence, non-compliance with FISA, harrassment of librarians, GITMO.
"It's about immunity."
Ding ding ding.
At the end of the day, on the torture argument, I'm not as opposed to inflicting pain on terrorists to extract information. What I'm opposed to is making people inflict pain. Quite simply, when you dance with the devil, you don't change the devil. The devil changes you. Do we really want potentially hundreds or even thousands of professional torturers in our government? If they become desensitized to human suffering, even if it is a terrorist, it will be that much easier for them to torture political prisoners in the future. I hate to invoke the "slippery slope" argument, but as someone who came from a country that took what was viewed to be reasonable step to curb a form of terrorism and ended up murdering over 15,000 of its own people, I am leery of sacrificing our principles for expediency.
In defining what "is" torture, does anyone hear subtle-yet-ironic overtones of 1998....when we were struggling to determine what "is" sexual relations?
Arrest, detain and torture without due process. Rip up the constitution. But please PLEASE no hanky-panky in the Oval Office, this is AMERICA!!
looking back on history, We remember the
Salem Witch trials. Dunking witches was an act that we today look back with embarrasing horror. Then they feared young women of slightly varied religious persuation. Today we fear young middle eastern men of a different religion. This is completely against the philosophy that was at the base of founding this country
Our officials are acting out of fear. They are cowards refusing to stand up and acknowledge whats just.
bush-haters are coming up with rather weak reasons to reject this AG
i'd rather be waterboarded than take a ride with Ted Kennedy
The first question to answer in this whole debate is: What does the law really say?
I have heard people assert that the law says this and the law says that. What does it really say? I do not know.
It is so disappointing to have Brian's show continue the hype around waterboarding when Brian or the other staff members could get the law and some interpretations and have that as the basis of a show or as part of a show.
It could well be that the law needs to be changed to rein in the use of torture.
I am disappointed our government representatives arguing with the nominee as opposed to bringing forth those laws, quoting them for the nominee and then asking if they will enforce those laws.
That the folks are not trundling out the law makes me suspcious that some forms or torture are not illegal (and they should be) and that the weakness is in the laws and the laws need to be changed. Again, I do not know.
So, perhaps someone at WNYC would like to investigate?
I think the Senate Committee should deny the Mukasey nomination on the basis that he clearly shows no respect for the proper authority of the Congress to serve as a check/balance on the actions of the Executive branch. Like so many other Bush administration officials, he seems willing to subvert the long-term health of the republic and make a mockery of our country's moral standing in the world in order to protect his [prospective] boss's ability to avoid prosecution.
Hey Sophia,
Name a time & place & I'll show up with Kenedy & waterboarding paraphenalia.
To the lady caller who said she left the Democratic Party for, among other reasons, their opposition to torture since, according to her, Democrats think we should have tea time with terrorist suspects: I think she could do herself a favor by reading the Washington Post article a few weeks ago about World War II interrogators who noted that they got a lot of valuable information from detainees from taking them out for dinner.
I agree with a lot of the comments already posted. Torture is un-American and waterboarding is torture. Americans should be ashamed when America waterboards someone.
I find it so irritating that these conservatives who are trying to defend torture are claiming to be spreading freedom and liberty around the world.
The attorney-general nominee should not be confirmed because he will not enforce the law. And if Bush throws a temper tantrum and won't nominate another attorney-general, then we can start some serious discussions on impeachment for violating Article II's command that the president "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
dems are grasping at straws to torpedo bush ==
if isn't waterboarding they'd find something else to whine about
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the Attorney General supposed to enforce the law rather than decide if water boarding is considered torture?
But then again, every time I hear a democrat spout the terms ‘consensus’,or ‘bipartisanship’, I cringe, because they are really saying ‘do it my way.’
Ooohhh, the CHAPPAQUIDDICK CARD....let's all writhe in the collective Democratic shame we've been harboring for 39 years. Jesus. I'll be there with Ecahn, Sophia, let's see you walk the walk....
Is waterboarding torture?
I think we need only to look at the fact it was used by the spanish inquisition.
THATS RIGHT - THE INQUISITION.
Would Tomás de Torquemada use a technique that wasn't toture and simulates drowning?
NO.
Are we now Torquemada? This refelcts on all of us who live under this flag.
I am a child of the sixties and the Vietnam war. Yet, I have always avoided saying that I am embarrassed to be an American.
However, hearing our government leaders quibble over degrees of torture is truly embarrassing. I hold the Bush administration totally responsible for this situation. I feel that any political harassment they receive in this matter is justified and beneficial to the nation.
On the other hand, I believe that expecting a nominee to make a legal ruling on a controversial issue before confirmation is unreasonable.
So how does one square these two notions? Hmmm, that's a poser.
dayton
I would have loved to see the liberals dance around the question of water boarding and torture by us “mean” Americans with Ted Olsen. It was the liberal attitude towards terrorism during the Clinton years that brought on the 9/11 attack that took his wife’s life at the Pentagon. The truth is, is that this technique saved the country from future attacks. The liberals hand wringing is pathetic. The Constitution is not a suicide note that we wave in the faces of our committed enemies.
The Nub: Immunity and Prosecution.
Obviously, the Bush regime is torturing, waterboarding, renditioning/disappearing people. They are doing lots of other illegal stuff, too, that we don't know about, most likely. Don Rumsfeld ran out of France to dodge war crimes prosecution - for torture. These rhetorical and semantic flourishes the regime are displaying is the proof that they know they've broken the law, and they want to get away with it. They need another compliant AG who will not cramp their style, investigate, and prosecute them -- or resign in a flabmoyantly political way.
Sofia,
If one of our service members in Iraq was waterboarded, would you be ok with that?
You cant stand on the fence here and say its wrong in one case and not in the other. Just becaue you think it makes you safer does not justify the practice.
I would rather put my life and the life of my family at risk then life in a country that endorses torture. That is the American thing to do, just ask Patrick Hennry.
yes we should prosecute proponents of torture but i don't think we have a solid enough government to do this.
Also I think torture is one of the pink elephants in the living room - your basic man's inhumanity to man is everywhere a part of the way people treat one another (and animals) - the whole gamut - from nooses to the rapes in Dubai and on and on and on
I can’t believe we even have to debate this either. The reality is that we have already been threatened with a dirty bomb attack and we got lucky in catching Jose Padilla coming across the border through Chicago’s O’Hare airport. The human rights argument is philosophical and idealistic - and when idealism meets reality, then things not only change but they are forced to change.
No philosophy that exists in the world today believes that you should never defend yourself. That kind of pacifist silliness has been tried time and time again, and the result is that the bad guys and gals take advantage of those who will not defend themselves.
Do I like waterboarding - absolutely not in an idealized world. But if the reality is that I need to get information now to save a 100,000 Chicagoans, then as President I will authorize whatever it takes. To do any less is an abdication of my oath of office and it is morally repugnant as well.
What's really appalling about these Republican callers is their defacto approval and support for torture. Dems are called hypocrites for wanting to know what is and is not considered torture by our proposed chief legal enforcer; suggesting he is not fit because he will not commit to yes or no on this issue subjects the show's expert to charges of not being credible because she lacks hands-on torturing experience and what’s particularly hypocritical is this seemingly blanket acceptance of Mukasey's parsing and hedging on a crucial national and international issue -- especially with the outcry against Clinton for her parsing and hedging on the driver's license issue. The Republican mindset seems to be based on obfuscating the realities of our "war" on terrorism, defending those who fall in line with these actions as being tough and focused, and denouncing those who are sickened by what is done in our name as inept, naive or somehow anti-American. In light of this, the choice for our next set of leaders seems so obvious: if you're into torture, war and the denigration of the ideals our parents fought with their lives and souls to preserve 65 years ago, vote GOP; and if you're not, well regardless of who ends up at the top of the ticket, the Democrats are the only hope we have. I know where I stand... but it's scary to hear these people. In their voices I hear the sound, as Springsteen sings, of "something righteous going under..."
It's very clear that, like W & Vice, Spohia has no knowledge of what she's talking about, and when presented with actual information, puts hands on ears and says "LA LA LA LA" very loudly. I normally don't engage with trolls, and I'll be sorry I did it this time, but thought it was warranted.
How's that democracy thing working out for you Sophia?
Democracy is great.
One of my favorite Democrats is Ted Keenedy.
Kennedy is against water boarding? Wow. Could have knocked me over with a feather with that one. But I am sure he’d be OK with a technique using water where the person did not survive. Maybe if we changed the terminology from water boarding to “DDD” (Drinking, Driving and Drowning) he’d get more comfortable with it. Hell, he could even teach the class.
I am so sick of this administrations lies and deceit. Lies and deceit. Torture with this bunch comes in many forms. I have to mention Bush's refusal to sign the legislation to provide health care to millions of more kids because it would raise tax on tobacco products! Our own kids! Torture everywhere. It's unbearable.
24 is not real....what does Ted Kennedy have to do with anything? Torture is all cases is worng. end of story. America will loose its very weak international standing if we claim to be the fount of democracy, liberty and freedom and endorse anykind of torture. Including the process of rendition to states that dont frown upon it.
I raised my children by the golden rule of love for thy neighbor.
I am outraged that the Army of the United States has taken our children and taught them
how to deliberately torture their fellow human beings. (Is this what they meant by being
"the best that we can be?")
I am embarrassed for this army that has, by practicing torture ruined a proud heritage of
over two hundred years of righteous behavior.
I am furious at the people in this administration, who twisted the spirit and meaning of the
law to launch a loathsome policy of deliberate torture of prisoners.
I am mortified that the President of my country, who trumpets his support for "values" has collaborated in a policy of deliberately torturing human beings. What kind of values are these?
I think we should proceed so that it is completely understood that this country --- under God --- stands for human rights and values that do not include torture.
This should be the criteria in the any confirmation hearings.
Waterboarding is illegal under Article III of the Geneva Convention. Therefore it is illegal for the US unless the US removes itself as a signatory to that Convention.
So why can't this nominee just say so?
He appears to think that he must know whether there are violators within the US government in order to determine whether that particular action is a illegal or not.
This is just plain very bad legal logic. It translates to "any act is legal if the right people do it but illegal if the wrong people do it." That is counter to the entire basis of our legal system.
Sophia,
Jose' Padilla wasn't prosecuted for being the dirty bomber! It was hype. Fear-mongering for control. There was no evidence, and he had nothing to implicate him on that.
Useful sites: www.news.google.com
http://www.buzzflash.com
I think / hope, if you are informed, Sophia, you might have more useful opinions, rather than sophistry, and your vote counts as much as it can with the Electoral College and vote spoilage. Do us a favor and please stay informed. Thanks!
Fellow posters, thanks for bringing up the Unitary Executive issue. I didn't realize Mukasey was for that anti-constitutional claptrap. That, and his wariness to enforce the law, or even say he would, with regard to torture is grounds for dumping him.
eCahnomics, thanks for bringing up Chuck Schumer. I just put his name into google and got his website. The lower left corner has his contact link. Schumer's switching support would kill the Mukasey nomination.
The White House should overrule the CIA and return waterboarding to the menu of interrogation techniques available to those who question the Islamofascist agents who have dedicated their lives to ending ours. As KSM proves, waterboarding works. Shelving this tactic could spell the difference between connecting the dots before the next September 11, and having to do so after thousands of Americans have been converted into flying torsos and dangling limbs.
Waterboarding should be reinstated publicly. Let al-Qaeda’s agents conduct their evil with this thought in the backs of their wicked heads: I sure hope I don’t get caught and have to endure that awful waterboarding business. Publicly scrapping waterboarding has aided and comforted America’s enemies by giving them one less thing about which to worry.
Ending waterboarding supposedly burnishes America’s image abroad. That’s doubtful. Beyond the disdain this decision generates among those who consider it a sign of weakness, the Bush Administration’s critics at home and abroad always will find something about which to flog this country.
This has nothing to do with Mukasey. It is a semantic debate only; but it has potential real consequenses. They should confirm him because we need an attorney general. They apparently were prepared to confirm him unanimously before this purely semanic disagreement occurred. No nominee is going to potentially incriminate unknown parts of the government he is trying to enter. That is an unreasonable standard.If there was criminality, it is a much bigger issue and should not be addessed in the confirmation forum. This is a debate the entire country should have, led by Congressional investigations in their own right if there is reason to believe there was criminality. If Schumer and 98 others were going to unanimously confirm before (as according to Brian), they should not now deny the country an attorney general whom they apparently believed would restore some desperately needed order to the DOJ--over a semantic dispute that is a product of policies or actions the nominee was not associated with at the time. If they have a problem with his actual decisions from the bench in this policy area, then that is a completely different and valid concern.
This comment has been removed. Disagreement is fine; meanness is not.
BL Producer.
Leo - please refrain from name-calling. That kind of rudeness is not the type of behavior we should be teaching our children and using to set an example to the rest of the world. Meaness of spirit is something you need to work on.
Try to stick with the issue at hand.
And for the record, I am niether a sadist nor a masochist. My earlier point, as you know, was simply that I'd rather be waterboarded than drowned dead by Ted Kennedy as a result of his drunken joy ride. I suspect most people would agree.
Mukasey declines acknowledging water boarding as torture because he explains he does not know what it is. I didn't either early on in the discussions. I googled it. I learned that it has been done for centuries, is horrific, and not only gives the sense of impending death, but may indeed cause death. Its scary to imagine that a person applying for such an important position won't find out what it is so he can discuss whether or not he considers it torture and thus constitutional or unconstitutional.
The content of the above post is "scary" too.
Al Qaeda and its comrades understand the nature of this war and fight relentlessly to win. Meanwhile, like nearly everything else here, America’s struggle against Islamofascism is being lawyered to death by well-meaning, but clueless "googlers."
Brian Lehrer should be ashamed for framing this segment with: "Is waterboarding torture?"
This kind of "fair and balanced" nonsense, applied when a clear answer exists, is what has ruined much of the mainstream news during the Bush years. Posed with no context for the purpose of mindless debate, no matter how inane, despicable and artificial, this tactic should be beneath Mr. Lehrer and NPR.
Making matters worse was Brian's follow-up question for his audience: Is partial waterboarding okay? Hmm, I don't know. How about partial rape, Mr. Lehrer? Or partial wife battering? What about partial arson?
Waterboarding is torture. Period.
Finally, your guest's excellent point near the end of this segment - that the real issue here, beneath the absurd surface debate, is whether the Bush administration is seeking immunity for having already committed these unconstitutional war crimes - should have been the frame for an intellectually honest discussion of this issue.
Debating the use of torture threatens all of our citizens' liberty. Our founders would be apoplectic.
Brad Jacobson
--
MediaBloodhound
http://mediabloodhound
"Debating the use of torture threatens all of our citizens' liberty."
Another Bush-hater against free speech.
The hypocrisy reeks....
Brad...
how about "partial" abortion?
Sophia, you don't seem to understand: debating torture leads to debating racial profiling and illegal spying on citizens; it leads to internment camps and gulags; to coercing false
I don't walk around hating Bush. Hate is a waste of time and energy. Rather, I love my country and its people. Yet I don't confuse that with blind devotion to my government. That's irresponsible and dangerous. Rather, I love what our country is supposed to stand for and exemplify. I could care less about party affiliations and personalities; I care about my country and its citizens, as well as innocent citizens around the world.
Please wake up. Raising "partial abortion" is not a logical argument for torture, fascism and murder. It's just the kind of insidious Rovian talking point that prevents honest dialogue and independent critical thinking. Unwittingly or not on your part, it's an intellectually dishonest distraction from the issue at hand.
Waterboarding is inarguably torture. Do you support our troops? Supporting torture ensures our troops will be tortured. That's why the Geneva Convention were created.
So, then, are you for torture or against it? For our Constitution or against it? For the rule of law or against it? For our troops being subjected to torture or against it?
Also, Sophia, I'm not sure if you followed the previous "read more" links above. Just wanted to make sure you read my full comment.
"As KSM proves, waterboarding works."
How do you know that? Have you been "briefed into" the program?
You might also want to Google "Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi + false confession under torture + bogus Iraq/al Qaeda link"
why don't you serious thinkers next take on the tough question, Is Lynching Wrong?
Our country appears to be lost.
"We hold these thuths to be self- evident ALL MEN are created equal.
But you apparently no longer think so.
Yes, waterboarding is torture.
There's nothing more to it than that.
It is torture.
Torture is wrong.
I find it bizaare and disturbing that we are even having this debate.
Is controlled drowing torture? Heaven help us all!
People have been tried and convicted of war crimes for waterboarding. That we are even suggesting that it may be ok for our nation to waterboard is beyond the pale.
Used to be that former POW's of the US would literally thank us for our humane treatment. No more.
If we, as a nation are not rising up in utter indignation at this debate than we are on the high road to self-destruction as a society.
C'mon NPR, help us along: "Is controlled drowing really torture? You decide, tonight at 11."
This is just the latest in an exhibit of craven "journalism" that NPR puts on 24/7 365 days a year. They are Fox "news" for "liberals".
Leave a Comment
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Back to EpisodeEmail addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. WNYC reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the WNYC.org Comment Guidelines before posting.