Posted by
Gaius on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 11:44:14 PM
Allah has video of Brian Ross from ABC News making an appearance on The O'Reilly Factor. Ross confirms that the harsh questioning technique called "waterboarding" did, with absolute certainty according to Ross, produce detailed information that saved lives. Ross said the information came, in part, from CIA sources firmly opposed to the practice. Those sources appear to also have acknowledged that the technique worked.
It is very harsh. While it will not kill or produce permanent harm, it apparently makes a person feel like they are drowning. But, according to Ross, it also makes the subjects talk and give good information. There is no doubt, to me, that the techniques that the White House now wants approved, which do NOT include waterboarding, are not torture. Waterboarding appears to be very close to the line, however. It produces no permanent physical damage, but it sure inflicts severe psychological distress. While I am not fully comfortable with it, I would certainly have to - however reluctantly - agree that in a ticking time bomb situation, I would be a lot less squeamish about it.
So, I invite comments here, but I do not want to hear platitudes, high-minded principles or talking points thrown out with no justification. Let's make it specific so we're all starting from the same place. Let's make it a very limited discussion and put hard rules on it: A terrorist suspect is captured with detailed plans for a nuclear bomb, a target list that includes major US cities and a piece of paper that says the detonation date is three days from now.
What would you do? Would you or would you not agree to use waterboarding? Justify your answer.
(Comments should be left at Blue Crab Boulevard)