Before I discuss the other interesting things Barnett writes, let's do some fact checking on waterboarding:
Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.
According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.
"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.
The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques "appeared to constitute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention," the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005.
It is "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough," said former CIA officer Bob Baer.
Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and a deputy director of the State Department's office of counterterrorism, recently wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "What real CIA field officers know firsthand is that it is better to build a relationship of trust ... than to extract quick confessions through tactics such as those used by the Nazis and the Soviets."
One argument in favor of their use: time. In the early days of al Qaeda captures, it was hoped that speeding confessions would result in the development of important operational knowledge in a timely fashion.
However, ABC News was told that at least three CIA officers declined to be trained in the techniques before a cadre of 14 were selected to use them on a dozen top al Qaeda suspects in order to obtain critical information. In at least one instance, ABC News was told that the techniques led to questionable information aimed at pleasing the interrogators and that this information had a significant impact on U.S. actions in Iraq.
According to CIA sources, Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, after two weeks of enhanced interrogation, made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Sources say Al Libbi had been subjected to each of the progressively harsher techniques in turn and finally broke after being water boarded and then left to stand naked in his cold cell overnight where he was doused with cold water at regular intervals.
His statements became part of the basis for the Bush administration claims that Iraq trained al Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons. Sources tell ABC that it was later established that al Libbi had no knowledge of such training or weapons and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment.
"This is the problem with using the waterboard. They get so desperate that they begin telling you what they think you want to hear," one source said.
However, sources said, al Libbi does not appear to have sought to intentionally misinform investigators, as at least one account has stated. The distinction in this murky world is nonetheless an important one. <b.Al Libbi sought to please his investigators, not lead them down a false path, two sources with firsthand knowledge of the statements said.
So, not surprisingly, Barnett is full of crap. But now, on to Barnett's other statements:
Does it rise to the level of "torture"?
That's for each individual to decide.
No, actually it is not for each individual to decide. There are treaties that ban it. There are American laws that ban it. It is a war crime. But then, it seems that Barnett does not believe in treaties and war crimes.
What do you think?
I don't care. If some body of linguists or semanticists convened a weekend retreat in Cambridge, impartially studied the issue and labeled it torture, I still wouldn't care. The welfare of terrorists is not my concern. Even if all the Jack Bauer-type crap you see on "24" was the best way to go, I'd still be okay with it.
But it's not just terrorists. It's suspected terrorists. Surely that bothers you.
It does. It's inevitable that innocent people will be subjected to this kind of treatment. But this is war, and in war we make moral compromises. For example, normally we don't like to kill people. In war, we try to kill people by the thousands. That Amnesty International guy that I was on TV with last night kept whining that we wouldn't be having any of this if it weren't for 9/11. Duh. If we weren't at war, we could comfortably remain in the moral sphere that we aspire to. But right now, that's not an option.
But we didn't do stuff like this in World War II, did we?
I don't know. But I do know we fire-bombed Dresden. I know we dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I know that in doing these things we knowingly engaged in actions that killed tens of thousands of innocents. When you're at war, moral compromises are part of the deal.
Consider what Barnett is saying - there are no laws of war. The Geneva Conventions are meaningless. Crimes against humanity? Do not exist in wartime.
That is what the man is saying. That is what the Right is saying (Instapundit links approvingly.) So tell me again, how are we different from the terrorists? Nazis? The Khmer Rouge? Saddam Hussein? See, they were all fighting wars too.
The Right has become completely and utterly morally bankrupt. If that is what they want our country to be, then say it straight. Stop with the weasel words. "This is war" they say? Then say what that means and that we will be no different than the terrorists and the Khmer Rouge.
No more upset at being compared to Hitler please.
