One would think that everything that could be written about waterboarding has been. Yet the press continues to repeat the lies of ex-Bush administration officials about this procedure, even after they have been thoroughly debunked. In this first of a short series of articles, we will look at the myth of the safety of waterboarding, which relies on misstatements about how the technique was used by the military’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape, or SERE schools, whose purpose is to inoculate selected members of the services against foreign torture.
The Myth That We Do It
At a raucous July 19 appearance at the Miller Center of Public Affairs, John Yoo repeated his standard canard on waterboarding (from Brandon Shulleeta at the Charlottesville Daily Progress):
Yoo said of waterboarding, which simulates drowning: “We saw that 20,000 American military officers have undergone it as part of their training and almost none of them — or something like .001 percent — ever suffered anything from it. So based on that evidence we thought that’s not torture because it’s not physical harm and there’s no after effects.”
A week earlier, former Bush adviser Karl Rove, also on the talk circuit to hawk his new book, told the BBC that waterboarding was “in conformity with our international requirements and with US law.”
Mr Rove said US soldiers were subjected to waterboarding as a regular part of their training.
A less severe form of the technique was used on the three suspects interrogated at the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, he added….
“Yes, I’m proud that we kept the world safer than it was, by the use of these techniques. They’re appropriate, they’re in conformity with our international requirements and with US law.”
Leaving aside Rove’s provocative statement about waterboarding suspects at Guantanamo (see a recent discussion at Emptywheel), a topic to which I will return in a future article, both Rove and Yoo claim that waterboarding U.S. military personnel was “regular” and caused no “physical harm,” “no after effects.”
Neither statement is true. In an article at Truthout earlier this month, it was revealed that leading members of the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA), the executive agency in charge of all the SERE schools, had fought with representatives of the San Diego North Island Navy SERE school in 2007 to ban waterboarding practice from the “POW Resistance Laboratory.”
The memo, obtained by Truthout, stated that the use of waterboarding left students “psychologically defeated” and impaired in the ability to develop “psychological hardiness.”
An internal JPRA memorandum stated (emphasis in original):
Although the Services have the latitude to develop their own training programs, the training, tactics, techniques, and procedures should be safe, effective, and promote a positive learning experience. Unfortunately, the current employment of the water board seems to be inconsistent with that philosophy…. Out of the four water boards we observed, the instructor did not stop watering students when they started tapping their toes, but instead continued watering until stopped by the watch officer or until the totally defeated student gave an answer through the water. In one case two full canteen cups were poured after the student started tapping…. Based on these concerns and the risks associated with using the water board, we strongly recommend that you discontinue using it.
Apparently, Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA), the executive agent for all the SERE schools prevailed, and in November 2007 the North Island school stopped waterboarding its students. This was announced without fanfare, and without comment, briefly and in passing in the Senate Armed Services Committee 2008 report, Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody (PDF), released last year (H/T bluebutterfly).
In the report, it was noted that during the period when JPRA was providing personnel for training interrogators from an “Other Government Agency” (most likely the CIA) in Nov. 2002, “waterboarding was only used by the U.S. Navy SERE school and its use was prohibited at the JPRA, Army, and Air Force SERE schools.” While the report also states that, “Until November 2007, waterboarding was also an approved training technique in the U.S. Navy SERE school,” nowhere in the report is the controversy over the safety or efficacy of the waterboard in SERE training mentioned.
Despite the fact that the use of waterboarding has been controversial within the services — and that it has been discontinued in all U.S. training programs since late 2007 — there is no indication from the press or politicians that statements otherwise by Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, John Yoo, and others are untrue. Furthermore, by failing to bring up the issue, Democrats and Republicans on, for instance, the Senate Armed Services Committee are — though they may not have realized it — silently complicit in the spread of a lie.
Next: OLC and Waterboarding




22 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
What else can you say about the Bush Administration except that it seems they were wrapped up in bizarre tough-guy and sadistic fantasies that belied the reality of waterboarding – namely that it did not work. A black mark on our history courtesy of Yoo and Rove and anyone who went along for the ride no matter which side of the political fence they were on.
Yoo must be wrong.
Great documentation, Jeff. Pointing out the lies of Yoo and Rove is an important contribution to those who face the next out of control government.
It does not matter if the bushco crime family committed war crimes. We have Orahmaco, aiding and abeting the cover. Nothing will ever come of it. Perhaps the assholes will lose the ability to travel to certain countries. Meh….
In a preview of the follow-up article to this piece, we’ll see that Bradbury blithely brushed aside warnings from “SERE trainers” that waterboarding made students “unable to withstand psychological resistance”, and listened instead to CIA’s lying assurances.
The question is: what makes a person “unable to withstand psychological resistance.” The whole point of SERE training is to build up psychological resistance. The waterboard experience counteracts the body’s own defenses and ability to cope. In fact, even in the student’s SERE limited experience, it is traumatizing.
My guess is that more have been harmed by it in the military training schools than we know. If even the limited experience by trusted service personnel was too much, god knows what it did to debilitated and exhausted prisoners.
“Yoo lied!”
I agree, though in this case, it seems the entire government and the press collaborated in keeping the truth about waterboarding controversies within the military from being made public.
Great. Teaching our SERE students that they cannot trust their instructors to protect them (ie listen to them when they’ve “said” they’ve had enough) and therefore cannot trust their superiors. That’s really great training, there!
Thanks so much for this excellent series, Jeff.
Yes. What are they training them to be?
This post is too important to just fade away…..replay it when more responders are available. Truth. Sunlight.
Thank you so much for staying on top of this issue, Jeff.
Reach out and and talk to them, to those that have gone thru SEER and are now discharged and in civilian positions. The have talked prior and will talk if you reach out.
Thanks (and to you, too, bluewombat @12). Not to toot my own horn, but… the news that DoD canceled ended the last of its waterboarding classes in November 2007, while reported in the SASC report, has its exclusive scoop reported here at Firedoglake.
After writing this piece, I saw that the Pentagon was still spreading disinformation about its use of waterboarding in SERE schools as late as last year.
In an article for CNS News on April 22, 2009, military spokesperson for U.S. Joint Forces Command, Kathleen Jabs told CNS that
In a Washington Post article by Peter Finn and Joby Warrick in April 2002 (the time when the SASC report first came out publicly), and the article that released the “Operational Issues Pertaining to the Use of Physical/Psychological Coercion in Interrogation” memo (2 pg. PDF), which “questioned the effectiveness of employing extreme duress to gain intelligence,” a quote by JPRA’s Baumgartner implied that techniques (such as waterboarding) were used by SERE, and explained “the United States government does not torture its own people.”
I am considering how I can do this, given my amount of time, and other constraints. A dozen or even a hundred anecdotal statements will not be enough to make my case, though they may have some value. Only a Congressional investigation (or possibly an Inspector General report) could get to the bottom of the internal DOD waterboarding story, and I don’t see the hunger for that in the Congress or the military.
Your point is well-taken, though.
Toby Wollin is upstairs!
Late Night: What Movies Can Tell Us About What Happened to the US Economy
Marcinko and Ventura
Thank you for this. The media is complicit in the campaign to destroy what is left of this nation’s honor, by acting as stenographers for those wretched men, John Yoo and Karl Rove, both of whom are entirely lacking in empathy and ordinary human feeling. They would make the entire country over in their image. And with the compliance of the Democrats they appear to have succeeded. Americans, apparently, have lost all sense of shame.
Of further interest to readers, consider checking out Malcolm Nance’s column from a few years back on waterboarding, published in Small Wars Journal.
Nance was “a former Master Instructor and Chief of Training at the US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, California.” He says he helped rewrite SERE procedures while there.
He is against U.S. use of the waterboard because it is torture. However, he does believe it should be used for training purposes, because while it is torture, “Our service members have to learn that the will to survive requires them accept and understand that they may be subjected to torture…”
An interesting insight into how some of the SERE trainers think. I wonder if Nance were one of those whose advice the OLC attorneys cast aside in favor of CIA promptings.
As has been frequently pointed out on these pages, the controlled waterboarding by instructors trying to get program candidates to wash out or to acquaint them with what they could expect when captured by a barbaric enemy, is not the experience of waterboarding the US gives to its prisoners.
Our prisoners are confronted by men who hate them, or appear to do so; who mistreat them and repeatedly exhaust them; who castigate their religion, their fears, the things they hold sacred; men who seem eminently capable of causing death at a moment’s notice, who appear to threaten that routinely. And men who use waterboarding with none of the restraint employed when waterboarding was still used in US survival training. It’s the difference between a referred sparring match in a ring and lying beaten and bruised in a dark ally, with your opponents standing all round, and knowing that the night is long and that you may not be alive come morning.
Precisely, which is why when even the limited waterboarding done at SERE is harmful, is torture, there’s no way any sort of waterboarding — that of JPRA, of the initial Mitchell-Jessen variety, or the supposed more controlled version of OMS and Bradbury could ever be legal. What I’m doing here is, I hope, pulling one of the last props out from their argument, a canard they pull out for the gullible press, i.e., we used waterboarding at SERE and e.t. was okay.
This does negate your points. It augments them.
I wrote: “This does negate your points.”
I meant does NOT negate your points.