A Window Into Waterboarding

INSERT DESCRIPTIONChristopher Hitchens (Photo: Mark Mahaney for The New York Times)

Last year’s waterboarding debate turned on a simple question answerable with a yes, no or maybe: Is it torture? Now, Christopher Hitchens, who was caught in the crossfire when he suggested that it was merely “extreme interrogation,” has re-entered the debate seven months later armed with firsthand experience.

Following in the footsteps of John Kiriakou, the former C.I.A. operative, and Daniel Levin, the Bush administration lawyer, Mr. Hitchens was waterboarded. (It was far from his first bit of dangerous research for Vanity Fair. In November, he wrote of a Brazillian waxing.)

While others have described the waterboarding experience to a large audience, he may be the most articulate:

In this pregnant darkness, head downward, I waited for a while until I abruptly felt a slow cascade of water going up my nose. Determined to resist if only for the honor of my navy ancestors who had so often been in peril on the sea, I held my breath for a while and then had to exhale and—as you might expect—inhale in turn. The inhalation brought the damp cloths tight against my nostrils, as if a huge, wet paw had been suddenly and annihilatingly clamped over my face. Unable to determine whether I was breathing in or out, and flooded more with sheer panic than with mere water, I triggered the pre-arranged signal and felt the unbelievable relief of being pulled upright and having the soaking and stifling layers pulled off me. I find I don’t want to tell you how little time I lasted.

Thanks to a potentially disturbing video accompanying the article, the reader is also put in the room to watch from another angle. Mr. Hitchens is led into a nondescript room by hooded interrogators who speak in short sentences about how to call it quits. The prolific provocateur is oddly reduced to short, meek responses just before it begins.

From both views, you may draw your own conclusions, though his ruling, which appeared in the headline, was unequivocal: “Believe Me, It’s Torture.”

In the video, he elaborated on the mental trauma that followed the technique, which leaves little obvious damage even though it is potentially fatal. “I think I sympathize a good deal more because as a result of this very brief experience, if I do anything that gets my heart rate up — I’m breathing hard, I’m panting — I have a slight panic sensation,” he said. Nightmares have followed as well. “Lately I’ve been having this feeling of waking up and being smothered.”

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Peter Trachtenberg July 2, 2008 · 1:46 pm

Good for Hitchens for having the nerve to test his convictions. Now if only a few of his fellow travelers will step up to the plate. Maybe some of the older ones will have heart attacks.

If the president says waterboarding’s not torture, it’s not. If common sense says it is torture, it may not be. But if someone famous says it’s torture, it must be.

While he is in the mood for recanting his previously-expressed judgments, perhaps Hitchens would like to also reconsider his whole-hearted endorsement of Bush’s war in Iraq?

Hitchens change of mind on waterboarding is refreshing. Will Limbaugh listen?

George Bernard Shaw said it very well in “Saint Joan”:
“Must Christ be crucified in every generation for the benefit of those who have no imagination?”

If you watch that video, he threw the things away from him.
That is what I call journalism.
I think somebody needs to show this to Mr.Bush.

Good on Chris for now seeing waterboarding for what it is. Prior to his waterboarding experience, it’s clear he couldn’t see how flimsy his mental idea of waterboarding really was. Its flimsiness is evident in how quickly he changed his mind after the experience. He has made big statements about waterboarding that were based on this flimsy idea, but all it took was about a glass of water poured on his face for him to understand the nightmare of waterboarding. This is called arrogance, my friends (coupled with lack of imagination).

What other controversial opinions would he change if he experienced their corresponding real-life application?

As no fan of Hitchens, who has let his hatred of Bill Clinton lead to his ill-considered embrace of this fascist administration, I must say that I’m glad he blithely decided to show us all how simple waterboarding is. Tis a pity only that he didn’t commit to a couple of hours of it, or even just a half an hour. That the USA embraced this technique is a shame. That supposed intellectuals like Hitchens embraced them however reservedly, is a black mark on their reputations.

They should have switched the pre-arranged signal to something Hitchens wasn’t told about.

Good for Hitchens.

Elect McCain and you can expect more people, some innocent, to suffer this. Cruel and unusual, anyone? We have a Bill of Rights, right?

Bush has disgraced this country, and McCain going along with this, incredibly in light of his own suffering with torture, is even more disgraceful.

As TR would say, Bully!

John McCain defended the Bush administration’s continued use waterboarding, with his vote in the senate. Perhaps he should try this exercise as well. I think it would also be suitable for Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George Bush to try this so that they can continue to defend the technique from a personal perspective.

I consider waterboarding nothing compared to what others would do. They would force you to make a oral and written confession. Then they would video tape your beheading or hanging. After your death they would release the tape onto the internet and parade your dead body on the street. I would not want either done do me. Perhaps you should remember to save the last bullet for yourself.

Experience is the way to best evaluate this interrogation technique.

When will President Bush and Vice President Cheney, who are so supportive of
waterboarding, volunteer to check it out? I wonder if they did check it out if
they would still insist that it is not torture?

But Bush said it was OK.!

Re: “Waterboarding”, the euphemism.
Has anyone noticed that during the entire
discussion of torture since Abu Gharaib, the
term “waterboarding” has been used instead of
“water torture”. That is, the dissimulating
John Yoo lingo has been used instead of the
more salient term. “Waterboarding” sounds
almost fun don’it? Like snow-boarding maybe?

Nice Peter. There’s that compassionate liberalism I always hear about.

We love you Hitch, but choking on one’s own drunk regurgitation is a whole lot worse than waterboarding. So be careful.

“he elaborated on the mental trauma that followed the technique, which leaves little physical damage.”

This is an inaccurate statement which has been propagated. This “technique” can result in very serious injury and death. People without a medical education (meaning most all of you reading this, no offense) often have too narrow a definition of “injury” as being damage to part of the musculoskeletal system. But a great deal of internal injury can result from this technique including a high risk of stroke and heart-attack to use the lay terms.

Re Peter’s comment above Hitchens, an overweight middle aged man, took a very big risk doing that.

The question remains what will we do with suspect who we believe in good faith knows where and when a WMD device will be detonated in this country?

While I commend Mr. Hitchens for his courage in agreeing to go through this, I do have to wonder why no one will believe it is torture unless a certified conservative says it is.
It reminds me of when white America would not believe the incredible garbage black people had to put up with until a white man dyed his face black and wrote about his experiences in “Black Like Me.”

Waterboarding was reportedly taught by US operatives to the Uruguayan military in the sixties(See the movie “State of Siege”, which tells the story of one such operative, Dan A Mitrione). I experienced it in an Uruguayan secret center of detention in 1970. In most cases it takes a form called the “submarine”, which is very different from the descriptions commonly available. You are simply dumped head first into a tub. Of course you can’t see because you are hooded or blindfolded. The treatment is administered usually by a posse of 5 or 6, is bracketed by kicks and blows and spiced with verbal aggression taking place all the time. The procedure is timed in what appears to be a semi-empirical way: you stay under water until you start to let it into your lungs and shaking in agony (you really think you are dying). Then you are put out of the water long enough for one breath and back in.
Anyway, the most terrifying part is not the actual violent drowning, but the whole situation. You are in a secret place, you have not seen the light of day for weeks (or months), you know you are at the mercy of your captors, with no rights, and usually you are reminded that your family is at their mercy as well. You hear the screams of others being tortured and you know that death is a likely possiblity (none of these procedures is ‘safe’ and of course the interrogators don’t have to stop at waterboarding; there are always other methods).
So, while I also applaud Hitchens, there is a huge difference between the test that he experienced and the real thing.

Eduardo Rios

One of the dreary legacies of the Bush administration is the legitimization of this form of torture which was euphemistically described as “extreme interrogation” by its supporters, including Hitchens who has the gall to compare himself to Orwell. In the 1950s, waterboarding was used by the French in Algeria. A leftist journalist named Henri Alleg was waterboarded back then, but unlike Hitchens was not allowed a “safe” word. Read about it here:

//www.democracynow.org/2007/11/5/french_journalist_henri_alleg_describes_his

Wow! is that all it took to get to the truth? All this time, and “no it’s not torture!!” bs.
Well, that’s done with once and for all.
Thank you. Well done!

Not to minimize it: who knew that even this slightest test would be so terrifying!
It’s not simulated drowing, it’s controlled drowning, and obviously an improvement over holding someones head under water!
Oh, and from the very little bit of water used, it looks environmentally sound and really really cheap to set it up.
Now of course, add to this that the victim is subject to accidental drowning, simply by accident, or by over zealousness, and one can be certain that the murdered will NOT be prosecuted… won’t even be named.
One of the key aspects of torture: you can get killed totally by unhappy accident. The victim knows his/her life is not worth squat.

Yes, waterboarding is torture, to the shame of the Bush Administration and, for a while, of the United States. It’s appalling that individuals had to try this for themselves and be videotaped to prove it to the rest of us, but that’s the nature of an executive administration run by bloodthirsty and irrational radicals that use corrupt marketing techniques to fool American citizens for their own venal benefit.

Perhaps now Hitchens will engage in some well-needed self-reflectance and decide that, for the same reasons, the war in Iraq was just as irrational, venal, and bloodthirsty as interrogation using waterboarding.