Take a look at the 46-page Bradbury memo, 5/10/05, p. 13: "we understand that water may enter — and may accumulate in — the detainee’s mouth and nasal cavity, preventing him from breathing."

You're having a lot of trouble getting your facts straight. We did not use cellophane (although that's what Kiriakou falsely told Brian Ross in 2007). We use cloth, but the purpose of the cloth is not to "keep water out of nose and mouth." On the contrary. The purpose of the cloth is to stay wet and make it less possible to gulp air along with the water.

The procedure we used was also used by the Japanese. We said it was torture and we prosecuted them (pdf).

Said it before, but I will say it again. By focusing our attention on waterboarding, we obscure the widespread and systematic physical and mental abuse applied to prisoners at Gitmo and Basra. The key word is systematic. None of this was isolated “bad apples”. The uniformity of practices points an accusing finger up the chain of command.

Then again, we’re talking about the planner of the 9/11 attacks here.

Or are we? After 183 waterboardings I'll happily admit to planning the 9/11 attacks too. Hell I'd admit to planning the Great Depression if that's what you wanted me to say.

The methods we used were harsh, sure, but they fall well short of "torture." And continuing to use that word to describe what we did diminishes the true meaning of the word.

And you know this because you were there, of course...

How fascinating that some of the same people who whine and cry about how horrible the federal government is don't mind giving that same entity the power to torture people and now we have someone making the ridiculous argument that some waterboarding is really bad and some isn't...

Yes, the very same people who decry liberals' alleged "moral relativism" (or "situational ethics") are now doing precisely that in their defense of torture.

How fascinating that some of the same people who whine and cry about how horrible the federal government is don't mind giving that same entity the power to torture people and now we have someone making the ridiculous argument that some waterboarding is really bad and some isn't...yeah, trying to argue that something which is torture really isn't definitely diminishes the meaning of the word...

No were near as bad as sucking out a baby's brain, riping it out it's mother womb, and throwing it in the garbage, and then saying it's not really a baby.

fricking liberals and their moral code,I am wrong the Nazi aint got poop on you guys, I'll just start calling you what you really are, fricking Satan worshipers!

Hitler would be in awe of your kill count, and proud that you get 1 out of every 2 black babies.

So lets call republicans tortures and racists liberals, come on, I have not heard it for a couple minutes.

Even according to that great Wikipedia article:

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences drowning and is caused to believe they are about to die.

We didn't do this. According to the guidelines, cellophane or cloth is placed over the subject's mouth to keep water out of nose and mouth. There was never an intention for water to enter the airways - in fact, the intent is for the flow of water to block the airways. Very different.

But I know details get in the way of emotions.

Interrogations were to be "continuously monitored" and "the interrogation team will stop the use of particular techniques or the interrogation altogether if the detainee's medical or psychological conditions indicates that the detainee might suffer significant physical or mental harm."

Did the Nazis do that?

And on the slamming against the plastic wall, the point was to inflict fear and uncertainty, not physical pain:

...the idea is to create a sound that will make the impact seem far worse than it is and that will be far worse than any injury that might result from the action.

The methods we used were harsh, sure, but they fall well short of "torture." And continuing to use that word to describe what we did diminishes the true meaning of the word.

What do you think of Jonah Goldberg's point that even if you think waterboarding isn't torture, can you really deny in good conscience that waterboarding 183 times in a month is torture?

Can we please stop with this myth? Even KSM himself says he was waterboarded 5 times. This 183 number is somebody's rough accounting for how many times water was poured on the guy's face, one several-second-long dribble at at time, over a month-long period. Look, if you strap the guy on the table and pour water on his face 10 times in a span of 2 minutes, it that one waterboarding or 10?

It would help if people would retain their sanity when debating this topics.

I don't know where you get your information from, but you need to do a little better research. Start here.

Sorry, but despite the Wikipedia lawyers, I simply don't believe that we ever approached torture. And for every lawyer who says that we did, there are plenty of others who say we didn't.

I'm not saying it's an open and shut case, but I think it's wrong to simply accept as a given that what we did was torture. There are plenty of legal arguements that it wasn't.

But again, to equate what we did against these three terrorists with the Nazis and the Spanish Inquisition is simply disingenuous. You know full well we had doctors on hand at all times, to ensure the safety of the prisoners. (Did the Nazis do that?) There was never an intent to cause lasting damage or pain - only immediate psychological stress and fear, to break down defenses against revealing secrets. By all accounts, it worked.

If so, I am concerned, because in my mind waterboarding is not even close to torture, by any historical (or even contemporary non-American) meaning.

Do you really mean this seriously? I mean, really? Because not only are you simply mistaken, you're completely wrong. Waterboarding has been historically considered torture. It was used by, for example, the Spanish Inquisition, as well as by the Khmer Rouge. We prosecuted and even executed Nazis for this at Nuremburg.

I don't know where you get your information from, but you need to do a little better research. Start here.

I didn't hear anyone considered "official" confirm that the US tortured prisoners...

I just want to know - is this point no longer debatable?

If so, I am concerned, because in my mind waterboarding is not even close to torture...

What do you think of Jonah Goldberg's point that even if you think waterboarding isn't torture, can you really deny in good conscience that waterboarding 183 times in a month is torture?

To my mind, it's clear that waterboarding even once (like any form of mock execution) is torture. On the other hand, I wouldn't generally say sleep deprivation is torture. But once you talk about sleep deprivation for 11 days straight and some of the ways it was implemented with shackles, etc. that does sound like torture to me. My point is that frequency, intensity and what methods are combined with each other do matter.

I've amended and bolded the update above to make it more clear.

Thanks, looks good.