Waterboarding: Do It To Save The Children

I’d like to write an entry wholly dedicated to Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly regarding his recent diatribe on waterboarding. In it, he asked viewers if they would employ the practice if it would save the lives of their children and loved ones. Of course, as is O’Reilly’s style, he answered that question for them, claiming that they obviously would.

I don’t really care about this issue as it applies to the current US political landscape, it’s to be expected that O’Reilly would present the matter in such a light while completely overlooking the larger picture. The larger picture is, of course, precedent and its implications regarding global human rights standards. If the United States can employ a technique that has been considered torture since the 13th century, one that was used by the Gestapo and the Japanese during World War 2 which led to war crimes convictions at the end of that war by allied prosecutors, then it only stands to reason that the global precedent being set is extremely dangerous. How are we to condemn the use of such practices by others – because make no mistake, we are that hypocritical. And what of those that possess a far more ‘flexible’ view of ‘interrogation techniques’? What if, in other nations, lawmakers have backed the use of other practices that constitute torture? According to O’Reilly, if Congress says it isn’t torture, then it isn’t, and therefore can be used.

So, first and foremost, is O’Reilly’s question to his viewers regarding the use of waterboarding to protect their children and loved ones limited to Americans, or is it a universal proposition? If it is, and Iraqi insurgents (and by that I am not referring to Salafi Jihadi groups), who view US forces as a threat to their well being, capture a US service person and ‘interrogate’ them for information about military maneuvers in hopes of avoiding the loss of civilian lives due to, for example, impending US air strikes, is waterboarding still tolerable?

How about in the case of the Russians, the Chinese, the Egyptians, the Israelis, the Iranians, the Afghans, the Pakistanis, the Somalis, the Ethiopians, the Sudanese, the Colombians, the Saudis, the North Koreans – in fact, anyone that can claim the use of such methods paramount in the acquisition of information for the purposes of national security? Or do you have to have attained some entirely fictitious sense of overwhelming moral superiority to actually employ torture and claim it justifiable?

Here’s the deal. Only those that possess the ability to excuse themselves because of their overwhelming military superiority can justify such hypocrisy. That is, whether Mr. O’Reilly likes it or not, a historical fact. Those that possess unchallenged power have the ability to cast the despicable in an entirely purposeful light, a practice that is evident throughout recorded history.

That said; where does it stop? Does it end at waterboarding? Does it end at the preemptive invasion of other nations in an attempt to ensure national security? Does it end when enough innocent people in far distant lands have been slaughtered and traumatized and displaced by the millions?

Ultimately, I challenge Mr. O’Reilly to define the term ‘harsh methods’ given that the practice of waterboarding has survived as a recognized method of torture for roughly 600 years. O’Reilly claims that such methods work, and that those that disagree are somehow diluting themselves. But the fact of the matter is, if Bill O’Reilly were waterboarded, I have this funny feeling that his ‘interrogators’ could have him confessing to numerous things, both real and imagined, in no time at all. And as for outright torture being effective, give me ten minutes with Mr. O’Reilly held in four point restraints and a surgical scalpel at my disposal and I can guarantee you he’d admit to not only being a pedophile, but a member of the baseball hall of fame and Santa Claus.

The Word Of One Man

O’Reilly’s position regarding waterboarding is, in part, based on the recent interview of John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent that was a part of the ‘interrogation’ team that waterboarded Abu Zubaydah. In the interview, Kiriakou claimed that the intelligence gleaned from the interrogation disrupted maybe dozens of attacks, a point that O’Reilly then amplifies by claiming that it could have saved thousands of lives.

If the severity of the intelligence gleaned was of such dire import, how about some concrete proof regarding how that intelligence was used to seriously disrupt terrorist activities? For all anyone knows, every word of what Zubaydah told his captors could have been baseless. How are we, the public, to know? According to Kiriakou, Zubaydah lasted approximately 30 to 35 seconds before breaking and then, a day later, decided to talk. But beyond that, there is no proof that what Zubaydah told the CIA was at all accurate. For all anyone knows, it could have led to false detentions, dead ends, or even minimal successes provided to placate the CIA’s interests in an attempt to secure more favorable terms in captivity.

Of course, individuals such as Mr. O’Reilly would claim such information a matter of national security and therefore not open to public scrutiny. But if that’s the case, how is anyone to actually know if any information gained through the use of waterboarding is at all accurate? In truth, and at this point, anything could be said to justify the practice and tangible results would never have to be provided anyone other than those culpable in the institution of the practice itself.