Lungren Cannot Say that Waterboarding is Torture

By Bill Durston, MD

Article written by Dr. Bill Durston in response to the statements of his opponent, Rep. Dan Lungren, concerning waterboarding and other forms of torture

Lungren replied, "I cannot say, per se, that waterboarding is torture."

The first reported use of the technique of waterboarding dates back to the 15th century during the Spanish Inquisition. The technique involves restraining the subject on a board, typically with the feet up and the head down, while water is repeatedly poured over the subject's face to simulate drowning. In the "modern" version, the face may be covered with cellophane, which has been reported to stimulate the gag reflex and increase the subject's distress and sense of suffocation. Although waterboarding may leave no lasting physical injury, if carried to an extreme, it can result in pneumonia from inhalation of water into the lungs, fractures and dislocations from writhing against the restraints, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, and death due to asphyxiation. Even when there are no lasting physical effects, waterboarding causes extreme and often prolonged mental distress. Persons subjected to waterboarding are rarely able to tolerate the insult for more than a few seconds before begging their captors for mercy.

Contrary to Lungren's views, waterboarding has long been regarded as a form of torture by most military and legal experts. Like other forms of torture, it is prohibited by the U.S. constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment, by similar provisions in U.S. military law and the Geneva Conventions, and by the United Nations Convention Against Torture. U.S. soldiers who have been caught waterboarding enemy captives have been prosecuted by the U.S. military as long ago as the Spanish American War and as recently as the Vietnam War.

Waterboarding came to public attention in 2005 when ABC News reported that terrorism suspects who were being held captive by U.S. forces in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere were being subjected to waterboarding during interrogations. The tactic had reportedly been authorized under a presidential finding signed by President Bush in 2002. Congress reacted by passing an amendment to the 2006 Defense Authorization Act prohibiting the use of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. The Senate version of the amendment was authored by Republican Senator, John McCain, who was himself subjected to torture while a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Senator McCain described waterboarding as "very exquisite torture."

The issue of waterboarding came to public attention again during the recent Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings for Attorney General Michael Mukasey. Mukasey's confirmation seemed assured until he refused to state whether or not he believed that waterboarding was a form of torture. Mukasey's nomination as Attorney General was eventually confirmed, but by a narrow margin.

The November 28 Folsom Town Hall Meeting was not the first time that Dan Lungren has faced questions about torture. Lungren voted against including a prohibition on torture in the 2006 Defense Authorization Act. During his re-election campaign in 2006, Lungren was asked in a debate in Elk Grove about his position on torture. Lungren replied, "Some people confuse the question of torture and aggressive means of interrogation."

The same night that the question of whether waterboarding amounted to torture was posed to Dan Lungren in Folsom, the question was posed to Republican presidential hopefuls at the nationally televised debate in St. Petersburg, Florida. Senator John McCain re-emphasized his position that waterboarding is torture, and he expressed astonishment when Mitt Romney, like Lungren, equivocated.

Senator McCain knows what torture is. As he has repeatedly stated, waterboarding is torture, plain and simple. Like other forms of torture, it is illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional. It is also an ineffective method of gathering reliable intelligence. Most tortured subjects will tell their captors whatever they believe their tormentors wish to hear in order to end their ordeal. In an extensive report published in December 2006, the Intelligence Science Board concluded that the information gathered by the torture of subjects held in U.S. custody in the 21st century was just as unreliable as the information gathered by torture during medieval times.

The fact that candidates for high level government positions in the United States of America are being asked in 2007 about their positions on torture, and that some of them do not condemn it, is an indication of how traumatized our country remains following the September 11 terrorist attacks, and how far we have strayed from the principles upon which our country was founded. When Lungren stated at the Folsom Town Hall meeting, "I cannot say, per se, that waterboarding is torture," there was an audible groan from many members of the audience. After he defended his statement with the argument that "aggressive means of interrogation" of terrorist suspects might save American lives, though, other members of the audience applauded.

These are frightening times, and the threat of terrorism is real. But torture is both morally reprehensible and forensically unreliable. A ban on cruel and unusual punishment is one of the key principles upon which our country was founded. In difficult times, we should return to these principles, not abandon them.