As a physician, I have been shocked by the concept of physician participation in the torture policies of the Bush Administration. I have previously written about medical personnel involvement in torture, and the particularly morbid fact that the CIA at some point added a physician with surgical tools to the room in which waterboarding occurs.
In the seemingly never-ending tidbits buried in the released "torture memos", I have found a new item yet to be covered by others. Close reading of the memos has revealed a new horror that is particularly important because, if it has not yet been destroyed, will constitute graphic and tangible physical evidence of the shocking facts of our Government's Torture Program.
Waterboarding is Torture
Two August 1, 2002 memos authored by John Yoo on behalf of Jay Bybee established the OLC definition of torture and gave approval for waterboarding. The OLC definition of torture from August 1, 2002 until it was withdrawn by Jack Goldsmith in June 2004, considered torture to be what happens when, but for medical intervention, a technique causes death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions. To fit that definition, the ""2002 Techniques Memo" (PDF)" described methods for waterboarding that was supposed to be harmless. However, it quickly became clear to the CIA that how their contractors were carrying out waterboarding was anything but harmless. Indeed, waterboarding is the "enhanced interrogation technique" that has garnered the most attention as being torture, and misadventures in waterboarding are what likely helped spur the CIA internal investigations that resulted in near revolt in the government over the policies.
Waterboarding Torture Was Recorded
The CIA waterboarded Abu Zubaydah "at least 83 times during August 2002". In November 2002 the CIA acquired the alleged USS Cole mastermind, Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, from Dubai, and used the waterboard on him at least 2 times. The CIA recorded (PDF) 90 videotapes of interrogation sessions with Abu Zubaydah and 2 tapes of sessions with al-Nashiri in 2002. A heavily redacted description (PDF) of the videotapes notes the tapes captured 12 [enhanced interrogation sessions] including the waterboarding of al-Nashiri. The taping stopped in 2002. The 90 videotapes were destroyed in 2005, the subject of ongoing investigations. The destruction of the tapes was clearly a cover-up, as reported by the Times:
They were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that tapes documenting controversial interrogation methods could expose agency officials to greater risk of legal jeopardy, several officials said.
Other Physical Evidence of the Brutality of CIA Waterboarding Torture
Although videotapes are small, portable and eraseable, the actual hardware involved in CIA torture may still exist. Descriptions of waterboarding in the CIA memos are detailed. The "2002 Techniques Memo" (PDF) describes the device used for securing a detainee for waterboarding as follows:
Finally, you would like to use a technique called the waterboard. In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes....
In 2002, before waterboarding commenced, the "bench" to which the detainee was shackled was vaguely described, and might have been simply fashioned on the scene from local materials.
But a lot changed between 2002 and May 2005, when the evolved description of waterboarding appeared in OLC memos. The CIA now knew waterboarding was medically intense, requiring physicians and surgical tools to be present in the room where waterboarding took place.
It turns out that the "bench" for waterboarding had also been upgraded with 21st century technology. Here is how it is described in the "2005 Bradbury Memo" (PDF):
In this technique, the detainee is lying on a gurney that is inclined at an angle of 10 to 15 degrees to the horizontal, with the detainee on his back and his head toward the lower end of the gurney.
SNIP
If the detainee is not breathing freely after the cloth is removed from his face, he is immediately moved to a vertical position in order to clear the water from his mouth, nose, and nasopharynx. The gurney used for administering this technique is specially designed so that this can be accomplished very quickly if necessary.
Ahem. Not only did the the CIA add a tracheotomy kit to the torture chamber, but they also added a new medical device for water torture. A "specially designed" gurney that can "very quickly" reposition a detainee from a position where their head lower than their feet by 10-15 degrees to the vertical position. Why do they need to get very quickly to the vertical position?
Either in the normal application, or where countermeasures ar used, we understand that water may enter-and may accumulate in-the detainee's mouth and nasal cavity, preventing him from breathing.
Out comes the water when they are vertical! It's not torture if we use modern technology to prevent death! But wait....
Third, it is conceivable (though, we understand from OMS, highly unlikely) that a detainee could suffer spasms of the larynx that would prevent him from breathing even when the application of water is stopped and the detainee is returned to an upright position. In the event of
such spasms, a qualified physician would immediately intervene to address the problem, and, if necessary, the intervening physician would perform a tracheotomy.
See! Miracles of Modern Technology! Not torture!!!
All of this leads me to a few obvious questions:
- Where is the CIA's "specially designed" waterboarding gurney?
- Where are the engineering drawings and designs that were used to order or construct the gurney to specifications?
- Were the Congressional Intelligence or Appropriations Committees informed of the design and acquisition of this or other torture implements?
- If the Torture Gurney(s) was destroyed, was congress notified of its destruction?
- Will the world see the CIA's modern version of a "water torture rack" up for auction in 600 years?