Waterboarding does not fit torture criteria

William F. Brennan, Las Vegas

Sunday, May 24, 2009 | 2:04 a.m.

There has been much discussion about waterboarding, but no one defines it. Unless you know how the interrogation was conducted, you cannot determine whether it is torture.

Torture, by definition, involves “extreme physical pain” and/or “intense suffering.” It does not involve stress or induce anxiety.

Some have compared waterboarding with the method employed by the Japanese during World War II. Their practice was to pour water directly into the mouth and nose, often using salt water. This did risk drowning and is torture.

But the CIA method, as described by ABC News in November 2005, was described as “harsh” and did not impose risk of death or pain. As reported by Brian Ross and Richard Esposito, “Water boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.”

The interrogations were closely monitored and medical personnel were present for each. The entire procedure lasted seconds. Was the procedure stressful and harsh? Yes. Did it injure or harm the subject? No. Do our own military personnel undergo similar activities during their SERE (Survive, Evade, Resist, Escape) training? Yes.

After the 9/11 attacks, the decision to employ these methods on a few high-profile prisoners was appropriate. No prisoner was hurt, maimed, killed or mentally damaged.

Although we should not compare ourselves with terrorists, consider our restraint against their usual treatment of captives. There is no risk that our actions would incite them to mistreat prisoners any more than they are already are doing.