I was waterboarded as a part of my SERE training. It was terribly unpleasant, and I have no shame admitting that I was terrified and that the technique was very effective on me (as it was on everyone that was in my class). Still, it was not torture by any means.

The newswoman (whom I won’t dignify by mention of her name), is full of ignorance on this issue.

Number one, despite her protestations, at NO POINT is somebody whom is subjected to waterboarding submerged in a box or barrel. I had a cloth (like a towel) placed over my face, and water was poured over that. After a few seconds of resisting, I was inclined so that my head was slightly lower than my feet (I was lying supine, or “face-up”). Despite the fact that no water ever entered my mouth or nostrils, there was a tactile illusion that there was water going up my nose and onto my throat. No matter how sure I was that this wasn’t happening, my brain just panicked, convinced that there was water going down my throat. What she saw was “water torture”, an entirely seperate technique (used in asia and the middle east). I never saw the technique used nor trained. Unlike waterboarding, “water torture” carries physical risks, and to my knowledge, is never used by the CIA or US military personnel.

Second, she (and her British friend) are horribly misinformed about the Geneva Convention (a convention that I used to teach about while in the service). The Convention itself is explicit – protections of the Convention are ONLY extended to uniformed members of a national military force operating in a military operation. Terrorists (who are not state sponsored, do not wear a uniform, are not in a recognized military force, and are carrying out operations against civilians instead of legitimate military targets) are expressly denied protections by the Convention. Neither of the idiots on CNN opposing Mr. Thiessen have read nor undesrtand the Convention. It labels actors (such as Al Quida) as “illegal combatants”, and (under the convention) those actors are afforded NO protection.

So when these two idiots try to ask if Americans abroad should be waterboarded, they entirely miss the point. Americans in the military operating in uniform in a military operation are protected by the Convention. Terrorists (whether attacking airliners or attacking our troops) are not given Geneva Convention protections. According to what? Why, the Convention itself!

If you want to know the woman’s true allegiances, look up her public comments made within weeks of 9/11. She was very cozy with those who wished us harm. In fact, she was awfuly “cozy” with Quadaffi of Libya shortly before her famous “tent interview” many years ago (before 9/11), which was the subject of much speculation with those whom I ran with when I was in the service). She has always been a strident anti-American bigot, and has zero credibility on the subject (as can be seen by her poor performance in trying to talk over and insult Mr. Thiessen).

Clearly, only one person in the two videos was informed about what waterboarding is, and what the Convention actually says.

…investigate independently. He is wrong. Britain and the US have shared information that has protected both countries. Simply because his snooty, anti-American agenda is wrong headed, doesn’t mean that the two countries haven’t cooperated (both in intelligence matters and on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq).

Indeed, our British friends have benefited from information the US obtained by waterboarding. Simply look at the detentions made as a result of the KSM waterboardings, detention of individuals with plots not only against the US, but our European allies. (The Weekly Standard’s online blog had a terrific post about some of what was made public in terms of information gleaned from waterboarding).

It is clear whom our friends are. Some folks have (as a priority) the drive to provide lawyers for terrorists. Others have the priority to protect our citizens from those terrorists. I’ll cast my lot with the latter. “Phillip” doesn’t represent the intelligence nor military of Britain, nor does he have the executive branch experience of Mr. Thiessen. Phillips is only a professor. He lacks real world experience in military and intelligence matters, and must pretend that he is somehow an expert because he has spent his life hidden away in academic halls of ignorance. He will continue to vomit his mis-informed opinions because good and decent men and women risk their lives trying to protect his way of life, even as he does everything in his power to limit their abilities. Pathetic.