In the Philippines when US interferred in Philippines’ rebellion to evict Spanish colonialists, US poured water thru a funnel into throat of the forcibly restrained victim.
In the recent “waterboarding” as allegedly explained, water poured onto cloth was maintained as air-barrier on forcibly restrained victim’s breathing orifices…until unstoppable urge to breathe brought the water into lungs, etc.

Note that latter method follows recent torture tutorial of having victim self-administer the effect, as promulagated by military/spook “consultants”. […gambling in “clever strokes” which constitutes the very essence of theft, swindling and all sorts of similar anti-social deeds.” PKropotkin’s Memoirs, ca 1899″

That the United States understands that this Convention shall be implemented by the United States Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered by the Convention and otherwise by the state and local governments.

Huh. Not Executive. Is this a root of some of the Article II UE claims? That the Executive is not bound to implement the Convention?

We now know that Larry Thompson would not sign FISC applications because of the way Teh Program was being operated and because he was worried about liability – that would have had to be liability imposed by the court, since the FISA applicatons were going there and were not, of themselves, a part of the illegal surveillance program – - but were subject to the court rulings.

As with your question about Ashcroft, keep in mind that Thompson merrily signed off on parts of the Arar rendition to torture paperwork without breaking a sweat. But the story that was printed indicates that it was his understanding of possible personal consequences that caused him to refuse to sign FISA applications.

40/9 – While I understand your points on the way matters should be pursued, the fact that some kinds of waterboarding/water torture result in a lot of water in the stomache as well as the experience of being drowned, while others are more about the drowning and less about the vomiting of water from the distended stomache, isn’t huge distinction. It’s kind of like saying the lynchings in this country were “different” than the hanging of Hussein in Iraq, bc here the heads were not severed, ergo, lynching isn’t a hanging.

Scott Horton hit some high points in this piece: The Valentine’s Day Torture Trifecta and IIRC TPM had a piece up contemporaneous to the Bradbury testimony (something like – we don’t waterboard like the Spanish Inquisition, more like the Khmer Rouge). From Horton’s op piece:

Our use of waterboarding is humane compared to the Spanish Inquisition, he[Bradbury] says. And then he demonstrates the key distinction: the Japanese or Spanish would fill the stomach with water and then stand on the body. For the American version, we fill the lungs with water and don’t do any standing. … Isn’t that a great relief? It’s a kinder, gentler form of waterboarding. A waterboarding of which all Americans can be proud. A waterboarding that reflects America’s core values of respect for human dignity.

It’s well done and disturbing, though not gratuitously so. I think it would be good of a lot of Americans saw this.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/23/102139/112

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/usdocs/tortres.html