Cristián Correa [Senior Associate, International Center for Transitional Justice]: "The whole debate about if waterboarding is torture or not seems artificial to me, because it is very clear that drowning detainees during interrogation is a way of intentionally inflicting severe physical suffering for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession. [US Director of National Intelligence] McConnell's comments are just what should be expected from any civil servant. They are positive in the way that they contradict Mr. Mukasey's reluctance to acknowledge that such practice is torture during his confirmation hearings as Attorney General. However, it will be difficult to challenge the strong message that the Administration, through the Vice President's statements to the press and through the former Attorney General's secret memos, has sent to the public and to those agents in charge of questioning detainees.

The United Nations Convention Against Torture contains a definition of torture that reflects the international consensus about it, a consensus that includes the United States. The efforts of the U.S. current Administration to narrow the definition of torture and to exempt some "harsh interrogations techniques" from it resemble the attitudes and arguments employed by dictatorships and other regimes that systematically violate human rights. They also induce confusion among U.S. military and intelligence agents about which are the borders between lawful techniques and criminal conduct.

The U.N. Committee Against Torture has been very clear in demanding that the U.S. "should rescind any interrogation technique, including methods involving sexual humiliation, "waterboarding", "short shackling" and using dogs to induce fear, that constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in all places of detention under its de facto effective control, in order to comply with its obligations under the Convention." (Conclusion and recommendations of the Committee to the U.S., July 25, 2006, paragraph 24). In its comments to those conclusions, presented in November 6, 2007, the Administration affirmed that the Department of Defense Directive 2310.01E and the Army Field Manual 2-22.3, both passed in September 2006, "provide guidance to military personnel to ensure compliance with the law, and require that all personnel subject to the directive treat all detainees, regardless of their legal status, consistently with the minimum standards of Common Article 3 [of the Geneva Conventions]". Both documents establish the general principle of the obligation for all personnel to treat detainees humanely, and that all intelligence interrogations, debriefings, or tactical questioning to gain intelligence from captured or detained personnel shall also be conducted humanely, in accordance with applicable law and policy. If the Administration's answer to the Committee intended to preclude the use of waterboarding, as it seems to, in response to such a direct request, there is no explanation for the reluctance of the Attorney General to avoid a clear answer condemning its use. On the contrary, given that the Army Field Manual is a long text that doesn't receive the same degree of publicity as the confirmation hearing, the lack of a clear answer from Mr. Mukasey helps to maintain the uncertainty of whether waterboarding prisoners is permitted or is a crime.

The Chilean Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture, which received more than 35,000 testimonies of victims of torture during the Pinochet regime, considered that to provoke a near to death experience, by waterboarding, is torture. The Commission was able to listen to several persons that were tortured by waterboarding, appreciating the consequences of physically experiencing being intentionally drowned by captors until almost dying, in the context of detention. The Commission rejected this practice and denounced how torture was massively and institutionally used during the 1973-1990 dictatorship. Such an official acknowledgment of a criminal policy is helping Chile to come to terms with its past, as well as serving as a foundation of its restored democracy. As it is the experience of Chile and many other countries throughout the world, acknowledging wrong doings bring legitimacy to governments. It also helps countries to reinforce their commitments to the protection and promotion of the rights of their citizens and of the rights of every person."