Yeesh, even under the controlled circumstances, the video gets under your skin -- but it still doesn't capture much more than a fraction of the experience according to a commentator on the NYT blog that linked to the video:
Waterboarding was reportedly taught by US operatives to the Uruguayan military in the sixties(See the movie "State of Siege", which tells the story of one such operative, Dan A Mitrione). I experienced it in an Uruguayan secret center of detention in 1970. In most cases it takes a form called the "submarine", which is very different from the descriptions commonly available. You are simply dumped head first into a tub. Of course you can't see because you are hooded or blindfolded. The treatment is administered usually by a posse of 5 or 6, is bracketed by kicks and blows and spiced with verbal aggression taking place all the time. The procedure is timed in what appears to be a semi-empirical way: you stay under water until you start to let it into your lungs and shaking in agony (you really think you are dying). Then you are put out of the water long enough for one breath and back in. Anyway, the most terrifying part is not the actual violent drowning, but the whole situation. You are in a secret place, you have not seen the light of day for weeks (or months), you know you are at the mercy of your captors, with no rights, and usually you are reminded that your family is at their mercy as well. You hear the screams of others being tortured and you know that death is a likely possiblity (none of these procedures is 'safe' and of course the interrogators don't have to stop at waterboarding; there are always other methods). So, while I also applaud Hitchens, there is a huge difference between the test that he experienced and the real thing. Eduardo Rios
Lou Proyect also commented on the NYT blog post and posted this interview with Henri Alleg, who was waterboarded by the French during the Algerian war: http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/5/french_journalist_henri_alleg_describes_his
-WD