The Question of Waterboarding
If press accounts are to be believed, things began to get complicated when the U.S. Government felt itself to be in a situation at least somewhat analogous to our classic “ticking bomb” scenario. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, had killed more Americans than had died at Pearl Harbor in 1941. The terrorists of al-Qa’ida were still “out there” someplace plotting further mayhem and hoping to inflict as many casualties as possible, the United States seemed to suffer from a terrible weakness in its intelligence and security services’ ability to identify and address the threat, and no one knew where and when the terrorists would strike next. Within a few months, however, some good intelligence work led to the capture of two or three of al-Qa’ida’s senior leaders, including Abu Zubaida and Khalid Sheik Mohammed (a.k.a. “KSM”). What did they know about future attacks, and how far could the authorities go in trying to find out in order to prevent additional “9/11s”?
The U.S. Government’s answer seems to have been to try to draw a line around the classic “ticking bomb” scenario; it was by no means an apologia for torture tout court, but instead a policy that condoned harsh techniques only in rare and carefully-bounded circumstances. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) proposed, the Justice Department developed a legal rationale for, and the White House approved a program whereby certain “high value targets” in CIA custody could be – with top-level approval – subjected to some extremely harsh interrogation methods, most notably waterboarding: a sort of simulated drowning that seems all too terrifyingly real to the victim. (Let’s leave aside the question of whether such techniques in fact amounted to “torture” under existing U.S. or international law. For present purposes, the ethical question is more interesting than the legal one.) These methods were apparently to be permitted only in a mere handful of cases among the thousands of enemy combatant and suspected terrorist detainees swept into American hands in Afghanistan and elsewhere. This treatment was to be reserved only for terrorists held secretly in CIA custody in “black” detention centers hidden in one or more locations around the world, and would be used only in the most compelling cases – for prisoners such as Abu Zubeida and KSM – whose situation was felt most closely to approximate the “ticking bomb” scenario.
Enter bad luck, and bad management. Sloppy oversight of improperly trained troops at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad led to the orgy of abuses so memorably caught in photographs taken with such disgusting glee by the perpetrators themselves. These crude excesses – sometimes involving large groups of ordinary prisoners at a time and in no way related to information-gathering or any other intelligible purpose save the simple indulgence of sadism – were, conceptually, a world away from the application of coercive interrogation in rare and extreme cases that had been approved in Washington, and there does not appear to have been any connection between such approval and the animalistic sadism at the Baghdad prison. Nevertheless, as details of the high-level approval of harsh techniques for those CIA cases started to come to light during the worldwide furor over Abu Ghraib, it was generally assumed abroad and in the media that everything had been official policy.
As a result of this conflation of the mass abuses at Abu Ghraib with the entirely separate and unrelated CIA-run and Washington-approved interrogation of prisoners such as Abu Zubaida and KSM, the “torture debate” in America has not really had to struggle with the moral questions presented by the “ticking bomb” question. Because essentially no one could fail to condemn any policy that swept Abu Ghraib within its ambit, and because it appeared that Bush Administration policy had done so, the public debate largely ducked the really hard questions. The public has never really had to grapple with the more “ticking bomb”-type assumptions behind the CIA program.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
This is going in multiple directions. Perhaps we can agree on a couple things so we don't torture ourselves on this rack of debate?
First, waterboarding is torture. Thank you, Mangueken, for your insert of historical and international information. I agree with you completely. And yes, the Inquisitors are bad people. However, the Inquisitors also were total psychopaths, and I'd prefer to think that we do not share such an illustrious title yet.
Torture is a broad topic, and waterboarding certainly includes discomfort. Let's not nitpick over anguish and pain, because, really, waterboarding is drowning someone, even partially. When you drown, you die. DYING REALLY SUCKS. I've never almost drowned before, so I'll take your word that there are certainly worse things out there. Including hot pokers, the rack, and ripping out fingernails. However, it's still bad. If you don't want it done again, then it's unpleasant. And that's the objective of torture, to make someone experience something unpleasant so they talk. If you've read 1984, (spoiler alert) a rat is used as a form of torture at the end of the novel because the main character hates rats. Nothing was done to him physically, and there were no scars later. However, it wasn't pleasant. It got the desired effect. My point? Let's agree that waterboarding and drowning sucks and can be a form of torture.
As far as legality goes, Mangueken, I suggest you gather information on other nations. In all likelihood, their regular prisons could probably match our secret federal ones. They are not going to be eager to prosecute us. And we still have one of the nicest dispositions towards criminals, barring this torture thing.
Now, yes, it's morally wrong. I acknowledge and agree with that. However, the issue is essentially if we want to sacrifice moral high ground for safety. This is a major debate in virtually all politics everywhere. I am for torture, and a mild torture if possible, in only certain specific extreme circumstances. In other words, I am this close to a "no."
Yes----------------------ME---No
And I am "yes" because the question is whether or not torture is ever justifiable. (scroll up if you don't believe me) Not whether you like it and support Abu Ghraib, whether or not it is permissible in certain circumstances. If the information is accurate and can be put to good use, then it might be worth it. Having said that, we also must keep some moral ground. We shouldn't look as bad as others. However, one or two tortures a year versus the 100's of tortures (and executions, mind you) by other nations does not make us equal to them. (1 vs. 100's) We cannot be completely lily-white pure, because then we're almost asking to be attacked. I'm not saying we should go biker-gang on the UN, I'm just saying that a holier-than-thou disposition could be just as bad as a torturing-nation disposition. We need a middle ground, because if we turn our other cheek to the terrorists all the time, they'll be more than happy to strike it.
And to Reckoner: I agree that there is a difference between waterboarding daily and drowning once. However, the effect and experience is similar. Water stops you from breathing. You panic. Maybe you black out. It sucks. You don't want it to happen again. Your point might have been better if you also used a different comparison. Your point with drowning was repetition. The second comparison compared two completely different things, one being voluntary and desirable and the other being a felony. Sex and rape is not the same comparison as drowning and waterboarding in that only one of the first pair sucks.
The issue of waterboarding highlights the problems that ensue when torture is used and the questions that are sure to follow. While physical compications can result from waterboarding the intent is meant to be psychologically damaging with the victim made to feel as if he or she is drowning. It leaves no scars or lasting effects yet there is something inherently wrong with this behavior. Morally it is inconcievable to view waterboarding as acceptable but morals are less important in today's world as compared to security. As long as there are individuals who steadfastly believe that waterboading is keeping terrorists at bay then it will be continued. The U.S. government seems to hold the threat of terrorism over the heads of all Americans in order to make torture appear to be the best avenue towards safety.
Waterboarding is torture. It causes sever mental trauma but does not leave you whip scarred or in intense physical pain. I nearly drowned when i was little and it was one of the scariest moments of my life, but the next day i was completely fine. If torture is to be justified waterboarding is the best means of torure and should not be banned. It may be uncomfortabe but in the end the government can gain valuble information from waterboarding that could save american lives.
For example a terrorist who was planning on killing you and your family was tortured and you along with countless others were saved.
Would you still be against it?
This argument, once again, seems to be based on two erroneous assumptions: that torture can be limited to ticking bomb situations and that Abu Ghraib had nothing to do with policies and attitudes set in Washington. (See comments under other parts of this argument.)
I find it thoroughly depressing that there is even a debate about torture. I can't imagine an act more morally depraved than torture. It's an unrestrained assault on the humanity of the subject and perpetrator alike. Our inability, at this late date, to unite in recognition and rejection of its awesome destructive power shows how broken our collective moral compass is.
Gay Gardner
What a shame. The nice, tidy and theoretical discussion of torture has been overwhelmed by the stomach-turning reality of the abuses perpetrated by American officials. But maybe this is the answer: whatever the theoretical justifications might be, torture in practice is abusive because of its very nature.
As for waterboarding, near drowning is torture.
M. Glass
Why is near drowning torture?
Is drowning torture? Does it cause pain, agony, anguish, or deformity?
I personally have never been waterboarded, but have been in a couple of near drownded states (as far as I could tell), the prospect didn't seem to fit these conditions (not that I looked forward to it, necessarily).
"I personally have never been waterboarded, but have been in a couple of near drownded states"
This is a common mistake made when arguing about torture. Being a captive and having something forced on you repeatedly is far different than almost accidentally drowning. This is like saying, "I've had sex before so why is rape a crime?".
Sadly this debate frames the question in the poorest possible way :/
Your logic makes sense. Thank you.
Someone in the comments above mentioned that we tried Japanese officials during WWII for waterboarding. So I went looking for information and found this from NPR,
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834
Although, I was going to say in general, if waterboarding caused no anguish than why would anyone give information? So, for all practical purposes, it is intended to cause mental suffering to obtain information and as such remains illegal by the convention article I cited above.
The NPR article however, made me aware that this technique has been used since the inquisition. As far as I'm concerned Inquisitors are not the best company to keep around oneself. ; )
Part I
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
If so, it's torture and it's illegal.
As far as I know, there's no pain, anguish, or deformity involved in drowning.
I mean, the US has already determined it as being torture . We've executed people for doing it to our guys.
My understanding was that their 'technique' was very different from what we did.
What technique changed?