The thesis of this essay is adiscussion about the use of waterboarding by the US government, during the Bushadministration, and if this was an acceptable method of interrogation.
AfterSeptember 11, 2001, the US government relied on qualified army instructors forinformation on tough interrogation methods. One of them was the method ofwaterboarding. Waterboarding is a type of water torment in which water ispoured over a material covering the face and breathing entries of a tiedhostage, making the individual experience the impression of suffocating.Normally, the water is poured discontinuously so the hostage won’t die fromdrowning during the torture, if the water is poured uninterruptedly it willprompt passing by asphyxia with the impression of suffocating, likewise calleddry suffocating. Apart from death, waterboarding can cause outrageous torment,harm to lungs, and harm the brain from oxygen hardship.
We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!
Other physical woundsinclude: broken bones, because of battling against restrictions, and enduringmental harm (Watch, 2006). In the essay, thiswill be discussed in depth. The structure of the essaywill be as follows; first, in the introduction there will be a summary and adefinition of what waterboarding is and the structure of the essay will be given.After that, the methods paragraph will be displayed. In the main body, first ageneral view on the methods of interrogation will be displayed, and after thatthe method of the essay will be displayed and a brief summary about the CentralIntelligence Agency (CIA)’s Detention and Interrogation Program report sincethat is the report about the horrible ways of interrogating including waterboardingduring the Bush administration and will be discussed in depth for a furtherunderstanding of the matter. Furthermore, the influence and the results of thewaterboarding and the cruel interrogation methods in general that came to thelight from the report, and if this method of interrogation was an acceptablemethod will be discussed along with pictures and examples. Lastly, theconclusion will be displayed. Method:This is a literature basedessay.
Every data and information that will be added in this essay will betaken from literature that already exists. For this essay, books, e-books,newspaper articles, journal articles and academic writings will be used for abetter understanding. Main body:Interrogation techniques,regardless of whether utilized in a law-enforcement, counter-terrorism basedoppression or military setting, have accumulated a lot of consideration in theprevious decade from policymakers, experts, researchers, and the overallpopulation (Kelly, et al., 2013).
In some cases, theextant grouping and depiction of interrogation strategies is at the same timeexcessively wide and excessively small (Kelly, et al., 2013). Probably the most broadlyreferred literature on interrogation arranges procedures into generalclassifications in view of the planned result or the fundamental reason (Kelly, et al.,2013).For instance, a standout amongst the most unmistakable expansivecharacterizations of interrogation systems is minimization and maximization,first presented by (Kassin & McNall, 1991).
Minimization and maximizationare frequently depicted as bundles of procedures (Horgan, et al., 2012) (Russano, et al., 2005) (Kelly, et al., 2013)under which, particularstrategies might be sorted (Kelly, et al.,2013).Minimization depends on standards of friendliness and endeavors to obtain asubject’s participation by limiting the reality of the offense (Kelly, et al.,2013).
It incorporates procedures like communicating sensitive and giving reasons thatdecrease the subject’s culpability (Kelly, et al.,2013).On the other hand, maximization tries to stress the solemnity of the offense andscare the subject (Kelly, et al.
,2013).Maximization, contain procedures like specifically charging the subject,forbidding refusals, and feigning or lying about proof (Kelly, et al.,2013).A second partition into whichinterrogation technics are separated within the literature is unselfish incontrast to dominant tactics (Kelly, et al., 2013). According to (Häkkänen, et al., 2009), leading methods arebased upon principles of hostility, belligerence, and conviction (Kelly, etal.
, 2013).Then again, compassionatestrategies are related more with standards of affectability and sympathy.Tactics categorized into the leading category contain displaying a threateningstate of mind, and being quiet after the source has answered a question (Kelly, et al.
, 2013).Methods arranged into the compassionate category contain a statement of akindly attitude, making progress toward participation, and showing a calmcharacter (Kelly, et al., 2013). These twoclassifications are viewed as discrete and regularly contrary to each other (Kelly, et al., 2013).A third partition is the datagathering model versus the accusatorial model.
The data gathering strategyutilizes methods that look to extract exact insight from subjects (Kelly, et al., 2013).As exhibited in Britain’s PEACE display (Planning and Preparation, Engage and Explain,Account, Closure, Evaluation), this strategy depends on compatibility, respect,and restricts the utilization of trickiness and mental control with respect tothe administrator (Schollum, 2005) (Kelly, et al., 2013).It is regularly referred to as a “fact-finding” mission that does notassume blame, but rather utilizes open-ended inquiries to perceive reality. Thelistener is responsible for the subject and must give a report. Conversely, theaccusatorial strategy for interrogation presumes blame, tries to build upcontrol, and uses mentally manipulative strategies to face the source (Kelly, et al., 2013).
The fundamental objective of this approach is to extract secrets. A fewprocedures related with the accusatorial strategy are isolation, terrorizing,denying refusals, and repetitive questioning (Kelly, et al., 2013). Another distinctionbetween this strategy and the data gathering approach is that the accusatorialtechnique allows the utilization of trickery and lying (Meissner, et al., 2012) (Kelly, et al., 2013).In contrast to wideinterrogation classifications, at the opposite end of the range are individual,particular interrogation methods (Kelly, et al.
, 2013). For instance, (Leo, 1996) watched police interrogations in California,recognizing 25 interrogation methods. Thus, (Soukara, et al., 2009), by reviewingrecordings of British interrogations, discovered 17 unmistakable interrogationsystems. Despite the fact that there is an overlay between these consolidated42 methods, probably the most usually utilized tactic in one are excluded inthe other (Kelly, et al., 2013). Differentspecialists (e.g.
, (Gudjonsson & Sigurdsson, 1999) ) having utilized an assortment of strategies, havedistinguished extra particular procedures, including detaching the suspect andrecognizing logical inconsistencies in the suspect’s story (Kelly, et al., 2013).In another attempt atcategorization, one which depended on theoretical resemblance, (Leo & Liu, 2009) made six classes and then at that point they arranged18 recognized interrogation procedures into the sixclasses: (a) Accusation/Reaccusation (i.e.
, rehashed allegations and prompts totake lie detector test), (b) Challenging Denials (i.e., repeated allegationsthat the alibi of the suspect is not valid and its fake), (c) Confronting withTrue Evidence of Guilt (i.e.
, honest cases of fizzled or uncertain polygraph),(d) Confronting with False Evidence of Guilt (i.e., false cases of fizzledpolygraph, video, DNA, and unique mark confirm), (e) Promises of Leniency(i.e., verifiable and express proposals of more permissive charges andsentences), and (f) Threats/Use of Physical Harm (i.e.
, certain and unequivocaldangers of mischief, and attack) (Kelly, et al., 2013). These subsequentclasses appear to have all the earmarks of being awfully restricted to obligeother, unidentified interrogation methods. For example, no affinity basedmethods or detachment/relevant systems were incorporated, and do not normallyfit into one of the created classes (Kelly, et al., 2013).
In the pictures above and the one on the left,it can be seen the various forms of interrogation and in the one down on theleft one of the most common methods which is the lie detector. In synopsis, with couple ofspecial cases, the surviving characterization and depiction of interrogationprocedures is at the same time excessively wide and excessively tight. In spiteof the fact that there have been endeavors at middle person groupings, they arerare, and tend to need reasonable appropriateness and broad pertinence (Kelly, et al., 2013).As it has been mentionedabove, after the events of September 11, 2001, the US government had hadspecialists to find new, but mostly efficient, ways of interrogation (Graham & Connolly, 2013).After the brief display of the methods of interrogation in general, now a deepunderstanding about more serious and violent forms of interrogation, likewaterboarding, will be analyzed.
Three years ago, on Decemberof 2014, the United States Senate Select Committee onIntelligence(SSCI) completed a report about theCentral Intelligence Agency (CIA)’s Detention and Interrogation Program forthe years of 2001-2006 during the War on Terror (n/a, 2014) (Andrews & Parlapiano, 2014).The brutal interrogation techniques used by the CIA in the years that followed,which touched the limits of torture, did not work. Its authors judge decisionsin the name of the criticism of the moment, in the war against terrorism,excessive, if not totally wrong (Graham & Connolly, 2013).
“The fear of anew terrorist attack does not justify mistaken decisions by organizations inthe name of national security,” the report notes (n/a, 2014). The report shedslight on Bush’s violent practices, talking about the use of the waterboardingmethod, during which many prisoners have come close to drowning but also otherviolent practices (n/a, 2014). Waterboarding is amethod that has been characterized by the United Nations as a practice oftorture and involves the interrogation of the interrogator on a board.
Theythen cover the face with a cloth, which is constantly spitting, causing afeeling of choking (Boehm, 2009) (Darmer, 2009). Sleep deprivation involving the forcedvigil of prisoners for 180 hours, usually in a standing position and often withthe hands over the head (Boehm, 2009). In one of the CIAcamps one prisoner lost his life from hypothermia, leaving himself half-nakedand chained to cement. Sometimes naked prisoners with hoods on their face weredragging along the corridors while they were brutally hit (Darmer, 2009) (Boehm, 2009). Many of the prisoners sufferedfrom hallucinations, paranoia, insomnia and in many cases attempted toamputate. Moreover, in the case of Abu Zubaydah, a senior Al-Qaeda official, theinterrogation resulted in his inability even to speak, as he had blisters inhis mouth (Andrews & Parlapiano, 2014).
Khalid SheikhMohammed, also a member of the Islamic terrorist organization and morallyresponsible for bringing the twin towers down, has been subjected to a torturethat has come to the definitive drowning (Chwastiak, 2015). Information refersto abusive techniques. In the summary report, the Senate examined 119 cases ofCIA detainees, saying that at least 26 of them were unjustified and theprisoners were imprisoned falsely (Andrews & Parlapiano, 2014).
In addition, it isreported that the psychologists used by the CIA to investigate had noexperience of interrogation or knowledge of terrorism. Indeed, thesepsychologists have been compensated with the astronomical amount of $ 80million. Apart from the torture, the report also speaks of fraud against theirsuperiors, since many of the CIA officials have misinterpreted both the WhiteHouse and Congress, concealing the practices they used in their interrogations (Andrews & Parlapiano, 2014).The report of former USPresident George Bush, who ignored many of the unacceptable methods for thefirst few years, was interesting, and when he was informed, he said he wasannoyed with some of them (Chwastiak, 2015). As for the WhiteHouse, it had avoided the information that the CIA had been asking the todeliver from 2002 to them, arguing the phobia of a media leak in the press. Onthe other hand, he said about the report that torture was never done, which isprobably not evidenced by the report. The waterboarding was used bythe CIA to suspects detained in secret prisons during the Bush administration (Boehm, 2009) (Darmer, 2009).
But this method was reportedly tortureby his successor, Barack Obama, by many US officials, deputies, senators andhuman rights organizations. In 2015 the Senate voted for its ban (Chehab, 2011), although it hasresurfaced again in the media and the public, due to the statements of the currentPresident of the United States of America, which he is arguing to reopen thesecret facilities of the CIA and begin the cruel methods of interrogation again,as he says they are an effective mean of interrogation. The US officials,senators, the public etc. has raised its concerns about this.There are many different meansand methods of interrogation and the most common of them got displayed and indepth analyzed. (Leo & Liu, 2009) came with the ideaof categorizing the18 recognized interrogation procedures into the six classes:(a) Accusation/Reaccusation, (b) Challenging Denials, (c) Confronting with TrueEvidence of Guilt, (d) Confronting with False Evidence of Guilt, (e) Promisesof Leniency, and (f) Threats/Use of Physical Harm. The categories of theinterrogation method Waterboarding, a very old torture, has been used manytimes in the past as a method of interrogation, and it has been widely revealedthat it is also a useless method by the CIA, suspected of “terrorism”or action against “liberal” regimes in general (Boehm, 2009). How, of course, aliberal can be someone who uses torture as a method of interrogation, is acause for concern.
The most common forms of waterboarding are by dipping thehead of the water questioned or by using a towel spread on the face that isconstantly wet to clog the breathing passages (Boehm, 2009).After the report of the UnitedStates Senate Select Committee on Intelligence(SSCI) about the CentralIntelligence Agency (CIA)’s Detention and Interrogation Program that contained thecruel interrogations that the CIA performed during 2001-2006, all the means andmethods that have to do with these interrogations have not been accepted by themajority of the public, US officials, senators etc. These methods are consideredto be by the United Nations and the general public inhuman and not methods of interrogationbut torture.