It is now common knowledge that the Bush Administration officially approved the CIA to perform waterboarding techniques on al-Qaeda prisoners.
I have to admit, I’ve always been a little hazy about what exactly waterboarding is. At first glance it sounds like an interrogator dips a paddle in water and then starts hitting someone. Well that isn’t what it is. According to the Washington Post, waterboarding is a term that describes several different torture techniques.
The victim may be immersed in water, have water forced into the nose and mouth, or have water poured onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed. The media usually characterize the practice as ’simulated drowning.’ That’s incorrect. To be effective, waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death. That is, the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut. The main difference is that the drowning process is halted. According to those who have studied waterboarding’s effects, it can cause severe psychological trauma, such as panic attacks, for years.
Wow. That certainly doesn’t sound fun. In fact, it sounds pretty damn horrible for whoever has to go through it.
Now that we know exactly what waterboarding involves, the obvious question that comes to mind is whether it is ever justified to use this technique to get information or cooperation out of a prisoner? Some may say yes, some may say no. For some the issue will be decided by whether that prisoner is a terrorist who is involved in an anti-American organization with a history of planning and even successfully executing attacks on American soil. After all, what if waterboarding could be effectively used to keep these kinds of violent attacks from ever happening again?
There are no absolute answers to these questions. This is about ethics, and ethics is always personal. In light of the subjective nature of ethics, it should come as no surprise that during World War II the United States held a very different stance towards waterboarding.
After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan’s military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding. (Washington Post)
The U.S. has clearly changed its stance on waterboarding since World War II. Some would call this a decay of morality, but it could also be perceived as a natural response to fear. The 9/11 terror attacks on the Twin Towers were the worst attacks our country has ever experienced. Unlike WWII and the attacks on Pearl Harbor, this time our enemies weren’t confined to one location that could be easily identified on a map. They were potentially everywhere, even if primarily located in the Middle East. When ideology is the enemy, the risk of an exponential increase in converts to that ideology is all too scary. The fact is, fear changes the game. An ambiguous enemy naturally evokes a primal fear, which leads one to take advantage of whatever tools are at hand. You can always count on fear to make a person do what they normally would not do.
This is the psychology of survival. It applies to individuals, communities, and nations.
I personally do not agree with the use of waterboarding, or torture in general, but I certainly understand why our government used this controversial tactic. Now I want to know what you think. Talk amongst yourselves.
Image Used in this Post
1902 Waterboarding photo courtesy of Flickr user The Ardvaark published under the CC license.
49 Comments
I always thought that waterboarding was like water skiing, but instead of skis you used a board. Wow, do I feel like an idiot!
Anyway, my opinion on this matter is that torture should only be used to prevent future disaster to innocent people. To me waterboarding is not an acceptable form of torture because it sounds like it is done for vengeance and amusement. Really though a well placed MOAB would really be the better alternative to torture.
Rineberg, remember when you thought Hammerhead Sharks looked the way they do because you thought they always had a fish in their mouth? lol
I think we need to be better then that. Plus, I don’t know how reliable the information we get from torture would be. If I was getting torture I’d admit I did anything or agree to say anything they wanted as long as they stopped.
I’m sorry Keeks, but I believe in the notion that war is hell and that sometimes the leader/commander/soldier has to make tough decisions to sacrifice a few (of his own or the enemy) to save the lives of many. Even if that includes torturing or killing.
Torture is a very loose term. Would you think that burning food supplies and cutting off communication to be a form of torture? Because that’s how the North won the Civil War, by destroying the Souths livelihood.
As Andrew said above, it really depends on your philosophical view. Either you can believe in the greater good for all (John Stuart Mills) or the individual (Emmanuel Kant). I prefer to stand behind Mill’s theory of utilitarianism – providing the most amount of good to the most amount of people.
Greg, that’s not exactly accurate. Belief in the greater good for all doesn’t necessitate a belief in the use of torture to achieve that greater good.
For the sake of this post and discussion torture is defined as the use of violence to simulate the fear of death so as retrieve information from an enemy. In the context of that definition I agree with Keeks that torture doesn’t guarantee accurate information.
Now when it comes to the ethics of war on a bigger scale (burning food supplies) it gets real complicated. What’s at stake?
It all comes down to survival. War sucks, but if your family and land are at immediate risk of destruction then all your ethics and morality will definitely fly out the window. But until that point of no return is brutally clear, I think its unethical to pull a stunt like burning another countries food supplies, or dropping an A-bomb.
Andrew, it is said by both military tacticians and historians alike that dropping the A-bomb saved millions of lives.
Do you have any idea how devastating to both sides (Allies and Axis) a land invasion of Japan would have been? It has been estimated that it would have cost over 6 million lives.
While the A-Bomb killed 400,000 innocent people, it unequivocally ended the war. I am hardly advocating the negligent use of nuclear weapons, but sometimes tough decisions need to be made.
Based on this nugget of information would you care to rethink your position on the above statement?
I think the enemy has a much better solution. We should just slowly cut their heads of with a dull, rusty hand saw. Then we should post the video on the internet.
Honestly, who cares what happens. I’ll go to Gitmo and take a leak on some Jihadi’s Quran, and I’ll give Osama the finger while I do it.
Do you guys think that Al Queda understands compasion or comprimise? Look how they treat their women. Look how the execute homosexuals in public. Look how they set fire to everything they touch.
Sure two wrongs don’t make a right. But don’t expect me to feel sorry for them. Let ‘em hold their breath.
Andrew – you are definitely more versed in philosophy than I am. I took one class in college and the one thing I really remembered was Mills’ belief in utilitarianism. The belief to provide the greatest good to the most amount of people. I always thought that this idea could be applied to dropping the A-bomb. Is that a poor analogy?
I know utilitarianism is a form of reductionism, so I can see your issue with it because it minimizes people’s worth. Nevertheless, going back to your post, I feel as though when somebody (i.e. terrorists) kills they forfeit any self worth they might have had. So if torturing these worthless (my opinion) people will maybe save many other lives, I think it is acceptable.
Greg, the A-bomb statement I wrote was never meant to mean we shouldn’t have dropped it on Japan. What you wrote is dead on, and that’s why we dropped the bomb. And the same goes for burning the food supply in the Civil War.
All I was saying is in future conflicts caution is always the best road to take before using a measure that could potentially kill thousands.
I agree that well-planned military strategies can save lots of lives in the long run, but is there any proof that torture actually yields accurate information the majority of the time?
All I’m saying is if torture doesn’t give you the information you need its a waste of time.
Andrew – you are absolutely torture doesn’t guarantee that you will get accurate information.
This discussion has really piqued my philosophical interest. I got to tell you Andrew, it would be great if you could explain the differing philosophical views on ethics, i.e. mills, kant, etc.
I honestly don’t know anything specific from any philosopher (I skipped those classes to hang out with my friends). But I do know some basics, and that’s enough to get by.
I remember you always recommended Plato, and I still haven’t gotten around to reading any of his stuff.
What further proof do you need that torture works other than the hundreds of thwarted plots, no attacks on US soil since 911(proven attempts), and 75% of Al Qaeda captured or killed?
And if you think waterboarding is all they do to known terrorists in custody, then I got ocean-front property to sell you in Kansas.
Nobody knows what happens in those interogation rooms. Not I, not you, not any author on this site. Hell, even people with basic levels of security clearance don’t know what really goes on.
Where’s Osama?
Andrew, there is what the government feeds the sheep through the media and then there is what really goes on.
Let me guess you don’t believe we shot flight 93 down either.
Couldn’t a lot of those terror plots have been thwarted through illegal wire-tapping??
I just don’t see how using the threat of violence during interrogation against a group that believes their death in the service of Allah will lead to a heaven of 99 virgins could possibly lead to accurate information or compliance.
The example most often cited for the successful use of waterboarding was the information revealed by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that al Qaeda was planning an attack on the Liberty Tower in Los Angeles. This was cited by President Bush on 2/9/06 to the public. The problem is that Muhammad was captured and interrogated AFTER this plot had already been discovered by the Feds. (Waterboarding Success Stories)
Jon,
By sheep I’m sure you mean everyone but yourself who obviously has access to classified information.
Sure Jay, why not. On paper, wire taps and torturous interrogation are illegal.
In reality, if these methods save innocent-lives from dying and only result in the arrest of the terrorists involved in the plots, well…you do the math.
I am just asking…Do you think organizations like the CIA, NSA, and FBI adhere to what the public thinks is legally being used?
Andrew, I do not have access to classified information. None of my family members are involved with terrorist risk analysis or interrogation in any way whatsoever.
I am just saying, it is naive to think any of us know what really goes on. 90% of this country are sheep in the sense that they believe all government press releases and media.
In a separate completely unrelated matter, check out this article about my cousin.
“…it is naive to think any of us know what really goes on.”
I’m writing that one down. I’m sure it will come in handy in future discussions.
Let me ask you this…If a law was passed declaring all forms of wire-tapping and torture (including waterboarding) illegal, do you think these laws would be followed?
A naive answer would be, “Sure the laws would be followed, they are laws that apply to everyone.”
…And then there is the realistic answer which doesn’t even have to be said.
What is your answer?
Of course they wouldn’t be followed.
But at least illegal wire-tapping is proven to be an effective way to get accurate information.
I think waterboarding is effective too.
It doesn’t matter what religion anyone is rasied in or what afterlife they are expecting. When an individual’s basic instinctive needs (such as air) are compromised, they will talk.
Have a little faith in the personnel and technology to decifer whether the information told is true or false. I do not care what some Democratic senator from West Virginia has to say. I bet that mofo would talk on a waterboard.
I’d hang 10 on a waterboard.
If waterboarding or torture was so effective wouldn’t we have found out where Binladen was already. Or are we to naively believe that we couldn’t do such acts because the liberal media would find out and tell the world?
Who can honestly say where Bin Ladin is right not. He could be alive, dead, captured, or under constant survellance to see where he goes and who he associates with.
Am I the only one that believes we probably do worse things to these people than waterboarding?
I’m sure we do worse then waterboarding. I just don’t think we should.
Bin Laden will never be found. Even after his death. He was on dialysis three years ago – how long can someone survive like that while on the run?
His followers will never let his body be found. As long as he is a ghost the message remains.
They never found Hoffa, they will probably never find Bin Laden.
Wasn’t that why we went to war? I realize the reason has changed so many times it’s easy to forget the original lie….I mean reason.
What lie? Do you think if we get Bin Laden terrorism will end and radical Islam will concede defeat?
We are at war with more than just one man or Al Queda. They were the group that perpetrated 911 but does that mean we should wait until Hamas, or Hezbollah, or Islamic Jihad, or Salami-on-Sashimi do the same thing?
Well, a couple thumbnail opinions:
1. Torture cannot be trusted to get accurate results.
2. Torture is evil.
3. Fear is not a good excuse for doing evil things.
4. I personally condemn all use of torture.
Andrew, thanks for stopping by the site!
You raise an excellent point about fear. Too often people use it as an excuse to act impulsively without thought of consequence.
I’d also like to add…
Violence comes from anger, and anger from frustration. I can’t think of anything more frustrating than having to get information out of an enemy who has sworn on his life and religion that he would not divulge any information.
However, time has shown that violence and torture are just not effective at getting accurate information. So why do we keep relying on violent methods to get information?
Hopefully Obama doesn’t follow in the footsteps of his predecessor, W.
Andrwe Werling -
1. You don’t know that.
2. Is it evil to save lives?
3. Really? So if we’re afraid that American lives will be lost, that’s not good enough for you?
4. Sorry buddy. You’re gonna need more than that.
torture is evil and wrong, and Bush and Cheney should be tried for war crimes. What country are we all living in? Plus water boarding has been proven the make the detainee to say ANYTHING, not necessarily the truth. In most cases, there is no information to be acquired, so torture yields misleading information. Torture is wrong. What happened to ethics?
Isn’t funny how slowly the liberal perspective has slowly shifted to the point where it now wants oposing points of view in jail.
Technically both points of view are exactly the same.
Al Qaeda wants the dominance of Radical Islam and will do so by any means and in complete violation of international law and by use of military weapons that tend to leave civilian casualities and terror and fear in their wake.
Bush foreign policy wanted the dominance of Democracy and would do so by any means and in complete violation of international law and by use of military weapons that tend to leave civilian casualties and terror and fear in their wake.
This is war dude. It’s not Cowboys versus Indians. Or God versus the Devil. Violation of international law has been had by both sides in this “war on terror”. Remember we are also seen as terrorists from the point of view of al Qaeda.
Actually Andrew, there are hundreds if not thousands of American Soldiers who are dead right now because of the lengths our military goes to in order to avoid civilian casualties. Your statement comparing us to the terrorists who deliberately seak out civilian deaths is misleading and not very sensitive to the sacrifices our soldiers make while fighting an enemy who makes no such concesions.
Bush’s foreign policy did more to enforce international law than anything else. There is no international law that says the American military can’t be used to enforce UN resolutions or kill terrorists who happen to be on the wrong side of an invisible line.
Also, we are seen as terrorsists by Al Qaeda because of the god we do or don’t worship and becuase we draw cartoons and let little girls go to school not because of our foreign policy.
I’m going to agree with Toledo on this one. Both points of view are about enforcing their preferred way of life while eradicating opposing view points. I think a nation built on the premise of freedom would recognize other people’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not inflicting our own version, but that is not the case. We are just as dictatorial, but many Americans are extremely ethnocentric and cannot remove their personal biases from the equation and view the situation objectively, which is what I believe Mr. Blanco just did very nicely in laying out the similarities. The content is just detail, the prevailing themes are the same.
The same logic could be applied to the war against Nazi Germany. Yes, that was a clash of idealogies (murdering bastards vs everyone else) much the same way you could describe the war on terror (murdering bastards without uniforms vs everyone else who will or won’t admit that the murdering bastards want them dead).
If you want to call it that, then fine, because we’re right. I don’t understand the crazy notion that we are supposed to respect a culture that calls for honor killings of women for the slightest infraction of their warped code of conduct and condones ethnic genocide of Jews and Christians. That is not a culture that deserves respect or tolerance, that is a culture that if allowed to grow could set the world on fire the same way the Nazis did. Why shouldn’t we eradicate that viewpoint?
Oh don’t get me wrong. I have ZERO respect for Radical Islam. And I look forward to it being eradicated from the face of the planet during my lifetime. Read the post I wrote about the Religion Muhammad Wrought. Radical Islam is a lie and a complete warping of the original teachings of Muhammad.
I’m just saying that out of fear and desperation to rid the planet of Radical Islam, the Bush administration ended up confusing its mission to destroy Radical Islam with its mission to spread Democracy. Those are two different goals, and though one might help the other, it was all done with zero respect for the international community: and that kind of headstrong hastiness cost us allies.
Just as Radical Islam is really just Hate in the disguise of Islam…the mission to spread Democracy is really just Imperialism in the disguise of Democracy. It’s completely hypocritical. You can judge Democracy as better than Radical Islam, but the tactics used to spread both of those belief systems have been eerily similar, and at times in violation of international law.
When you depose a dictator or a theocracy what would you put in it’s palce? You have to put somthing there, democracy is the only prudent choice since Communism has already been proven a failure and monarchy just invites another dictator. Unless you would rather unseat a government and then leave an anarchy in place.
As to Bush’s foreign policy costing us allies, who cares? Europe has proven time and again that it is not willing to fight for anything. They are content with the dillusion that Radical Islam is an American and Israeli problem. They have already ignored Obama’s request for more troops in Afghanistan (Obama has learned the hard way that European indiference was not just a Bush thing). All the while, the problem is starting to blow up in Europe’s face in the form of riots in France, homegrown attacks in the UK, and those insane riots over a stupid cartoon.
Who cares about losing allies that were not worth a damn to begin with?
Let’s forget how much European allegiance is worth just for a minute….
What we’re really debating here is whether or not torture, the imperial spread of Democracy, and other aspects of the War on Terror are consistent with the values of America.
1) Waterboarding is against international law, and yet we did it anyway. If we claim to be the leader of the free world, then by violating international law what we are doing is leading the world down the road of “every man for himself”. And if every man is for himself, then who are we to condemn Iran, N. Korea, and any other nation for developing nuclear weapons. That would be their choice, and if we don’t abide by international law, why the hell should they.
2) The preemptive toppling of threatening regimes to keep a region of the world safe is completely unAmerican. We are not the world police, and when we we act like the world police then we are imposing our will on the freedom of other countries. I don’t care if the whole Mideast burns to the ground in anarchy and chaos….that would be their choice. If the populace wants change, they should strive for it on their own. No one country should act as the Jesus Savior for the rest of the world. And that’s the example we are setting…
A dangerous example if you consider that history proves no country can remain the top dog forever: one day a greater power will most likely take our lead and use our time tested “world police tactics” against us.
Andrew, nice find on the picture by the way.
Flickr has some true treasures lying around if you are willing to take the time to search.
Thanks, I had no idea.
I charge 2% interest on advice. That’s on top of the $10 you owe me for not being Spanish and having a French last name.
2 Trackbacks
[...] It was reported yesterday, by no one, that the Bush administration officially approved that all males can perform motorboating techniques on consenting female adults. I always assumed this was common knowledge, but I guess what makes this report novel is the revelation of a nonsensical blog post written yesterday. [...]
[...] information. We can all rest easy now, with a clean conscience, knowing that sleep deprivation and water boarding are no longer [...]