Get The Brown Spectator delivered to your emailThe Case for WaterboardingNot nice, but not torture
By Anish Mitra • February 2008 • Volume VI Number IV • Lead, National Rate this article:
(8 votes, average: 4 out of 5)
Loading ..."It is against the interests of the CIA to torture their subjects; history has taught us (during the Spanish Inquisition, for instance) that torture is only useful if you want someone to admit being a witch, or to having had intercourse with the Devil."
On October 18th, 2007, during day two of Michael Mukasey’s Senate confirmation hearing, the prospective Attorney General refused to label waterboarding as torture. Although he was criticized heavily by the media, Mukasey hesitated to allow public opinion to guide his conscience. On January 30th, 2008, now-Attorney General Mukasey continued to deliberate on whether or not waterboarding was truly a torture technique, and re-affirmed that he was still hesitant to allow media-crazed Democrats to decide for him. I respect Mukasey’s decision to sit back and investigate the issue; after all, decisions regarding the law ought to be well informed, not media-driven. It is also important to note that Mukasey has neither affirmed nor denied definitively that waterboarding is torture; this is where we differ. Although waterboarding is indeed a repulsive practice, when performed correctly, it absolutely cannot be considered torture.
First and foremost, let us clarify the details of what this process actually entails. The technique itself involves an interrogation subject’s lying on his back in a reclining position (knees angled above the head). The subject is then restrained, a cloth is placed over his face (covering the nose, mouth, and eyes), and a constant stream of water is poured over the cloth for a maximum period of a few minutes. Water boarding is an enhanced interrogation technique that is only applied in the late stages of an interrogation; further, it can only be applied with approval and much deliberation from the highest level of the CIA (as confirmed by ex-CIA agent John Kiriakou). Much to the dismay of critics, waterboarding is not applied carelessly, recklessly, and without good reason.
The United States Code of Law, specifically Title I, Chapter 113C, section 2340, defines torture as the following:
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.
First and foremost, the technique of waterboarding is not intended to “inflict severe physical or mental suffering” with regards to provision 1; the point of an enhanced interrogation is to withdraw valuable information, not maliciously to inflict pain. Agents who employ the use of waterboarding do so with the intention of ultimately producing valuable intelligence, not unnecessary anguish. Logically, what incentive would agents have to inflict immense suffering anyway? Tortured subjects generally give false, misleading “confessions” that are intended immediately to stop the procedure, and to send agents on a “wildgoose chase.” Techniques that violate section 1 are actually against the interests of the CIA, and could never produce valuable intelligence.
The practice of waterboarding, however repulsive, does not violate section 2. Like I previously stated, there is no exclusive intention of inflicting “severe physical pain or suffering.” Further, the interrogator never physically strikes or attacks the subject; the water is made to simulate the gag reflex of drowning, and there is no physical pain. The subject may certainly feel some discomfort, but “some discomfort” does not equate to “severe suffering.” Once again, if the subject endured severe suffering and prolonged mental harm was caused, the subject would not be mentally fit to withstand an interrogation, and could not provide legitimate intelligence. Remember, the CIA is not looking for a culprit; to date, the three individuals who have been waterboarded were known terrorists. Rather, the CIA is looking for new intelligence that it can use in order to prevent further acts of terrorism. The CIA does not benefit from measures that cause prolonged mental harm because the subject cannot provide the needed information.
My aforementioned statements deal primarily with sections A and B; sections C and D deal with the concept of “the threat of imminent death.” Many waterboarding critics liken the technique to a mock execution; for example, if an “executioner” were to trigger a gun filled with blanks in front of a panicking subject. These comparisons could not be more ludicrous; in a mock execution, much like the example I mentioned, the interrogator causes the subject undeniably to feel the threat of imminent death. There should be no question regarding whether the subject is going to die or the subject should believe he is going to die. With waterboarding, no such question exists; the subject is never verbally, nor physically threatened with imminent death. Waterboarding is a simulation, and is not actual drowning. When waterboarded by CIA professionals, the subject can never face nor expect a legitimate threat of imminent death; further, CIA professionals know the technique is not being used to murder the subject, and subsequently do not intend to kill the subject. Section 2, C and D, like A and B, do not apply to waterboarding because there is no imminent threat of death; it is a simulation designed to produce valuable intelligence, not maliciously to harm or kill terrorists.
The last provision, found in the latter half of Section 2, D, which mentions “the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality,” also does not apply to waterboarding. The only “substance” used in the technique is water; certainly, we can agree that water is not mind-altering like LSD, PCP, Cocaine, or any major hallucinogen or narcotic. Second, why would the CIA even want to use a mind-altering substance? Once again, the purpose of an enhanced interrogation is to produce valuable, legitimate, and trustworthy intelligence. By using substances to alter the normal thought processes of subjects, could the CIA honestly expect legitimate results?
In order to understand whether or not the CIA should use waterboarding, we must examine their interests; torture renders the subject useless, and thus, cannot aid the CIA with any investigations. Further, only “illegal enemy combatants” are waterboarded by CIA officials; not soldiers, not civilians. Soldiers and civilians are protected by international accords, namely the famed Geneva Conventions. Illegal enemy combatants however, have no allegiances to countries, are not sufficiently recognized by international agreements, and have access to valuable intelligence regarding imminent terrorist threats. This has been proven by the CIA’s use of waterboarding with three prominent terrorists: Abu Zubaydah (Osama bin Laden’s chief of operations), Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri (the mastermind of the bombing of the USS Cole), and Khalid Sheik Mohammed (the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks). The results of Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s enhanced interrogation were brought to light during December 2007, when ex-CIA agent John Kiriakou admitted that he was present during Mohammed’s interrogation, and the technique yielded significant intelligence without rendering the subject useless. Thanks to this technique, we realized Mohammed was responsible for over thirty organized terror plots, including 9/11 for which he was accountable “A-Z.”
In an age where our enemy is small in number but dangerous nonetheless, waterboarding is and should absolutely remain a lawful and legitimate enhanced interrogation technique. CIA interrogators do not waterboard recklessly or without deliberation; further, these interrogators are professionals, and can waterboard correctly. Lastly, it is against the interests of the CIA to torture their subjects; history has taught us (during the Spanish Inquisition, for instance) that torture is only useful if you want someone to admit being a witch, or to having had intercourse with the Devil.
And to those who are still skeptical concerning whether or not waterboarding will cause “prolonged physical and mental suffering”, remember this: CIA agents are waterboarded during their training. Will they ever be able to work?
(4.5 out of 5)
Halenda and Mitra make detailed arguments regarding the technique, the legality, the effect and the catagorization of “waterboarding”, but both (as do most) miss the salient point. Let me use this example: You are a soldier who comes upon an Iraqi who has a weapon. Do you shoot him, talk to him, or something in between? Obviously, judgment plays a huge part in such a decision, and judgment is often faulty. Waterboarding is not inherently anything. It is the worst form of torture to some, and a joke to others. I would bet that al Qaeda trainees are trained to understand and deal with waterboarding. I can say this with some confidence, having been a Navby SEAL. In SEAL training, the first night of Hell Week is (or at least it used to be) kicked off with mass water “torture”. The instructors lie the class on their backs (freezing, I might add) and several of them make the rounds with hoses and buckets, trying to get trainees to quit. Some do. But most figure out pretty quickly how to breathe around the water and when the instructors see it is ineffective, they leave you alone. Another example is the reporter on CNN, also a former SEAL, who had himself video taped being waterboarded. Of course, the segment focused on the dramatic. But when asked how long he had it done to himself, the “victim” said, “Oh, about 25-30 minutes, then we got kind of tired of it”. I guarantee you, that guy, and any former SEAL, could have done that until he starved to death!. The point here is not that waterboarding (and beyond) may well be the technique of choice depending upon the person being interrogated. Some poor guy off the street is going to be “tortured” by the technique, which automatically dictates something lesser in that case. A hard-core al Qaeda operative is going to pretend to be tortured, but will be laughing under the cloth. One man’s “torture” is another man’s rest period. We cannot reduce all techniques to the lowest common denominator to protect the most sensitive potential prisoner. I favor well-trained interragators who know what the relevant technique is in a situation, monitor it closely, and know when to give up. After all, they are after good information from living subjects. They are not insane torture addicts, meting out devilish techniques just to see people squirm and die. To some extent, interrogation is trial and error. No interrogation should begin without competent people and record keepers, with several people agreeing on the techniques and whether to continue. No one wants a subject to just spit out useless information. That does more harm than good. So, I don’t see any real barriers here, other than those which are irreversible or unnecessary. We need more people, better trained, with better supervision. All we do by seconding extreme interrogation to other countries, where “no one is looking” is ensure that mindless torture will take place, resulting in unreliable information, which is then passed back to us for action. Better to keep control of interrogation and admit that the applicable techniques will vary by the situation and the subject. We need professionalism, not legal opinions.
And finally, the old example for those who say no to this: Your son or daughter is being held by terrorists, who have published a video and say they are going to behead him/her in 10 days if we don’t get out of the Middle East. We caught one of the abductors and are 100% certain he knows where they are holding him/her. We have tried every technique short of waterboarding to get him to talk. You happen to be in a position of authority in the Defense Department, so the interrogators and the officers ready to take a SEAL Team in to get your son/daughter turn to you and say, “What do you want to do?” In the background on TV, CNN is talking about the criticism against Bush for waterboarding, and a bunch of congresspeople and others are talking about how repulsed they are by it and that the US “does not torture people”. Your call.
[Reply]