Introduction: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. Other physical woundsinclude: broken bones, because of battling against restrictions, and enduringmental harm (n/a, 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 begiven. After that, the methods paragraph will be displayed. In the main body,first a general view on the methods of interrogation will be displayed, and afterthat the method of waterboarding during the Bush administration will bediscussed in depth with some relative cases, which will be displayed for afurther understanding of the matter.
Furthermore, the influence and the resultsof the waterboarding, and if this method of interrogation was an acceptablemethod will be discussed along with pictures, examples and cases. Lastly, theconclusion will be displayed. 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 overall population (Kelly, et al., 2013).In some cases, the extant grouping and depiction of interrogation strategies isat the same time excessively 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,particular strategies 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 offenseand scare 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 andExplain, Account, Closure, Evaluation), this strategy depends on compatibility,respect, and restricts the utilization of trickiness and mental control withrespect to the 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, recognizing25 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 six classes: (a) Accusation/Reaccusation(i.e.
, rehashed allegations and prompts to take lie detector test), (b)Challenging Denials (i.e., repeated allegations that the alibi of the suspectis not valid and its fake), (c) Confronting with True Evidence of Guilt (i.e.,honest cases of fizzled or uncertain polygraph), (d) Confronting with FalseEvidence of Guilt (i.e., false cases of fizzled polygraph, video, DNA, andunique mark confirm), (e) Promises of Leniency (i.
e., verifiable and expressproposals of more permissive charges and sentences), and (f) Threats/Use ofPhysical Harm (i.e., certain and unequivocal dangers of mischief, and attack) (Kelly, et al., 2013).These subsequent classes appear to have all the earmarks of being awfullyrestricted to oblige other, unidentified interrogation methods.
For example, noaffinity based methods or detachment/relevant systems were incorporated, and donot normally fit into one of the created classes (Kelly, et al., 2013).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 mentioned above,after the events of September 11, 2001, the US government had had specialists tofind new, but mostly efficient, ways of interrogation.
After the brief display ofthe methods of interrogation in general, now a deep understanding about more seriousand violent forms of interrogation, like waterboarding, will be analyzed.Three years ago on December of2014, the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence(SSCI) completeda report about the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)’s Detention andInterrogation Program for the years of 2001-2006 during the War on Terror. Thebrutal 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. “The fear of a new terrorist attack doesnot justify mistaken decisions by organizations in the name of nationalsecurity,” the report notes. The report sheds light on Bush’s violentpractices, talking about the use of the waterboarding method, during which manyprisoners have come close to drowning but also other violent practices.
Waterboarding is a method that has been characterized by the United Nations asa practice of torture and involves the interrogation of the interrogator on aboard. They then cover the face with a cloth, which is constantly spitting,causing a feeling of choking. Sleep deprivation involving the forced vigil ofprisoners for 180 hours, usually in a standing position and often with thehands over the head.
” In one of the CIA camps one prisoner lost his lifefrom hypothermia, leaving himself half-naked and chained to cement. Sometimesnaked prisoners with hoods on their face were dragging along the corridorswhile they were brutally banged.