Introduction:

The thesis of this essay is a
discussion about the use of waterboarding by the US government, during the Bush
administration, and if this was an acceptable method of interrogation. After
September 11, 2001, the US government relied on qualified army instructors for
information on tough interrogation methods. One of them was the method of
waterboarding. Waterboarding is a type of water torment in which water is
poured over a material covering the face and breathing entries of a tied
hostage, making the individual experience the impression of suffocating.
Normally, the water is poured discontinuously so the hostage won’t die from
drowning during the torture, if the water is poured uninterruptedly it will
prompt passing by asphyxia with the impression of suffocating, likewise called
dry suffocating. Apart from death, waterboarding can cause outrageous torment,
harm to lungs, and harm the brain from oxygen hardship. Other physical wounds
include: broken bones, because of battling against restrictions, and enduring
mental harm (n/a, 2006). In the essay, this
will be discussed in depth.

The structure of the essay
will be as follows; first, in the introduction there will be a summary and a
definition 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 a general view on the methods of interrogation will be displayed, and after
that the method of waterboarding during the Bush administration will be
discussed in depth with some relative cases, which will be displayed for a
further understanding of the matter. Furthermore, the influence and the results
of the waterboarding, and if this method of interrogation was an acceptable
method will be discussed along with pictures, examples and cases. Lastly, the
conclusion will be displayed.

 

 

 

 

Main body:

Interrogation techniques,
regardless of whether utilized in a law-enforcement, counter-terrorism based
oppression or military setting, have accumulated a lot of consideration in the
previous decade from policymakers, experts, researchers, and the overall population (Kelly, et
al., 2013).
In some cases, the extant grouping and depiction of interrogation strategies is
at the same time excessively wide and excessively small (Kelly, et
al., 2013).

Probably the most broadly
referred literature on interrogation arranges procedures into general
classifications in view of the planned result or the fundamental reason (Kelly, et al.,
2013).
For instance, a standout amongst the most unmistakable expansive
characterizations of interrogation systems is minimization and maximization,
first presented by (Kassin & McNall, 1991). Minimization and maximization
are 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 a
subject’s participation by limiting the reality of the offense (Kelly, et al.,
2013).
It incorporates procedures like communicating sensitive and giving reasons that
decrease the subject’s culpability (Kelly, et al.,
2013).
On the other hand, maximization tries to stress the solemnity of the offense
and 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 which
interrogation technics are separated within the literature is unselfish in
contrast to dominant tactics (Kelly, et al., 2013). According to (Häkkänen, et al., 2009), leading methods are
based upon principles of hostility, belligerence, and conviction (Kelly, et
al., 2013).

Then again, compassionate
strategies are related more with standards of affectability and sympathy.
Tactics categorized into the leading category contain displaying a threatening
state 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 a
kindly attitude, making progress toward participation, and showing a calm
character (Kelly, et al., 2013). These two
classifications are viewed as discrete and regularly contrary to each other (Kelly, et
al., 2013).

A third partition is the data
gathering model versus the accusatorial model. The data gathering strategy
utilizes 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 to the administrator (Schollum, 2005) (Kelly, et al.,
2013).
It is regularly referred to as a “fact-finding” mission that does not
assume blame, but rather utilizes open-ended inquiries to perceive reality. The
listener is responsible for the subject and must give a report. Conversely, the
accusatorial strategy for interrogation presumes blame, tries to build up
control, and uses mentally manipulative strategies to face the source (Kelly, et
al., 2013).
The fundamental objective of this approach is to extract secrets. A few
procedures related with the accusatorial strategy are isolation, terrorizing,
denying refusals, and repetitive questioning (Kelly, et al., 2013). Another distinction
between this strategy and the data gathering approach is that the accusatorial
technique allows the utilization of trickery and lying (Meissner, et
al., 2012) (Kelly, et
al., 2013).

In contrast to wide
interrogation 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 reviewing
recordings of British interrogations, discovered 17 unmistakable interrogation
systems. Despite the fact that there is an overlay between these consolidated
42 methods, probably the most usually utilized tactic in one are excluded in
the other (Kelly, et al., 2013). Different
specialists (e.g., (Gudjonsson & Sigurdsson, 1999) ) having utilized an assortment of strategies, have
distinguished extra particular procedures, including detaching the suspect and
recognizing logical inconsistencies in the suspect’s story (Kelly, et
al., 2013).

In another attempt at
categorization, one which depended on theoretical resemblance, (Leo & Liu, 2009) made six classes and then at that point they arranged
18 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 suspect
is not valid and its fake), (c) Confronting with True Evidence of Guilt (i.e.,
honest cases of fizzled or uncertain polygraph), (d) Confronting with False
Evidence of Guilt (i.e., false cases of fizzled polygraph, video, DNA, and
unique mark confirm), (e) Promises of Leniency (i.e., verifiable and express
proposals of more permissive charges and sentences), and (f) Threats/Use of
Physical 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 awfully
restricted to oblige other, unidentified interrogation methods. For example, no
affinity based methods or detachment/relevant systems were incorporated, and do
not normally fit into one of the created classes (Kelly, et
al., 2013).

In synopsis, with couple of
special cases, the surviving characterization and depiction of interrogation
procedures is at the same time excessively wide and excessively tight. In spite
of the fact that there have been endeavors at middle person groupings, they are
rare, 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 to
find new, but mostly efficient, ways of interrogation. After the brief display of
the methods of interrogation in general, now a deep understanding about more serious
and violent forms of interrogation, like waterboarding, will be analyzed.

Three years ago on December of
2014, the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence(SSCI) completed
a report about the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)’s Detention and
Interrogation Program for the years of 2001-2006 during the War on Terror. 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 decisions
in 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 does
not justify mistaken decisions by organizations in the name of national
security,” the report notes. The report sheds light on Bush’s violent
practices, talking about the use of the waterboarding method, during which many
prisoners have come close to drowning but also other violent practices.
Waterboarding is a method that has been characterized by the United Nations as
a practice of torture and involves the interrogation of the interrogator on a
board. They then cover the face with a cloth, which is constantly spitting,
causing a feeling of choking. Sleep deprivation involving the forced vigil of
prisoners for 180 hours, usually in a standing position and often with the
hands over the head. ” In one of the CIA camps one prisoner lost his life
from hypothermia, leaving himself half-naked and chained to cement. Sometimes
naked prisoners with hoods on their face were dragging along the corridors
while they were brutally banged.