|
User talk:Blue Tie/Article to workUser talk:Blue Tie/Article to work/Discussion on Waterboarding Re-Write Waterboarding is an Enhanced interrogation technique often described as torture. It is similar in appearance, but different in effect from the Water Cure. TechniquesA variety of techniques have been described under the term "Waterboarding":
The process may be repeated and different forms of waterboarding may used in increasing orders of severity, starting with simply pouring water on the subject's face, then moving to inserting a rag in the mouth and later, putting plastic wrap over the face with a hole in the mouth. .[3][4] Water Cure is similar to waterboarding, however that process involves forcing water into the stomach of the subject. It dates at least as far back as the Spanish Inquisition where it was considered as routine as cross-examination is today. "[5] poop Purposes and effectivenessThe waterboarding technique is called "professional interrogation technique." by former CIA director Porter J. Goss. [6] The technique has been favored **BY WHOM** because, unlike most other torture techniques, it produces no marks on the body.{fact} [7] Individuals who have performed waterboarding have described it as very effective in producing information from subjects.{fact} CIA officers who have subjected themselves to the technique have lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in.[8] According to some experts, information retrieved from waterboarding may not be reliable because a person under such duress may admit to anything, as harsh interrogation techniques lead to false confessions. It is 'bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough,' said former CIA officer Bob Baer." The Independent reports "legal experts said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed appeared to be exaggerating his role for his own self-aggrandizement and may also have deliberately floated false claims to send US investigators on wild goose chases."[9] History of WaterboardingWorld War IIDuring World War II, Japanese troops, especially the Kempeitai. During the Double Tenth Incident, waterboarding consisted of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, interrogators beat the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowed water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach.[10][11] Algerian WarThe technique was also used during the Algerian War (1954-1962). Cite error: A Vietnam WarIn 1968 the The Washington Post published a photograph of an American soldier supervising the waterboarding of a North Vietnamese POW near Da Nang.photo[13] Although water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals, [14] the article described the practice as "fairly common."[13]
The photograph led to the soldier being court-martialled by a U.S. military court within one month of its publication, and he was thrown out of the army.[14][15] Another waterboarding photograph of the same scene is also exhibited in the War Remnants Museum at Ho Chi Minh City.[16] Khmer RougeThe Khmer Rouge at the Tuol Sleng prison in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, used waterboarding as a method of torture between 1975 and 1979. War on TerrorThe United States has authorized waterboarding as an Enhanced Interrogation Method since 2002. To date, the technique has been authorized in questioning three individuals including Abu Zubaida and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The use of water boarding by the US Government has been the subject of criticism and became especially controversial during the confirmation hearings of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General when he would not confirm that he considered it torture. Mental and physical effectsIn an open letter to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Human Rights Watch claimed that waterboarding can cause the sort of "severe pain" prohibited by 18 USC 2340 (the implementation in the United States of the United Nations Convention Against Torture), that the psychological effects can last long after waterboarding ends (another of the criteria under 18 USC 2340), and that uninterrupted waterboarding can ultimately cause death.[17] Classification as tortureToday, waterboarding is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities.[17][18][19][12][20][21][6][22] Classification as torture in the United StatesWhether waterboarding should be classified as a method of torture was not widely in debated in the United States before it was alleged that members of the CIA have used the technique against certain suspected detained terrorists.[citation needed] Since then, some commentators have argued that waterboarding as an interrogation method should not qualify as torture in certain circumstances while other individuals have refused to state whether they would consider waterboarding to be torture without knowing the specific facts of a situation. The American conservative media commentator Jim Meyers has stated, in a December 2007 Newsmax.com opinion piece, that he does not believe that waterboarding should be classified as a form of torture, because he does not believe it inflicts pain.[23] Andrew C. McCarthy, a licensed attorney and former U.S. federal prosecutor, states in an October 2007 op-ed in National Review that he believes that, when used "some number of instances that were not prolonged or extensive", waterboarding should not qualify as torture under the law. McCarthy continues: "Reasonable minds can and do differ on this. Personally, I don't believe it qualifies. It is not in the nature of the barbarous sadism universally condemned as torture, an ignominy the law, as we've seen, has been patently careful not to trivialize or conflate with lesser evils."[24] The Wall Street Journal also implied in a November 2005 editorial that it did not view the technique as a method of torture: "No one has yet come up with any evidence that anyone in the U.S. military or government has officially sanctioned anything close to 'torture.' The 'stress positions' that have been allowed (such as wearing a hood, exposure to heat and cold, and the rarely authorized 'waterboarding,' which induces a feeling of suffocation) are all psychological techniques designed to break a detainee."[25] Some American politicians have come out and unequivocaly stated that waterboarding isn't torture. Representative Ted Poe stated on Glen Beck show in response to the question "Do you believe waterboarding is torture?", Poe state "I don't believe it's torture at all, I certainly don't." [26] In a telephone poll of 1,024 American adults by the CNN/Opinion Research Corp. in early November 2007 about whether they considered waterboarding torture. 69 percent of respondents said that waterboarding was torture while 29 percent of respondants said it was not. In addition, 58 percent of those polled stated that they did not think that the U.S. government should be allowed to use this procedure against suspected terrorist as a method of interrogation. [27] As a political issue in confirmation hearingsThe issue of whether waterboarding is torture became an issue in confirming certain appointments to the Department of Justice. Judge Michael Mukasey was intended to be a consensus candidate to replace Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney General, but his confirmation briefly looked in doubt when he wouldn't state whether waterboarding is torture. Mukasey stated that waterboarding seemed "over the line or, on a personal basis, repugnant to me, and would probably seem the same to many Americans" but that "hypotheticals are different from real life, and in any legal opinion the actual facts and circumstances are critical." As reported by the Washington Post: Mukasey also stated that he was "reluctant to offer opinions on interrogation techniques because he does not want to place U.S. officials 'in personal legal jeopardy' and is concerned that such remarks might 'provide our enemies with a window into the limits or contours of any interrogation program.'" [28] The issue came up again in the confirmation hearings of Federal District Judge Mark Filip for the position of deputy attorney general. Filip stated that he considered waterboarding to be "repugnant," and stated that with a grandfather in a POW camp in Germany, he considered the issue to be somewhat personal. That being said, he refused to state whether waterboarding was torture and stated instead that "the attorney general of the United States is presently reviewing that legal question" and that "I don't think I can or anyone who could be potentially considered for his deputy could get out in front of him on that question while it's under review." [29] As a political issue in 2008 presidential electionThe issue of whether waterboarding should be classified as torture also became a political issue for candidates running for president in the 2008 election, which candidates being asked whether they would consider waterboarding to be a form of torture. Several political candidates (e.g., John McCain[20] Mike Huckabee[30], Joseph Biden [31] Chris Dodd[32] Barack Obama[33]) have state unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, while others have refused to state this position or have stated that they do not believe waterboarding is torture. For example, Rudolph Giuliani stated in response to a direct question of whether he considered waterboarding to be torture, he stated "I’m not sure [waterboarding is [torture]. It depends on how it’s done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it. I think the way it’s been defined in the media, it shouldn’t be done. The way in which they have described it, particularly in the liberal media. So I would say, if that’s the description of it, then I can agree, that it shouldn’t be done. But I have to see what the real description of it is. Because I’ve learned something being in public life as long as I have. And I hate to shock anybody with this, but the newspapers don’t always describe it accurately." [34] Additionally, Tom Tancredo stated in a Republican debate the following: "[T]he question that I was originally asked that elicited the response that you’ve mentioned was, what do we do in the -- in the response to a nuclear -- or the fact that a nuclear device or some bombs have gone off in the United States; we know that there are -- we have captured people who have information that could lead us to the next one that’s going to go off; and it’s the big one? That was the question that I responded to. And I told you yes, I would do -- certainly waterboard -- I don’t believe that that is, quote, "torture." I would do what is necessary to protect this country. That is the ultimate responsibility of the president of the United States." [35] In the Republican YouTube debates, Andrew Jones, a college student from Seattle submitted the question:"Recently, Senator McCain has come out strongly against using waterboarding as an instrument of interrogation. My question for the rest of you is, considering that Mr. McCain is the only one with any firsthand knowledge on the subject, how can those of you sharing the stage with him disagree with his position?" In response to this question Mitt Romney stated "I oppose torture. I would not be in favor of torture in any way, shape or form." Prompted by the moderator as to whether waterboarding was torture, Romney said "as a presidential candidate, I don't think it's wise for us to describe specifically which measures we would and would not use" which prompted the following exchange between McCain and Romney: McCain "Well, governor, I'm astonished that you haven't found out what waterboarding is." Romney: "I know what waterboarding is, Senator." McCain: "Then I am astonished that you would think such a – such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our — who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention."[36] LegalityAll nations that are signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture have agreed they are subjected to the explicit prohibition on torture under any condition, and as such there exists no legal exception under this treaty. (The treaty states "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.") Additionally, signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are bound to Article 5, which states, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." United StatesThe United States has a historical record of regarding waterboarding as a crime, and has prosecuted individuals for the use of the practice in the past. In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II. Yukio Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor.[13] The charges of Violation of the Laws and Customs of War against Asano also included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward."[37] In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognized "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record,[38] and critics of waterboarding draw parallels between the two techniques, citing the similar usage of water on the subject. On September 6, 2006, the U.S. Department of Defense released a revised Army Field Manual entitled Human Intelligence Collector Operations that prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel. The department adopted the manual amid widespread criticism of U.S. handling of prisoners in the War on Terrorism, and prohibits other practices in addition to waterboarding. The revised manual applies only to U.S. military personnel, and as such does not apply to the practices of the CIA.[39] However, under international law, violators of the laws of war are criminally liable under the command responsibility, and could still be prosecuted for war crimes.[40] References
Bibliography
See also
|
