On Waterboarding and Torture

Something I've been meaning to write about for a while is the use of torture in interrogations. My dad brought up a YouTube video that he had watched that had a Playboy journalist getting waterboarded. (Since when does Playboy delve into controversial moral issues? But I guess that's a conversation for another time...) I couldn't find that particular video, but there are plenty of demonstrations on the internet with varying techniques. You can go to YouTube and watch them, but here's one done by a Fox News journalist:


This is interesting because it brings up the question of whether or not waterboarding is torture. After all, as Steve Harrigan says, afterwards one is "alive and healthy" within minutes. Granted, he hasn't had it done 183 times, nor was he sleep deprived or interrogated with other "robust" or "enhanced" techniques. He also knew he could stop it any time he wanted. But regardless, it's an interesting question. Here are my questions:

1)What is the difference between drowning and the simulation of drowning? Your body's doing the same thing. So can we agree that even if you're not in a swimming pool, or ocean, or whatever, you can still drown? If they were holding someone's head underwater, wouldn't that be the same thing? This way is just more efficient. It is faster and easily determined when someone is to the breaking point--that is, they will in fact drown if you don't stop. Whether or not it's torture, can we agree that it's drowning?

2)If waterboarding is not torture, then why don't we use it all the time? Think of how many murders we could solve if we just waterboarded all the suspects. Or is it not okay when it's one of our own? We hold ourselves to higher standards when it's the treatment of an American? I would say yes, because we were outraged during Vietnam when Americans were waterboarded.

3)Yes, okay, apparently these people are evidenced to be involved in terrorist activities. Sure, okay, whatever. But we're paying informants to give us names of who is involved, and then waterboarding those people. Hm. If we think that waterboarding does give reliable information, and it isn't torture, perhaps we should be waterboarding the informants. Seriously. Because then we will know that the evidence against these people is sufficient to hold them in cells for upwards of seven years without charging them with anything. AND, because it's not torture, there's no problem in doing it. Right?

4)More generally, what is torture? If you look it up in the dictionary, it says that it means to "inflict severe pain of the body or mind." My parents tried to argue that psycological tactics are not torture. I disagree. I think that psychological torture is more long-lasting. Ask any abused person-- it's not the cuts and bruises that stick with you. On waterboarding, perhaps I'm a little biased because I have an insurmountable fear of drowning. Perhaps.

Now, some responses to my above questions might include "you don't actually die," "we don't know if they're guilty," etc. etc. I'd like to raise the question of the Geneva Conventions. Waterboarding is torture under the Geneva Conventions. Period. The Geneva Conventions also state that all sentences must be pronouced by a regularly constituted court affording all judicial gaurantees. Now, the usual argument is that the Geneva Conventions are not applicable because terrorists did not sign them, and are not a nation-state. Soo. Okay, here is my response to that, along with some other related thoughts:

1)There is not "War on Terror." We never declared war. Or did I miss that being passed by Congress? No. My dad says that the terrorists declared war on us 9/11. First, terrorists did not declare war, because they are not a nation-state. As is so fully argued. If you are using the term loosely, I have two responses:

First, that this is not the first attack on the WTC, nor the first attack on American soil (including embassies overseas). So why are they just now "declaring war?" Because it was the right time for us to respond due, to the economic and political benefits of doing so?

Second, and I know that this is controversial. So if we can agree that they did not actually declare war on us (because they are not a nation-state), and we did not declare war on them (as a nation-state), doesn't that make both of our actions terrorist? I mean, we're bombing countries without even declaring war. That's an act of terrorism. If we declared war, it would be an act of war. I know I'm never going to get some people to understand that we are not at war... but we never declared war. So we are also terrorists. Does that make me seem unamerican? Sorry if it does, but that's just the logical outcome when you actually think about it.

2) By signing the Geneva Conventions (and btw, we require other countries to sign as part of our agreements), it doesn't mean that we agree to follow these articles with the other countries who signed. It means we won't do this to anyone. "But, the terrorists are not a nation-state," right? Okay, here is what is going through my head: Think about when the Geneva Conventions were written-- first in 1864, and the last convention was after WWII. What was the terrorist activities going on during that time? All actions were done through governments. My argument, then, is this. By omitting rules for dealing with "enemy combatants" (as we call the suspected terrorists), it doesn't mean that it is therefore okay to use torture. It just means that they had no idea what the world would be like more than fifty years later. If terrorists didn't exist then, and acts of war were performed by nation-states, why do we assume that they were thinking "alright, we'll just say nation-states, and then if it's terrorists, the rules do not apply." Maybe everyone who wrote it and agreed to it didn't know what would develop later in the future.

So now we're getting into the way to interpret it. This is just as controversial, as we have seen from the ways to interpret the Constitution on issues that were not explicitly written. But if we stick with interpreting the Geneva Conventions with the spirit in which it was written, then we have to agree that torture is not acceptable. Were the Geneva Conventions--knowing both that it was written in a time void of "terrorists" and that torture is condemned-- written only to protect citizens of a nation-state at war? Or was it to protect the sanctity of human life, and to require the humane treatment of one another? I say the latter, and that it was written in the language of the decade.

Honestly, if we really think that it's okay to torture enemy combatants, then why don't we just amend the conventions?? As far as I know, the last amendment we made--and this was after 9/11-- was to require the use of a red cross on humanitarian aid vehicles. So, why not an amendment?

3) This is on torture more generally. Suppose we can't get people to understand that torture against suspected terrorists is abhorrent. What about the effects of torture on the torturers? As in, Americans.

There has been a lot of research done on the effects of decreased sensitivity to pain. Meaning, you see pain inflicted so much that it just doesn't bother you anymore, to the point that inflicting pain doesn't bother you, and you carry it into other parts of your life. For instance, obviously we are pretty aware of the connection between animal abuse and sociopaths. Huge correlation there, a big red flag (You can read Cruelty to Animals and Interpersonal Violence by Lockwood and Ascione, if you're curious). But are you also aware of the research done on factory farming/slaughtering animals for a living and violence? There are plenty of antecdotal research done to show that those who slaughter animals for a living-- especially in factory farms where animals are treated like products rather than living beings-- are more likely to carry home with them this insensitivity to pain. That means increased domestic violence. As Gustavo and Illich would say, "only stories make sense." But for those of you out there who need numbers and scientific methods, check out Slaughterhouse & Increased Crime Rates: An Empirical Analysis of the Spillover by Fitzgerald et. al.

I'm not trying to get you to stop eating meat and dairy products. Though you should. What I am bringing up is the correlation between institutionalized violence and unauthorized violence. I'd be curious to know the behavior of torturers outside of the military. I'm sure there is some sort of correlation between torturing people for a living and being a violent person. So I'd really love to see a study done when the institutionalized violence is towards people. I'd assume there to be a much higher correlation when the acts of violence are done against the same species. Of course, we'd have to admit to torture before we could study it. Ha. So maybe I'll never know. But my point is, what are we doing to our military, and how is it affecting their sense of what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior (I would say "right" and "wrong" but I want to make clear that it is subjective, and we're talking about what is right according to our culture)? And through this effect, what are we doing to their families? To their friends? To those who may piss them off at a bar?

Alright. I should also mention the difference between correlation and causation, and spurrious correlation, etc. But the fact of those things is that we'll never know, so why are we taking the chance? (Similarly, the theists out there who kill over who's God exists, when we'll never know for sure whether one exists at all. Duh, that's why it's called faith. Again, a conversation for another time.)

So, what are your thoughts? Is waterboarding torture? Is torture acceptable in some circumstances? I have my own ideas about when torture should be used, but this post is really long already, so I'd love to hear your thoughts, and then I'll post my policy recommendation when it comes to torture.