Waterboarding, once used as acceptable form of torture by many countries during war times and for other purposes, is today considered a form of torture by the United States. Though it was used to coerce prisoners of war to give information, it has been widely regarded as inhumane and too harsh, even in the more strenuous of circumstances. When interrogators in black sites began giving firsthand accounts of waterboarding, it was realized just how unacceptable the act was. Coupled with psychological data suggesting the any form of torture is too severe to illicit any true information, it was clear alternatives needed to be found.
While waterboarding places the body and, therefore, the life in immediate danger, forcing the individual to give information that satisfies the aggressor, it does not mean the information will be accurate. It is likely the individual in question will give any information, accurate or not, to stop being waterboarded. This can lead to prisoners simply saying what interrogators want to hear. Alternatives need to be strict and firm, but not so harsh that the individual in possession of information is in immediate fear for their life. Simply put, torture does not work. Feeding a prisoner only small amounts of bread and water for as many says as it takes, denying human interaction, confining them to a small cell, and only granting menial doses of light may be considered torture, but it is psychological. Their life will not be in danger, but people are social animals who crave light and variety. An individual in possession of information may give the correct information if they believe it will lead to their release. Making a deal with low level prisoners is also an option. Feeding into a prisoner’s paranoia, should there be any, is also an option. If paranoia is heightened, even slightly, and then the prisoner is left alone, they may begin to panic and be forthcoming with the information based on pre-existing mental illnesses.
In an effort to uphold the Army Field Manual’s directions, which state no interrogation techniques that are considered cruel or unusual will be used in the field, Senator John McCain, and Dianne Feinstein put to the floor and passed an amendment Executive Order 13491 was later passed in an effort to ensure lawful interrogations of all prisoners both at home and abroad. It revoked previous orders that had once granted authority to personnel under certain circumstances to act within what they considered extreme accordance with the law in order to get necessary information.
Many of the world’s major religions have tenants both supporting and prohibiting an act like waterboarding. However, America is largely Christian, and Christianity appears to be largely for torture. For example, Christianity states not to judge others, lest we are to be judged ourselves. Typically, Christianity states torture such as waterboarding is alright. For example, when Eve ate the apple it was considered the original sin. She was given child birth and menstruation once a month as a punishment, or torture, for her crime. God also tested Job through torture in order to see if he was loyal to him or not. The Midianite Virgins used torture as a method of self-gratification. Monks flog themselves as penance, or torture, when they are bad. The Egyptians used torture, and the ability to withstand it and survive it, as a show of one’s strength. Men are allowed to beat their wives or slaves at numerous times throughout the bible in order to discipline them or correct their behavior. Parents are also advised to torture and beat their children if they step out of line. Perhaps the most compelling though, are the pieces of Christianity wherein torture is used as a means of persuasion. The New Testament wills people to use torture to persuade others in the book of Matthew, wherein Jesus himself states if one does not forgive others, God will send them to hell. Perhaps these ideologies are too deeply embedded in the American military to be uprooted so quickly.
References
Danner, M. (2009). U.S. Torture: Voices From the Black Sites. The New York Review, 69-77.
