History of Water Boarding
Water boarding is the new fad when it comes to interrogating suspected terrorists nowadays, but to hold such of view of this ancient practice is to be just plain ignorant. Contrary to public belief, water boarding is not a “new” method of “enhanced interrogation” but is actually a torture practice dating back to the 14th century. Now of course, back then there were definitely harsher interrogation techniques, but nevertheless water boarding was believed to be a form of torture. As in matter in fact, the phenomenon of calling it a form of “enhanced interrogation” is actually quite recent.
First, let’s look at the history of water boarding. It was the Spanish Inquisition that first implemented it and since then it has been used throughout the Middle Ages. Once the Enlightenment hit however, some people became “enlightened” and thought the practice as barbaric and inhumane. So soon after, the practice moved away from the public eye and was done rarely and secretly. In the 20th century however, water boarding made a comeback as the Brits used it in Palestine, the French in Algeria, the U.S. in the Philippines, the Japanese in World War II, and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
Focusing more on the U.S.’s history with water boarding, during the Spanish American War, a U.S. major implemented it. Consequently, that major was suspended for a month and fined; the reason was, according to the judge, because “the United States cannot afford to sanction the addition of torture.” It’s also important to note that the U.S. convicted a Japanese official in 1947 of war crimes for water boarding an American civilian. The criminal was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor. Another case of water boarding happened in the Vietnam War, when an American soldier was found to have water boarded a North Vietnamese soldier to extract information. The U.S. military promptly investigated and had the soldier court martialed.
So, this all begs the question, why is water boarding torture? Well I think common sense alone can explain this quite sufficiently, but for those more in tune with the artificial legality of things, perhaps this will help. According to the UN Convention of Torture that President Ronald Reagan signed, “torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him…information…” Now if you’re at this point in the article and still don’t think water boarding is torture; I highly recommend you go and experience water boarding. Perhaps then, after you undergo simulated drowning with your throat being filled with water 83 times, or in the case of Khalid Sheik Muhammad, 183 times; maybe then you’ll realize water boarding does actually cause “severe pain” and “suffering” that is both “physical” and “mental.” And please, don’t pull any Orwellian shenanigans.
[...] History of Water Boarding [...]
Jin, I have long proposed doing a waterboarding seminar for our EM audience. I am serious, especially because we wouldnt actually be meaning to hurt one another, it could be a nice learning experience. As for the Japanese bloke that waterboarded an American, that American was a civilian. A little different. Also, Chung, by the UNs definition of torture, I could say taking a college exam is torture because, through painful means, information is being extracted from me. We cannot sit on our laurels and wait. I am an advocate of peace as much as the next, however, humans are occaisonally cruel beings. The other thing you have to remember is this: if the idea of war is okay, as in shooting others and bombing buildings, what is greatly different between that (morally) and pouring water on someones face?
All in all we should treat people the way we want to be treated. Then again, it was the fundementalists that flew planes into our skyline. This is payback.
You’re right, the case with the Japanese soldier is not exact; but nevertheless it does show how 60 years ago, the U.S. deemed the act of water boarding as a war crime, albeit in a different context.
As for the college exam…unless you’re using that pen from Harry Potter that’s using your blood as ink, I seriously doubt it’s as bad as undergoing stimulated drowning.
You also mentioned the dichotomy between actual warfare and the practice of torture…well Mike, historically, the U.S. has always made a distinction between those two things. I’m no expert on Just War Theory, but if one looks at World War II and Vietnam, even in these instances water boarding was never officially condoned.
I agree, I wish everyone followed the Golden Rule, but a game of “tit for tat” leads nowhere. One important distinction between the terrorists and the US is that we follow the LAW and do not arrogantly assert ourselves as being above it!
Since you warned me not to pull any Orwellian shenanigans, I won’t. Jin Woo, waterboarding isn’t always torture–in fact, almost nothing is always anything. Under a certain set of circumstances, yes, waterboarding can inflict “severe” physical or mental suffering. But under the right set of circumstances, waterboarding is not torture.
According to Bush administration memos released by the Obama administration, very specific and strict rules were established to ensure that the suspects never faced any permanent or severe danger: there were limitations on the length of time a suspect could be waterboarded for, there was always a physician on hand, and the waterboardings were carried out by highly-skilled professionals who know just how far to push the envelope. Are you going to tell me during the Spanish Inquisition a similar set of rules and regulations was established? I think not.
Your essay fails to address the details of waterboarding procedures from years past. You make the blanket assumption that all waterboarding was conducted in a similar manner throughout history. This is why your argument fails.
This is going to suprise you all. I do now classify waterboarding as torture. It is not because of Chung’s article, but rather because I investigated the actual steps involved in the method and discovered it is more brutal than I thought. I always believed water was just being poured on the guys face. However, it goes much further. In many cases the water enters the nasal passages and goes into the mouth. Now I understand why it is called simulated drowning. John McCain also calls it torture, and hes a pretty good source for that kind of stuff. Christopher Hitchens actually got waterboarded and said it was torture. Im not changing my opinion because of them, but because I guess I never actaully understand the whole process of waterboarding. Now I do.
So I guess your position on waterboarding was really based on your own ignorance, lol. Wonder if that’s the same with Alex…
I guess the issue now is whether or not torture should be condoned in times of national crises. Someone should write an article about that…hmmm, lol.
Dont be ignant. I was truely telling you that I redefined my view of waterboarding due to a lack of knowledge
Alex, I suggest you research what waterboarding exactly is. Sure, we don’t directly pump water into the stomachs of prisoners anymore, but nevertheless, the practice is quite unpalatable. If it’s really not that bad, why don’t we practice it upon prisoners within our own borders? Hmmm…perhaps because it’s “cruel and unusual” to do so.
First, I would like to see this “research” that Mike conducted because issues like this are ripe for bias and exaggeration. Additionally, this “research” may not necessarily be the exact methods used by the U.S. For example, the Japanese form of waterbaording during WWII was widely considered to be much more severe and heinous than U.S. methods.
Second, nobody condones torture, it’s just a question of what exactly torture is. I do not condone waterboarding when done recklessly, for undefined lengths of time, and with no medical personnel on hand.
See note on Jin Woo’s latest article for more details.