Introduction
Torture during war can be defined as a forceful acquisition of information from a prisoner of war who could either be a solider, a spy or an ally to the enemy. Vital information is often retrieved through the use of threat of physical harm, psychological harm or use of drugs. Physical harm includes beating, shock treatment, starvation, breaking of extremities, piercing, among others (Levinson, 2004).
Psychological torture on the other hand uses annoying sounds like music, crying babies or dripping water, threats to either the prisoner or their family, showing them grotesque images, imprisonment in a dark room, embarrassment of the prisoner like stripping them, humiliation etc.
Drugs used in torture are of various kinds, some of which are supposed to exert extreme pain to a prisoner by stimulation of the nervous system. Other drugs like hallucinogens are meant to make a prisoner semi-lucid and mellow, giving them a sense of ease and a false impression of security hence facilitating an atmosphere for them to surrender the information they possess (McCoy, 2006).
This research paper will generally focus on the application of waterboarding as a form of torture, the implications of war relative to the executives in Governments and the soldiers in the field and eventually provide a solution which would justify the use of waterboarding based on ethical business and policy principles. To better understand this, it is imperative to arrive at the essence of waterboarding and its application.
Waterboarding is the intentional submersion of a prisoner in water or the dousing of water over the covered face of a prisoner to give them the sensation of drowning. Technical arguments have over the years been raised as to whether waterboarding should be categorized as torture.
Those against the categorization of waterboarding argue that it is not physically painful, it does not result to any injury nor does it stimulate the pain receptors in the nervous system (Greenberg, 2006). They argue that for conditions of torture to be satisfied, pain and injury have to be involved.
Therefore, if there is no bodily harm whatsoever, how can waterboarding be torture? It is irrefutably true that waterboarding does not lead to physical injury but the human body through basic instincts rejects the engulfment of water. Therefore, waterboarding acts against the fundamental human impulse of survival leading to the intense fear associated with this practice (Greenberg, 2006).
Additionally, waterboarding and indeed other forms of torture invoke a sense of helplessness to the prisoner giving them the impression that their torturer has control over their body and life (The NSA, 2004).
Hence, even though waterboarding is not associated with physical pain or any form of physical strain the technique acts upon the primal human survival reflexes making the experience extremely fearsome, horrifying and uncomfortable. Consequently, waterboarding yields similar results to those of torture through the inducement of fear and mental distress; hence it is tantamount to torture.
Implications of war
Soldiers
It is certain that the conditions that are prevalent during conflict and war are totally different from the conditions in tranquil settings. For example, the war in Afghanistan has created a totally different environment that is contrary to one which was there previously. U.S soldiers have to cope with the new environment, new territory and new climate, a stark contrast to the one they left at home.
It is well know that the operating conditions are hostile and it is especially difficult to differentiate the enemy from a civilian. U.S soldiers are constantly attacked with mortar shells and snipers, some of whom take refuge and disguise in civilian territory (Mackey & Miller, 2004). The point here is that war presents conditions of extreme confusion, fear and uncertainty.
No one has control over their lives or their actions bearing in mind the fact that soldiers go where they are ordered to and do as ordered regardless of the prevailing circumstances (Greenberg, 2006).
Therefore, soldiers on a broader scale rely on decisions made by individuals who may not be present in the war zone and the decisions may be based on inconclusive or inaccurate information that is not concurrent with the real situation in the field (Walzer, 2000). This puts the soldiers at an even grater risk by reducing them to minor accessories to the greater scheme of things.
Government executives
On the other hand, executives in governments have the responsibility to come up with concrete plans to ensure the triumphant execution of the current mission and the safe extraction of the soldiers.
Like in any democracy, the reigning government will always have opposition, a group of people who are against the war and another group of people who believe that there is a better method to achieve the goals of the war, and in most cases the opposition is as powerful as it is convincing (Greenberg, 2006). Warring governments often face stiff opposition from within and such opposition can greatly affect the end result of a war.
In is of no doubt that war is an expensive process in terms finance, property and human life (McCoy, 2006). The money used to fund a war and the lives lost during that war are both accountable to the government executives no matter the outcome (Levinson, 2004).
It is therefore of paramount importance that the war benefits a nation to represent the losses acquired so as to facilitate the permanence of a stable and reputable government. To this respect, a warring government will take all necessary measures to prove to its citizens and the opposition that the war was not only beneficial, but in fact necessary.
To achieve clemency the government relies heavily on intelligence, information gathered from the enemy’s side pertaining to their plans, weapons, attack, motive and capacity (The NSA, 2004). This information s vital for the success of a government’s war plans and its accurate acquisition is highly rewarded, making torture the best option for information retrieval from uncooperative prisoners of war.
For example, the British government has been facing a dilemma regarding the war in Afghanistan. The former Prime Minister Tony Blair had pledged a considerable quantity of British troops to assist the U.S military in combating the Taliban.
The British public and powerful lobby groups however saw the war as an unnecessary venture and called for the withdrawal of the British troops since Britain was neither under an impending threat nor directly affected by the Taliban and for that reason it was not their war.
The successive Prime Minister Gordon Brown faced mounting pressure to recall the troops, but the government executives in support of the war are persistent in their assertiveness (Mackey & Miller, 2004).
Their argument is simple, by withdrawing their troops, Britain will have conceded defeat to the Taliban and hence expose themselves to international derision and also give the Taliban an opportunity to ostensibly emerge victorious allowing them greater control over Afghanistan(McCoy, 2006). Besides, withdrawal of the British army will mean that the British troops that passed away during the war fought and died in vain.
The waterboarding quandary
The waterboarding advocacy point of view is as credible as the argument perpetuated by those opposed to the relevance of the interrogation technique during conflict. Depending on the tangent of perspective, waterboarding and torture may be viewed as barbaric practices or necessary measures of espousing security against foreign and domestic threats.
Waterboarding is a non fatal interrogation technique which bestows upon the victim a sense of drowning and has been reputed to be a very efficient interrogation technique against hardcore criminal elements (Levinson, 2004). The subject of torture is sensitive and marred with controversy for only a thin blurry line separates the domain of human rights and that of intelligence especially during war (Greenberg, 2006).
Historical precedents reveal circumstances that have led nations to regard torture in order to establish posture and ascertain security for their citizens. Waterboarding in particular has generated vast reactions, some terming it as inhumane while others regard it as a necessary interrogation technique during war.
This research will take an open ended approach and examine both sides of the argument regarding the application of waterboarding during war.
Intelligence
Acquisition of accurate information and intelligence during war can mean the difference between defeat and victory. Intelligence can be procured from different sources like spies, sympathizers, allies or prisoners of war. Prisoners of war encapsulate civilians, foreign spies, sympathizers and soldiers.
Spies and soldiers will in most cases have tactical and strategic information that is useful to their captors but these individuals are coached to never reveal their secrets through intensive training on how to withstand interrogation and crude torture method (Walzer, 2000).
Information such as, but not limited to, scheduled attacks, infantry capacity, types of weapons and intelligence sources is a profound prerequisite if the captors want to be triumphant in the war and also gain leverage by being in a position to anticipate their enemy(Levinson, 2004). To attain the information, waterboarding will inevitably be used on disobliging subjects (Greenberg, 2006).
The argument is that regardless of human rights, war zones only bear a two dimension facet which is killing or being killed (McCoy, 2006). If the enemy gains hold of the other side’s intelligence first, they will undoubtedly use it against them. For example, Germany suffered a great defeat in 1940 after their plans leaked out to the allied forces.
After realizing that their secret plans had been revealed, they developed a new strategy which was also acquired by the allied forces. The end result was Germany was defeated in its attempt to subdue France after receiving a massive number of casualties due to the information provided to the allies. It is therefore imperative to always anticipate the enemy and to do so; information must be acquired no matter the cost.
Contenders to the ideology of intelligence acquisition through waterboarding give several reasons as to why the viability of such a technique is not sustainable. The first rationale is that prisoners could easily divulge false information that may be used to lure soldiers into a trap (Mackey & Miller, 2004).
An example is given during World War II when an American unit apprehended a German soldier who after intense interrogation gave vague directions as to the location of their camp and their capacity in terms of infantry and artillery. Finding him of little use afterwards, the unit set the German free and cautiously preceded to the direction they had been versed with.
Unknown to the unit, the German solder had misinformed them, giving them a much lower figure than was present. The German soldier furthermore informed his camp of the approaching American soldiers, as of which they made the necessary arrangements, setting up ambush points a few kilometers from their camp.
The American troops walked into a well armed waylay that led to the fatality of more than two thirds of the troops belonging to that unit. It is therefore quite likely that a prisoner can lie to his captors and there are certainly soldiers who undergo specialized training that teaches them on how to deceive their captors when tortured.
Another argument is that waterboarding may not be effective since its extensive use and wide reputation has created a deeper understanding for the technique.
By understanding the fear and emotions that are conjured through waterboarding, solders can be indoctrinated with the conscious aptitudes to counter and suppress the fear and emotion that surface during waterboarding, making the application of this technique void (McCoy, 2006).
Humane form of interrogation
Adherents of the waterboarding interrogation method argue that the process is not lethal and therefore in no way does it exterminate or maim a prisoner. The advantage is that a prisoner can be held for an indefinite period of time in order to ascertain the truth of his information in comparison to other intelligence sources.
The prisoner can also facilitate the restoration in of missing pieces of lost intelligence that may be destroyed during the copious chaotic junctures correlated with war. Furthermore, the prisoner can valuable in deciphering intercepted codes of transmitted information given that such codes are exclusively implicit to rival factions.
Contrary to other torture techniques, waterboarding does not work on the physique and therefore it does not wear down a prisoner (Levinson, 2004).
A captive’s strength can for that reason be utilized when the need arises for example in performing manual work like maintenance or construction. Other torture techniques will more often than not incapacitate a prisoner through intensive bleeding, broken extremities or fatigue (The NSA, 2004).
This could be of great disadvantage especially when attacked since injured prisoners will either slow down a unit or be left behind without revealing satisfactory amount of information.
A captive can also be deprogrammed and coerced to join the subjugating infantry where they can be of use as personnel or as spies since they know the territory and the enemy’s tactics (McCoy, 2006). Waterboarding is therefore considered a more “humane” form of torture during war since it keeps the victims alive and causes no physical impairmenti.
Human rights activists and numerous anti-torture movements have for a long time been against any form of forceful interrogation techniques including waterboarding. Their argument is that torture (waterboarding) is inhumane since it violates several human rights provisions including the Fifth Amendment (Walzer, 2000).
Every human being has the freedom to speak to whomever they choose whenever they choose regardless of the prevailing circumstances including war (Greenberg, 2006). It is the allowance of these choices that makes individuals human beings rather than slaves.
By forcefully compelling someone to speak or act against their will, a torturer acts against the law and therefore needs to be indicted.
Justice
There has always been a misconception in the way torture is generalized and morally categorized in regard to war and terrorism. It is valuable to note that the war on terrorism has its threat but the urgency to nullify the threat during war far surpasses the exigency in fighting terrorism. Unlike the war on terrorism, the threat during war in the battle field is pressing, present and precarious (Greenberg, 2006).
There are limited options on the course of action to take in a war as opposed to a democratic environment but the underlying principle of these actions is to stay alive and permanently invalidate the danger (Mackey & Miller, 2004). For instance, the Supreme Court of Israel has a provision in their law termed the “necessity defense” that can be elicited to protect tortures against criminal liability in cases of an impending threat.
With this in mind, it is tremendously implausible that a prisoner of war will face trial or a fair hearing. If for example a U.S plane is shot down by a warring faction over hostile territory and the pilot, cargo or passengers are valuable in a sense that they need to be retrieved, soldiers have to follow through on that order. To successfully execute their mission they have to reconnoiter the area and come up with a strategy.
However, with the existence of a defiant detainee, they may be obliged to use waterboarding so as to obtain the exact location of what they are after and the route with least resistance. Waterboarding is therefore essential during war to minimize the number of casualties and maximize the success rate of missions.
The waterboarding antagonistic argument regarding morality and justice is that the technique is dissipated and unreasonable in particular during war. The reason is that captives never receive a fair hearing to verify their misdeeds (Greenberg, 2006).
A civilian can be arrested on suspicion of being an emissary or a rival soldier and tortured without conclusive investigations and the hurried manner of activities during war makes such an occurrence highly probable (Walzer, 2000).
Subjective conclusions may be effortlessly arrived at during war where decisions may be expatiated by differences in opinion; language barriers and personal attitude for instance distrust, hate, frustration or anger (Greenberg, 2006).
If by chance a rival solider is seized, more often than not the soldier holds very little useful information since many factions minimize the information they share with soldiers to limit the revelation of their plans in case soldiers are captured (Walzer, 2000). In most cases, crucial tactical and strategic information is only known to senior government officials and army commanders who are usually absent from combat.
Junior solders are kept on a need–to-know basis and thus the information they have is usually vague and inconclusive (Greenberg, 2006). The argument is that even with intense interrogation and waterboarding, a rival soldier can only depart with the information he is privy to and will in the long run fabricate the truth if interrogation persists.
Proposed solution
Taking into account the various view points made available by the supporters and the antagonists of waterboarding, a solid conjuncture would be to uphold the interrogation technique during conflict due to the propensity of violence in times of war. However, certain provisions offered by the challengers of torture should be effected to demystify the intent and result of waterboarding.
Under international law, torture is illegal and its proved application can lead to conviction (The NSA, 2004). However, in the adverse situation whereby a nation is confronted by a significant threat, incidents of torture may be allowed to counter the threat. To do justify its application, sound ethical business and policy principles should be incorporated.
The suspect has to be proven guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime and evidence should be advanced to substantiate the claim that he possesses crucial information (Greenberg, 2006). An argument should be made stating why the information to be retrieved from the suspect will be of vital importance to the nation in order to obtain a court order authorizing torture of the suspect (Walzer, 2000).
Amendments need to be made to the law to specify the prerequisites for torture as well as establish standard limits in respect to the time taken to interrogate and method of interrogation, while taking into account the general health of the suspect (Levinson, 2004).
Conclusion
Torture is without a doubt one of the most repulsive modes of information retrieval present. It goes against all fundamental human rights by inflicting acute pain, fear and distress to the victim even where there is the possibility of him or her being innocent. However, in considering the intensity of war, it is straightforward to comprehend the justification of torture.
Torture and in specific waterboarding, is a necessary evil that bears immense influence, proficient enough to offset the equilibrium of any conflict. An imminent threat is a definite precursor to war and through torture; the mechanisms threat can be adequately understood and a hiatus induced.
The primary objective of any war is to annihilate the threat with the least number of casualties in the fastest time possible and torture facilitates effective accomplishment this objective (Levinson, 2004). The nuance of interrogation should be closely monitored to corroborate that excessive force is not imposed on the victims, after all they are still human beings and their rights should be respected to a certain extent.
Waterboarding is functional both in its effect on the victim and in the successful retrieval of information due to the fact that it works on the survival instincts imposing an intense amount of fear yet keeping the victim alive and in normal physical condition. It is consequently justifiable to use waterboarding in times of war chiefly because perceiving the enemy through intelligence allows for enhanced anticipation both in attack and defense.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”- Sun Tzuii
Endnotes
- Three well known al-Qaeda top organizers have been interrogated through waterboarding the most prominent Khalid Sheik Mohammed who was the chief orchestrator of the September 11 twin tower bombing that killed more than 2000 people an injured more than 7000. Through the application of waterboarding, Khalid Sheik Mohammed was able to surrender the names of his allies who helped in the funding and execution of the bombing and this information consequently led to the apprehension of six terror suspects who could have been perpetuating acts of terror were they free.
- An opinion poll carried out in early 2007 by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press asking the question, “Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?” revealed that 29% of Americans felt that torture was never justified, 25% thought it was rarely justified, 31% said torture was sometimes justified whereas 12% felt that torture was often justified. It is evident that even though Americans have their reservations on torture, a majority of them are mildly comfortable with the practice.
References
Greenberg, K. (2006). The torture debate in America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. (2004). Torture: A collection. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, C., & Miller, G. (2004). The interrogators: Inside the secret war against Al Qaeda. New York, NY: Little, Brown.
McCoy, A. (2006). A question of torture: CIA interrogation, from the Cold War to the war on terror. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt and Co.
National Security Archive-NSA (2004). The interrogation documents: Debating U.S. policy and methods. Web.
Walzer, M. (2000). Just and unjust wars. New York, NY: Basic Books.