The the conclusion will be displayed. Method: This

The thesis of this essay is a
discussion about the use of waterboarding by the US government, during the Bush
administration, and if this was an acceptable method of interrogation. After
September 11, 2001, the US government relied on qualified army instructors for
information on tough interrogation methods. One of them was the method of
waterboarding. Waterboarding is a type of water torment in which water is
poured over a material covering the face and breathing entries of a tied
hostage, making the individual experience the impression of suffocating.
Normally, the water is poured discontinuously so the hostage won’t die from
drowning during the torture, if the water is poured uninterruptedly it will
prompt passing by asphyxia with the impression of suffocating, likewise called
dry suffocating. Apart from death, waterboarding can cause outrageous torment,
harm to lungs, and harm the brain from oxygen hardship. Other physical wounds
include: broken bones, because of battling against restrictions, and enduring
mental harm (Watch, 2006). In the essay, this
will be discussed in depth.

The structure of the essay
will be as follows; first, in the introduction there will be a summary and a
definition of what waterboarding is and the structure of the essay will be given.
After that, the methods paragraph will be displayed. In the main body, first a
general view on the methods of interrogation will be displayed, and after that
the method of the essay will be displayed and a brief summary about the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA)’s Detention and Interrogation Program report since
that is the report about the horrible ways of interrogating including waterboarding
during the Bush administration and will be discussed in depth for a further
understanding of the matter. Furthermore, the influence and the results of the
waterboarding and the cruel interrogation methods in general that came to the
light from the report, and if this method of interrogation was an acceptable
method will be discussed along with pictures and examples. Lastly, the
conclusion will be displayed.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
Writers Experience
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
Writers Experience
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
Writers Experience
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team



This is a literature based
essay. Every data and information that will be added in this essay will be
taken from literature that already exists. For this essay, books, e-books,
newspaper articles, journal articles and academic writings will be used for a
better understanding.


Main body:

Interrogation techniques,
regardless of whether utilized in a law-enforcement, counter-terrorism based
oppression or military setting, have accumulated a lot of consideration in the
previous decade from policymakers, experts, researchers, and the overall
population (Kelly, et al., 2013). In some cases, the
extant grouping and depiction of interrogation strategies is at the same time
excessively wide and excessively small (Kelly, et al., 2013).

Probably the most broadly
referred literature on interrogation arranges procedures into general
classifications in view of the planned result or the fundamental reason (Kelly, et al.,
For instance, a standout amongst the most unmistakable expansive
characterizations of interrogation systems is minimization and maximization,
first presented by (Kassin & McNall, 1991). Minimization and maximization
are frequently depicted as bundles of procedures (Horgan, et
al., 2012) (Russano, et
al., 2005) (Kelly, et al., 2013)under which, particular
strategies might be sorted (Kelly, et al.,
Minimization depends on standards of friendliness and endeavors to obtain a
subject’s participation by limiting the reality of the offense (Kelly, et al.,
It incorporates procedures like communicating sensitive and giving reasons that
decrease the subject’s culpability (Kelly, et al.,
On the other hand, maximization tries to stress the solemnity of the offense and
scare the subject (Kelly, et al.,
Maximization, contain procedures like specifically charging the subject,
forbidding refusals, and feigning or lying about proof (Kelly, et al.,

A second partition into which
interrogation technics are separated within the literature is unselfish in
contrast to dominant tactics (Kelly, et al., 2013). According to (Häkkänen, et al., 2009), leading methods are
based upon principles of hostility, belligerence, and conviction (Kelly, et
al., 2013).

Then again, compassionate
strategies are related more with standards of affectability and sympathy.
Tactics categorized into the leading category contain displaying a threatening
state of mind, and being quiet after the source has answered a question (Kelly, et
al., 2013).
Methods arranged into the compassionate category contain a statement of a
kindly attitude, making progress toward participation, and showing a calm
character (Kelly, et al., 2013). These two
classifications are viewed as discrete and regularly contrary to each other (Kelly, et
al., 2013).

A third partition is the data
gathering model versus the accusatorial model. The data gathering strategy
utilizes methods that look to extract exact insight from subjects (Kelly, et
al., 2013).
As exhibited in Britain’s PEACE display (Planning and Preparation, Engage and Explain,
Account, Closure, Evaluation), this strategy depends on compatibility, respect,
and restricts the utilization of trickiness and mental control with respect to
the administrator (Schollum, 2005) (Kelly, et
al., 2013).
It is regularly referred to as a “fact-finding” mission that does not
assume blame, but rather utilizes open-ended inquiries to perceive reality. The
listener is responsible for the subject and must give a report. Conversely, the
accusatorial strategy for interrogation presumes blame, tries to build up
control, and uses mentally manipulative strategies to face the source (Kelly, et
al., 2013).
The fundamental objective of this approach is to extract secrets. A few
procedures related with the accusatorial strategy are isolation, terrorizing,
denying refusals, and repetitive questioning (Kelly, et al., 2013). Another distinction
between this strategy and the data gathering approach is that the accusatorial
technique allows the utilization of trickery and lying (Meissner, et
al., 2012) (Kelly, et
al., 2013).

In contrast to wide
interrogation classifications, at the opposite end of the range are individual,
particular interrogation methods (Kelly, et al., 2013). For instance, (Leo, 1996) watched police interrogations in California,
recognizing 25 interrogation methods. Thus, (Soukara, et al., 2009), by reviewing
recordings of British interrogations, discovered 17 unmistakable interrogation
systems. Despite the fact that there is an overlay between these consolidated
42 methods, probably the most usually utilized tactic in one are excluded in
the other (Kelly, et al., 2013). Different
specialists (e.g., (Gudjonsson & Sigurdsson, 1999) ) having utilized an assortment of strategies, have
distinguished extra particular procedures, including detaching the suspect and
recognizing logical inconsistencies in the suspect’s story (Kelly, et
al., 2013).

In another attempt at
categorization, one which depended on theoretical resemblance, (Leo & Liu, 2009) made six classes and then at that point they arranged
18 recognized interrogation procedures into the six
classes: (a) Accusation/Reaccusation (i.e., rehashed allegations and prompts to
take lie detector test), (b) Challenging Denials (i.e., repeated allegations
that the alibi of the suspect is not valid and its fake), (c) Confronting with
True Evidence of Guilt (i.e., honest cases of fizzled or uncertain polygraph),
(d) Confronting with False Evidence of Guilt (i.e., false cases of fizzled
polygraph, video, DNA, and unique mark confirm), (e) Promises of Leniency
(i.e., verifiable and express proposals of more permissive charges and
sentences), and (f) Threats/Use of Physical Harm (i.e., certain and unequivocal
dangers of mischief, and attack) (Kelly, et al., 2013). These subsequent
classes appear to have all the earmarks of being awfully restricted to oblige
other, unidentified interrogation methods. For example, no affinity based
methods or detachment/relevant systems were incorporated, and do not normally
fit into one of the created classes (Kelly, et al., 2013).

 In the pictures above and the one on the left,
it can be seen the various forms of interrogation and in the one down on the
left one of the most common methods which is the lie detector.

In synopsis, with couple of
special cases, the surviving characterization and depiction of interrogation
procedures is at the same time excessively wide and excessively tight. In spite
of the fact that there have been endeavors at middle person groupings, they are
rare, and tend to need reasonable appropriateness and broad pertinence (Kelly, et
al., 2013).

As it has been mentioned
above, after the events of September 11, 2001, the US government had had
specialists to find new, but mostly efficient, ways of interrogation (Graham &
Connolly, 2013).
After the brief display of the methods of interrogation in general, now a deep
understanding about more serious and violent forms of interrogation, like
waterboarding, will be analyzed.

Three years ago, on December
of 2014, the United States Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence(SSCI) completed a report about the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)’s Detention and Interrogation Program for
the years of 2001-2006 during the War on Terror (n/a, 2014) (Andrews &
Parlapiano, 2014).
The brutal interrogation techniques used by the CIA in the years that followed,
which touched the limits of torture, did not work. Its authors judge decisions
in the name of the criticism of the moment, in the war against terrorism,
excessive, if not totally wrong (Graham & Connolly, 2013). “The fear of a
new terrorist attack does not justify mistaken decisions by organizations in
the name of national security,” the report notes (n/a, 2014). The report sheds
light on Bush’s violent practices, talking about the use of the waterboarding
method, during which many prisoners have come close to drowning but also other
violent practices (n/a, 2014). Waterboarding is a
method that has been characterized by the United Nations as a practice of
torture and involves the interrogation of the interrogator on a board. They
then cover the face with a cloth, which is constantly spitting, causing a
feeling of choking (Boehm, 2009) (Darmer, 2009). Sleep deprivation involving the forced
vigil of prisoners for 180 hours, usually in a standing position and often with
the hands over the head (Boehm, 2009). In one of the CIA
camps one prisoner lost his life from hypothermia, leaving himself half-naked
and chained to cement. Sometimes naked prisoners with hoods on their face were
dragging along the corridors while they were brutally hit (Darmer, 2009) (Boehm, 2009).

Many of the prisoners suffered
from hallucinations, paranoia, insomnia and in many cases attempted to
amputate. Moreover, in the case of Abu Zubaydah, a senior Al-Qaeda official, the
interrogation resulted in his inability even to speak, as he had blisters in
his mouth (Andrews & Parlapiano, 2014). Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed, also a member of the Islamic terrorist organization and morally
responsible for bringing the twin towers down, has been subjected to a torture
that has come to the definitive drowning (Chwastiak, 2015). Information refers
to abusive techniques. In the summary report, the Senate examined 119 cases of
CIA detainees, saying that at least 26 of them were unjustified and the
prisoners were imprisoned falsely (Andrews & Parlapiano, 2014). In addition, it is
reported that the psychologists used by the CIA to investigate had no
experience of interrogation or knowledge of terrorism. Indeed, these
psychologists have been compensated with the astronomical amount of $ 80
million. Apart from the torture, the report also speaks of fraud against their
superiors, since many of the CIA officials have misinterpreted both the White
House and Congress, concealing the practices they used in their interrogations (Andrews &
Parlapiano, 2014).

The report of former US
President George Bush, who ignored many of the unacceptable methods for the
first few years, was interesting, and when he was informed, he said he was
annoyed with some of them (Chwastiak, 2015). As for the White
House, it had avoided the information that the CIA had been asking the to
deliver from 2002 to them, arguing the phobia of a media leak in the press. On
the other hand, he said about the report that torture was never done, which is
probably not evidenced by the report.

The waterboarding was used by
the CIA to suspects detained in secret prisons during the Bush administration (Boehm, 2009) (Darmer, 2009). But this method was reportedly torture
by his successor, Barack Obama, by many US officials, deputies, senators and
human rights organizations. In 2015 the Senate voted for its ban (Chehab, 2011), although it has
resurfaced again in the media and the public, due to the statements of the current
President of the United States of America, which he is arguing to reopen the
secret facilities of the CIA and begin the cruel methods of interrogation again,
as he says they are an effective mean of interrogation. The US officials,
senators, the public etc. has raised its concerns about this.

There are many different means
and methods of interrogation and the most common of them got displayed and in
depth analyzed. (Leo & Liu, 2009) came with the idea
of categorizing the18 recognized interrogation procedures into the six classes:
(a) Accusation/Reaccusation, (b) Challenging Denials, (c) Confronting with True
Evidence of Guilt, (d) Confronting with False Evidence of Guilt, (e) Promises
of Leniency, and (f) Threats/Use of Physical Harm. The categories of the
interrogation method Waterboarding, a very old torture, has been used many
times in the past as a method of interrogation, and it has been widely revealed
that it is also a useless method by the CIA, suspected of “terrorism”
or action against “liberal” regimes in general (Boehm, 2009). How, of course, a
liberal can be someone who uses torture as a method of interrogation, is a
cause for concern. The most common forms of waterboarding are by dipping the
head of the water questioned or by using a towel spread on the face that is
constantly wet to clog the breathing passages (Boehm, 2009).

After the report of the United
States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence(SSCI) about the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA)’s Detention and Interrogation Program that contained the
cruel interrogations that the CIA performed during 2001-2006, all the means and
methods that have to do with these interrogations have not been accepted by the
majority of the public, US officials, senators etc. These methods are considered
to be by the United Nations and the general public inhuman and not methods of interrogation
but torture.