Waterboarding as Torture

It has always astounded me that there are defenders of the practice of that interrogation technique known as "waterboarding." In my mind, it is clearly torture; but I have heard time and time again from its defenders that it is not torture. The reasons often given to defend waterboarding as not being torture include: (1) it doesn't cause permanent physical harm or damage; (2) it is used on soldiers in their training so it can't be torture because we'd never subject our own to torture, even in a training setting; and (3) curious civilians subject themselves to controlled waterboarding to see what it's like, thus implying that it can't be torture since no one in his right mind would ever voluntarily subject himself to torture. I am sure there are other explanations, but these are the three most common ones I have heard. I find them completely unpersuasive, if not downright cynical.

Before I get into my rebuttal of each of these charges, I'd like to point out that those who claim waterboarding is not torture are implicitly accepting as a baseline that there is such a thing as torture. So, then, the question becomes what kinds of activities make up this thing called torture that everyone agrees exists. And because there does appear to be agreement on the existence of torture, we should be able to come up with some kind of mutually agreed upon definition of torture. To those who would say that waterboarding is not torture, I would ask: what, then, IS torture and why would you classify this as torture? From there we can proceed to defining torture in a way that would allow us to put waterboarding (and any other interrogation practice) up to the scrutiny of the definition. In the interest of erring on the side of moral correctness, I would argue that interrogation techniques that seek to cooerce another are assumed to be torture unless proved otherwise. Thus, the imperative of proof rests on those who argue that waterboarding is not torture. It is not incumbent upon me to prove that waterboarding is torture, but rather upon waterboarding advocates to prove that it is not torture.

Even still, let me try to rebut some of the arguments put forth by those who claim that waterboarding does not constitute torture.

First, to the argument that waterboarding doesn't cause permanent physical harm or damage, I would ask for proof of this assertion. Perhaps it doesn't leave visible marks of torture, but there are plenty of folks who are tortured who don't manifest visible marks of torture. One could argue, for instance, that electric shocks can be administered without causing permanent and visible physical harm. But electric shocks would generally be considered torture by even the most die-hard waterboarding apologists. And what's to say that waterboarding, because it certainly produces stress on the body and on the psyche, doesn't weaken the body and the mind's health? I can imagine that excessive sensations of drowning and actual water filling the lungs must do some damage to the body and the mind. It might not be so evident in the immediate aftermath of the administration of the technique, but it could easily manifest itself in phsyical and mental conditions later. Another example: breaking bones or pulling out fingernails or dislocating joints. All of these behaviors would probably be considered torture by everyone, but broken bones heal, fingernails grow back, and limbs can be put back into joint. So where's the permanent visible damage here? Finally, I read somewhere that eventually interrogators can just plug censors and probes into certain parts of the brain to stimulate the experience of excruciating pain without ever actually leaving physical marks on the body. Someone just pushes a computer button and the person on the other end might experience a "virtual" (though no less real) feeling of having bones or testicles crushed without anyone ever touching the bones or the testicles. Is this not torture?

Second, to the argument that we use waterboarding as a training technique on our own soldiers, therefore it cannot be torture since we wouldn't subject our own soldiers to torture, I would say that's hogwash. We subject our soldiers to these techniques precisely because we consider them torture and we want to train soldiers in how to manage and deal with torture. Then there is the psychological reality that soldiers in training know and trust that they will not be killed in their training exercises and also know that this training will eventually end. So the experience of waterboarding or any other interrogation practice used in training exercises comes with the knowledge of the trainees that this will end and that there is always an "out" if they cannot tolerate it. And, then again, we don't know what kinds of long-term psychological or physical outcomes this "training" will produce among our own soldiers. So to argue that we perform waterboarding on our own soldiers as if this is some kind of equivalent practice is just foolish. It is foolish because it doesn't prove anything relative to causing permanent physical or psychological harm; and it is foolish because it equates one practice with another even though the context surrounding the practice is very different.

As to the third defense of waterboarding that I pointed to previously, that civilians curious about waterboarding have subjected themselves to the technique, thus proving that it can't be torture, I would reiterate the point made above concerning the context of the experience. Such civilians are curious about the experience because they may not be able to fathom what the experience is like. We can all imagine the physical pain that comes with electric shock or smashing fingers or broken bones or dislocated joints because we may have experienced these sensations well enough to know the physical and psychological pain of this. But perhaps those who submit themselves to waterboarding just find it hard to imagine the kind of trauma it induces. But, I've had a near-drowning experience and, based on that, I would NEVER subject myself to waterboarding. The trauma of suffocating and drowning was worse than any other imaginable pain I've endured. I would much rather have my fingernails pulled out than experience waterboarding. Just because some civilians are curious about something doesn't mean that what they are curious about is not torturous. And the fact that those who subject themselves to a very controlled experiment almost always come out of the experience traumatized and conceding the torturous nature of the experience must count for something.

I know that this has been well-covered territory, but common sense at all levels points to the practice of waterboarding as torture. It's up to its apologists to prove conclusively that it is not -- first by defining torture themselves, and then providing convincing evidence that waterboarding as a practice does not meet that definition.