450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help you just now
Starting from 3 hours delivery
Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.
Any subject. Any type of essay. We’ll even meet a 3-hour deadline.Get your price
121 writers online
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 (n/a, 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 waterboarding during the Bush administration will be discussed in depth with some relative cases, which will be displayed for a further understanding of the matter. Furthermore, the influence and the results of the waterboarding, and if this method of interrogation was an acceptable method will be discussed along with pictures, examples, and cases. Lastly, the conclusion will be displayed.
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 are 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., 2013). 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., 2013). Minimization depends on standards of friendliness and endeavors to obtain a subject’s participation by limiting the reality of the offense (Kelly, et al., 2013). It incorporates procedures like communicating sensitive and giving reasons that decrease the subject’s culpability (Kelly, et al., 2013). On the other hand, maximization tries to stress the solemnity of the offense and scare the subject (Kelly, et al., 2013). Maximization, contain procedures like specifically charging the subject, forbidding refusals, and feigning or lying about proof (Kelly, et al., 2013).
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 on 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 to 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 overlap 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 synopsis, with a couple of special cases, the surviving characterization and depiction of interrogation procedures are 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 most efficient, ways of interrogation. After the brief display of the methods of interrogation in general, now a deep understanding of 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. 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. “The fear of a new terrorist attack does not justify mistaken decisions by organizations in the name of national security,” the report notes. 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. 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. Sleep deprivation involving the forced vigil of prisoners for 180 hours, usually in a standing position and often with the hands over the head. ” 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 banged.
We provide you with original essay samples, perfect formatting and styling
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:
Sorry, copying is not allowed on our website. If you’d like this or any other sample, we’ll happily email it to you.
Attention! This essay is not unique. You can get a 100% Plagiarism-FREE one in 30 sec
Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.
Please check your inbox.
Want us to write one just for you? We can custom edit this essay into an original, 100% plagiarism free essay.Order now
Are you interested in getting a customized paper?Check it out!