Saturday, May 21, 2011

Waterboarding Again? Torture, Is it reliable?

Here we go again! The defenders of waterboarding are back in the limelight. It's interesting that these ex-Bush-men always seem to argue in favor of water torture (waterboarding) by using pragmatics. They're argument is, "because it works, therefore we should do it" They're consideration of whether it is morally or ethically right does not come in to play. This may be a reflection of their moral compass in general. Violate the law, cheat, torture and even kill to get the job done, seems to be their way.

The irony is that their pragmatic arguments do not have any credibility. There is no evidence to show that waterboarding or any other form of torture is a credible way of extracting information from a suspect.  There is evidence, however, to say that a variety of torture methods do not produce any reliable ways of getting people to talk (Indiana Law Journal - "Behind This Mortal Bone: The (In)Effectiveness of Torture" p. 18; July 2008) The F.B.I. claims that their more conventional, non-torture, methods of interrogation are a superior method of extracting information from a suspect and in fact it was information gleaned from these methods that produced the most reliable information in finding Osama Bin Laden's hideout in Pakistan.


These former Bush-men who defend their sacred waterboarding methods are well educated and should know that there is is no evidence supporting this type of torture. So why do they continue to defend it's use and reinstatement? Their desire to normalize this practice may be in part to justify their use in the past and avoid charges of war crimes because they have violated the Geneva Convention. It's important for the present administration to pursue prosecution of anyone in the former Bush administration that were responsible  for ordering the use of such methods.

No comments: