Waterboarding, as you all probably know, is an interrogation method used by the United States government on terrorist in an attempt to get them to talk. What they do is place a cloth over the face of terrorist suspects and pour water over their faces, which simulate drowning.
Weather this interrogation method is torture or not has been a hot topic for some time. I myself have always thought that the interrogation method is not torture. To me, it's not like we're pulling suspects fingernails off; we're simply scarring them. An article on foxnews.com has brought a lot of important points to my attention, for either side, which I had not thought of before.
First of all the Army and CIA banned the use of Waterboarding in 2006. The technique can currently be used only with the permission of the attorney general and president. Bush wants to keep the option open to use Waterboarding in extreme circumstances.
"I cannot sign into law a bill that would prevent me, and future presidents, from authorizing the CIA to conduct a separate, lawful intelligence program, and from taking all lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack," Bush said, according to foxnews.com.
Something brought up by foxnews.com that I had not considered, however, is the idea that keeping waterboarding an option, for the United States, could be seen as torture by other countries; thus put Americans at greater risk of also being tortured if they are captured abroad.
It seems to me like the program in place is an acceptable one, but I hadn't really thought about what we look like to other countries. Is it worth our reputation to keep waterboarding an option? And is it actually more dangerous to Americans to keep the waterboarding policy? Could we be at a greater terrorist threat because of poor relations and reputation with the rest of the world?
Leave a comment