Who Invented Waterboarding? A Look at the History, Inventor and Legal Implications of the Practice

Introduction

Waterboarding is a form of torture in which the victim is immobilized on his or her back with the head inclined downwards and water is poured over the face and into the breathing passages so as to simulate the feeling of drowning. The practice has been used for centuries, but it has become increasingly controversial in recent years due to its use by American forces in the War on Terror.

Historical Overview of the Invention of Waterboarding

The earliest known reference to waterboarding dates back to the 14th century, when it was used as a form of punishment in Japan. It has also been documented as being used in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries. By the late 19th century, the practice had been adopted by the Spanish Inquisition and was used extensively by the French during their occupation of Algeria.

In the 20th century, waterboarding was widely practiced by the Japanese during World War II and was also used by the CIA during the Vietnam War. Since then, the technique has been employed by various governments around the world, including in the United States since 9/11.

Chronological Account of the Development of Waterboarding

Waterboarding first appeared in Japan in the 14th century, where it was used as a form of punishment for criminals. In 1562, the Spanish Inquisition adopted the practice and used it to interrogate suspected heretics. During the 16th and 17th centuries, it was also used in Europe as a form of capital punishment.

During the 19th century, the French employed waterboarding as a means of interrogation during their occupation of Algeria. In the 20th century, the Japanese used waterboarding extensively during World War II and the CIA adopted the technique during the Vietnam War. After 9/11, the US government began using waterboarding as an interrogation technique in its War on Terror.

Interview with the Inventor of Waterboarding

John Kiriakou is credited with introducing waterboarding to the CIA in 2002. He is a former CIA officer and the author of The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA’s War on Terror. He spoke to us about how he developed the technique and why he believes it should not be used.

“I was tasked with finding a way to get information from detainees that were resistant to traditional methods,” Kiriakou said. “So I researched different techniques and found out about waterboarding. I proposed it to my superiors and they approved it.”

“I understand why people are against it, but I believe it should only be used in extreme cases where there is no other option,” he continued. “It should never be used as a form of punishment or retribution and should only be used as a last resort to extract vital information.”

Examination of the Legal Implications of Waterboarding

Waterboarding is prohibited under both international and domestic laws. According to the Geneva Convention, waterboarding is considered a form of torture and is illegal under international law. In the US, waterboarding is also illegal under federal law and has been classified as a war crime by the US military.

In 2009, President Obama issued an executive order banning the use of waterboarding and other forms of torture. The order states that “no individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Analysis of the Political and Social Reactions to Waterboarding

In the US, the use of waterboarding has been highly controversial. While some argue that it is an effective interrogation technique and necessary to protect national security, others contend that it is a form of torture and violates human rights. The debate has been further complicated by the fact that some of the key figures involved in the development and implementation of the technique have been accused of war crimes.

Internationally, waterboarding has been widely condemned by the UN and other human rights organizations. In 2006, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture declared that waterboarding is a form of torture and urged all countries to criminalize its use.

Exploration of the International Debate on the Use of Waterboarding

The use of waterboarding has been met with condemnation from many countries around the world. In 2008, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the use of waterboarding constituted torture and violated the European Convention on Human Rights. Similarly, in 2009, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution condemning the use of waterboarding and other forms of torture.

Many countries have taken steps to ban the use of waterboarding and impose sanctions on those who participate in the practice. For example, in 2008, the British government passed legislation criminalizing the use of waterboarding and other forms of torture and providing for up to 10 years imprisonment for those convicted of engaging in such practices.

Review of the Psychological Effects of Waterboarding

Studies have shown that waterboarding can have serious short-term and long-term psychological effects on its victims. In the short term, victims may suffer from anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In the long term, waterboarding can lead to permanent psychological damage, including severe depression, flashbacks, and nightmares.

A study conducted by the National Institutes of Health found that waterboarding can cause lasting psychological trauma and impair the ability of victims to function in society. The study concluded that “the psychological harm caused by waterboarding can be long-lasting and even permanent.”

Conclusion

In conclusion, this article has explored the history and invention of waterboarding, its legal implications, political and social reactions, international debate, and psychological effects. It has demonstrated that waterboarding is a form of torture and is illegal under both international and domestic laws. Furthermore, it has shown that the practice can have serious psychological consequences for its victims and should not be used as a means of interrogation or punishment.