Analyzing the Claim: "Enhanced Interrogation Isn't Torture"

Introduction

The claim that "enhanced interrogation isn't torture" has been a subject of intense debate, particularly in the context of the War on Terror initiated by the United States following the September 11 attacks. This article examines the validity of this claim by analyzing various sources and evidence to determine whether enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) can be classified as torture.

Background

Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. government, under the George W. Bush administration, authorized the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. These techniques were employed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other agencies in an effort to extract information from detainees suspected of terrorism. The techniques included waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and exposure to extreme temperatures [3][4].

Analysis

Definitions and Legal Framework

The United Nations Convention Against Torture defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession" [4]. U.S. law and international law both prohibit acts of torture, which raises the question of whether EITs fall under this prohibition.

Enhanced Interrogation Techniques as Described by Sources

According to various reports and investigations, including those by the Senate Intelligence Committee and human rights organizations, EITs involved practices such as waterboarding, prolonged sleep deprivation, and physical assaults [3][4][6]. These methods were designed to disorient, break down, and ultimately force detainees to divulge information.

Psychological and Physical Impact

Studies and expert opinions indicate that EITs can lead to long-lasting psychological and physical harm, which is a key characteristic of torture. For instance, psychological torture, which includes methods used in EITs, can result in severe long-term suffering [2]. This aligns with the UN's definition of torture in terms of the infliction of severe pain or suffering.

Evidence

Reports and Testimonies

The Senate Intelligence Committee's report on CIA torture provides detailed accounts of how EITs were used and the effects they had on detainees. It includes instances where detainees were subjected to waterboarding multiple times, kept in small confined boxes, and deprived of sleep for extended periods [3][6].

Official Acknowledgments

In 2009, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged that certain EITs used by the CIA amounted to torture. This acknowledgment further undermines the claim that enhanced interrogation is not tantamount to torture [9].

International Views and Legal Rulings

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that EITs were equivalent to torture, and international bodies, including the UN, have repeatedly condemned these practices as violating international law [3][8].

Conclusion

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that enhanced interrogation techniques do constitute torture. This is based on legal definitions, the nature of the techniques used, their intended and actual effects on detainees, and the acknowledgment by U.S. and international authorities. The claim that "enhanced interrogation isn't torture" is therefore false.

TruthOrFake

Fact Check: Enhanced interrogation isnt torture