Schwalbe, 1

An Ethical Consideration
of Enhanced
Interrogation Techniques
Anna Schwalbe
CJ Ethical Consideration
 Schwalbe, 2

Introduction

In recent years, every move CIA, FBI, Law Enforcement, and other

employees of the criminal justice system made have been under scrutiny of

the public. The ever increasing surge of the medias presence in society

allows us to know more and more about things that go on behind the scenes

that which were previously concealed. Recent leaks regarding the way the

CIA conducts interrogations have shed some light on the things that go down

out of public view. Some of the methods that were exposed were considered

horrible, immoral even, to society. The question is, are these method just?

Throughout this paper the history, types, effectiveness, and even the

controversies surrounding the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques will

be discussed while also applying several different ethical systems to the

topic in order to determine its validity.

History of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques Regulations and

Protocol

One could say that the regulations and protocols applied to

interrogation of foreign offenders all started with the Geneva Conventions,

more specifically the Third Geneva convention regarding Prisoners of War.

The Geneva Conventions made up of several different treaties that define

how countries that abide by it should treat Prisoners of war (POW), Soldiers,

and Civilians. The main goal of these conventions was to create a set of

international humanitarian laws in which nations are meant to follow

 Schwalbe, 3

(Drmann & Serralvo, 2014). These new laws guarantee a general sense of

respect for the prisoner. More treaties and other revisions were added over

time in order to apply to new situations especially during times of war. One

of the major changes made was included in Article 3 of Fourth Convention.

Among other things, this article demands for the humane treatment of all

persons at the hands of the enemy but when an individual is detained, they

are classified as combatant or non-combatant which has an effect on their

rights (Lennon, 2015). A significant reason that which the CIA has been

ridiculed within the past 15 years is because some believe their interrogation

tactics violate many different aspects of the Geneva Conventions. This claim

would have been true, however the CIA found a loophole in the Accords.

Instead of classifying those captured as Prisoners of War they were classified

as detainees which meant that based on a formality, the Geneva

Conventions did not apply. Nearly all of the detainees that the CIA has been

interrogating in recent years have been a part of Al-Qaeda, or more recently

ISIS. The CIA maintains the fact that since these terrorist groups are not

members of a recognized government or military force of another

country they are not under the umbrella of the Geneva Conventions

(Lennon, 2015, p. 1). Although it is true that they are technically still abiding

the laws many countries and inter-governmental organizations, including the

United Nations have publically ridiculed the CIAs practices (BBC, 2006).

Forms of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

 Schwalbe, 4

There are more than 70 different techniques for interrogation used by

the CIA that has been documented (Evans, Houston, & Meissner, 2014).

Most of these techniques were developed by two psychologist, James Eller

Mitchel and Bruce Jenson. They created the interrogation techniques by

reversing aspects of an already established, but secretive, military program

called SERE which stands for Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape. SERE

was created in order to teach the United States Military to withstand torture

at the enemys hand in the event of capture (Eban, 2007).

Although there is an abundance of techniques used on detainees

several types seem to stick out as they are continuously mentioned in nearly

every article covering the topic of enhanced interrogation techniques. Those

methods being: The Attention Grab, the Attention Slap, The Belly Slap, Long

Time Standing, Cold Cell, and the infamous Water Boarding (Brian Ross &

Richard Esposito, 2005). The Attention grab is when the front of the

detainees shirt is forcefully grabbed while the interrogator shakes the

detainee. The Attention slap is when the detainee is slapped, with an open

hand in the face. Similar to the Attention Slap, the Belly slap is when the

interrogator uses an open hand to slap the detainees stomach. The

technique thought to be the most effective is when the detainee is forced to

remain standing while handcuffed and shackled for up to 40 minutes at a

time. The Cold Cell technique entails the detainee standing naked in a cell of

which temperature is kept at 50 degrees. Lastly, the waterboarding

technique is done by laying the prisoner down on a board with their feet
 Schwalbe, 5

elevated with a rag or cellophane over their face while pouring water over

their faces. There are conflicting accounts as to how long the waterboarding

techniques last. Some CIA officials have been reported saying that they limit

the pouring of water to 40 seconds while other reports show that some

detainees have endured this form of torture for up to 2 and a half minutes, or

150 seconds. Interestingly enough, when CIA agents voluntarily decided to

undergo waterboarding, they were only able to last 15 seconds (Ross &

Esposito, 2005). This fact in itself makes one wonder how these are

considered an interrogation technique rather than torture. Keep in mind that

all of these techniques are being used simultaneously with another

technique: sleep deprivation.

Effectiveness of Enhance Interrogation Techniques

Coming from a Teleological standpoint, wouldnt these harsh

techniques be worth it if it meant that we are receiving reliable and valuable

information? Although it would be hard to say yes, simply because it would

mean that someone would have to endure these harsh and torturous

conditions, it would be easier to allow it knowing that it is saving the lives of

many innocent people. If we could prevent another unfortunate and

abhorrent disaster such as 9/11 simply by torturing a few known terrorists to

get information, wouldnt you allow it? I would say yes, however these

techniques havent shown to be successful on many grounds. Humans simply

 Schwalbe, 6

dont respond to torture. Most of the leaked information that the CIA has

received as a result of enhanced interrogation techniques were just

fabricated by the detainee in order to temporarily halt the torture. However

the continues to defend their tactics. In particular, they frequently claims

that the waterboarding technique is effective when it comes to extracting

information from a prisoner. That being said, official CIA records do not

support this claim. Even the Agents who were tasked with using these

methods of interrogations conceded that these methods are ineffective. A

great example to support this claim is with the interrogation team that was in

charge of interrogating Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) in Guantanamo Bay.

KSM was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. These

attacks are without a doubt the reason the U.S. enhanced their efforts on

preventing terrorism. As a side note, Guantanamo Bay is the infamous

detainee camp in Cuba where the United States where the interrogation of

many high profile terrorists are conducted. According to the BBC, KSM

underwent waterboarding 183 times in March of 2003. If the waterboarding

was done consistently, that would mean that KSM was water boarded almost

6 times every 24 hours during that 31 day period. Still after all of that

continuous torture, the CIA maintained that their effort were necessary and

effective even though KSM did not even give useable and valid information

until at least 2006. This fact is probably why the interrogation team in charge

of KSM believes that these techniques were not effective.

 Schwalbe, 7

As it was mentioned earlier, yet another problem with enhanced

interrogation techniques is that they false information is often given in order

to forgo the torture. Both time and money is wasted on following these leads.

Problems persist with other tactics such as when the interrogator tells the

detainee that they will be treated with leniency if they give information

(Evans, 2010). Convincing the prisoner that they will be treated with leniency

has also been proved to be more problematic because it increases the

likelihood of a false confession. All in all other forms of interrogation show

more promise opposed to enhanced interrogation techniques. During a

recent study, it was found that this method of interrogation did not lead to

more information but it was a more subtle way to gain information which

may be useful in unique situations (Evans et al., 2014).

Controversy

Technically, under both United States law and International Law, the

use of torture is illegal. According to Chapter 118, Title 18 of the U.S. Code,

common violations of Article 3 include Torture, Cruel or inhuman treatment,

and performing biological experiments. Torture however is one of the most

common violations (US Code of Law). The CIAs use of loopholes has

brought about much upheaval from American Citizens and foreign nations.

The United Nation has even come forward and demanded that Guantanamo

Bay be closed and its mission disbanded (BBC, 2014). Obama is making

efforts to officially shut down Guantanamo bay, but it seems as though it will

be a long process because when Bushs last term ended there were still 250
 Schwalbe, 8

detainees but that number only went down by 35 after Obamas first term

(Lennon, 2015). Although this is a good thing it does leave one question,

what will be done with the detainees?

Ethical Considerations and Conclusion

Every interrogation should be treated uniquely based on the situation.

Data and statistics should be used when deciding which technique to use

because different techniques work better in different situations. It seems as

though torture, or enhanced interrogation techniques, are almost never

successful in getting valid or useful information. On top of that, even if the

fact that the techniques are inadequate, the use of these tactics also need to

be considered from an ethical standpoint. From the viewpoint of the ethics of

care theory, one could say that the use of such techniques are unethical

because it does not meet the needs of those concerned, in this case that

would be the detainee. The detainees basic human rights are violated and

basically taken away altogether in order to get information out of them. Their

needs are almost never a concern, unless they are dying and the only reason

that they are cared for then is because they know that if they die the

information that they supposedly have will die with them. According to the

text, the utilitarian theory means that what is done is good for the most

people. One might say that perhaps the utilitarian theory supports the use of

them, but it actually does the opposite because the information given by the

detainees after interrogation has never been reliable. This means that not

only are the detainees suffering, but society is as well because we could be
 Schwalbe, 9

getting the information needed to prevent disasters by other means. In the

end, new forms of interrogation are needed that yield a better success rate.

Agents should take advantage of the abundance of studies done by

criminologist and psychologists to find the best way to get information out

because it is obvious that the techniques that are currently used are not

sufficient. Out with the old and in with the new.

References
 Schwalbe, 10

Blakeley, R. (2011). Dirty Hands, Clean Conscience? The CIA Inspector General's
Investigation of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques in the War on Terror and
the Torture Debate. Journal Of Human Rights, 10(4), 544-561.
doi:10.1080/14754835.2011.619406
Beehner, Lionel. "The United States and the Geneva Conventions." CFR.org. Council
on Foreign Relations, 19 Sept. 2006.
Drmann, K., & Serralvo, J. (2014). Common Article 1 to the Geneva Conventions
and the obligation to prevent international humanitarian law
violations. International Review Of The Red Cross, 96(895-896), 707-736.
doi:10.1017/S181638311400037X
Eban, K. (2007, July). Rorschach and Awe.
Evans, J. R., Houston, K. A., Meissner, C. A., Ross, A. B., LaBianca, J. R., Woestehoff,
S. A., & Kleinman, S. M. (2014). An Empirical Evaluation of Intelligence-
gathering Interrogation Techniques from the United States Army Field
Manual. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 867-875. doi:10.1002/acp.3065
EVANS, J. R., MEISSNER, C. A., BRANDON, S. E., RUSSANO, M. B., & KLEINMAN, S. M.
(2010). Criminal versus HUMINT interrogations: The importance of
psychological science to improving interrogative practice. Journal Of
Psychiatry & Law,38(1/2), 215-249.
Lennon, C. (2015). DETAINEES IN THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM ABOARD
GUANTANAMO BAY. Touro Law Review, 31(4), 1013-1041.
O'Donohue, W., Snipes, C., Dalto, G., Soto, C., Maragakis, A., & Im, S. (2014). The
Ethics of Enhanced Interrogations and Torture: A Reappraisal of the
Argument.Ethics & Behavior, 24(2), 109-125.
doi:10.1080/10508422.2013.814088