Why Is Waterboarding Considered Effective Examining The Debate

Waterboarding has long been one of the most controversial interrogation techniques in modern history. Despite being widely condemned as torture, it has been used—and defended—by certain intelligence agencies under the premise that it produces actionable intelligence. The claim that waterboarding is “effective” rests at the heart of a polarizing debate involving ethics, legality, national security, and psychological science. Understanding why some consider it effective requires a dispassionate look at both historical precedent and expert analysis, even as we confront its profound moral costs.

The Mechanics of Waterboarding and Perceived Effectiveness

Waterboarding simulates drowning. The subject is restrained, often on an inclined board, with cloth or plastic placed over the face. Water is then poured over the mouth and nose, creating the sensation of suffocation. The body reacts instinctively: panic sets in, the gag reflex triggers, and the individual experiences what feels like imminent death. This extreme duress, proponents argue, breaks down resistance faster than conventional questioning.

The perceived effectiveness lies in the belief that when individuals are pushed to the edge of physical endurance, they are more likely to divulge information to make the pain stop. Intelligence officials have cited cases where high-value detainees allegedly revealed critical leads after undergoing such treatment. However, this argument hinges on assumptions about human behavior under coercion—a domain fraught with uncertainty.

Tip: When evaluating claims about interrogation efficacy, always distinguish between anecdotal assertions and verified outcomes.

Historical Use and Government Justifications

While waterboarding dates back centuries, its modern application gained notoriety after the September 11 attacks. The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employed the technique on several detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of 9/11. According to declassified CIA documents, information obtained during or shortly after enhanced interrogation sessions led to the identification of terrorist cells, safe houses, and operational plans.

In a 2007 testimony before Congress, former Vice President Dick Cheney stated:

“We had people on the inside who knew where the next attack was coming from. We needed to get that information quickly.”

This sentiment reflects the core justification: in ticking time bomb scenarios, extraordinary methods may be necessary to prevent mass casualties.

However, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s 2014 report on CIA detention and interrogation practices challenged this narrative. It concluded that waterboarding did not produce unique intelligence that could not have been obtained through non-coercive means. In fact, many leads were either false or already known to U.S. authorities prior to the interrogations.

Psychological and Ethical Counterarguments

Even if waterboarding yields information, its reliability remains questionable. Under extreme stress, individuals are prone to confabulation—making up answers to end suffering. False confessions are well-documented in psychology, particularly in coercive environments. As Dr. Steven Reisner, a clinical psychologist and torture expert, explains:

“When someone is drowning, their brain isn’t focused on truth-telling. It’s focused on survival. What you get is compliance, not credibility.”

Ethically, waterboarding violates international law, including the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which the U.S. ratified in 1994. Article 1 defines torture as any act that inflicts severe physical or mental pain for purposes of obtaining information. By this standard, waterboarding qualifies unequivocally as torture.

Beyond legality, there are strategic concerns. The use of such tactics damages diplomatic relationships, undermines America’s moral authority, and serves as a recruitment tool for extremist groups. Images and reports of abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay fueled anti-Western sentiment across the Muslim world, complicating counterterrorism efforts abroad.

Comparative Effectiveness: Coercive vs. Rapport-Based Interrogation

A growing body of research suggests that non-coercive, rapport-based techniques are not only more humane but also more effective in producing reliable intelligence. A landmark 2016 study by the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), funded by the U.S. government, found that building trust, using empathy, and employing cognitive interviewing strategies yielded higher-quality information than fear-based methods.

Method	Speed of Response	Accuracy of Information	Long-Term Cooperation
Waterboarding	Immediate (under duress)	Low (high risk of falsehoods)	None (increased hostility)
Rapport-Based Interrogation	Slower build-up	High (context-rich, verifiable)	Possible ongoing cooperation
Traditional Questioning	Moderate	Moderate	Limited

The data indicates that while coercive methods may appear expedient, they sacrifice accuracy and sustainability. In contrast, skilled interviewers can extract detailed, corroborated intelligence without crossing ethical lines.

Mini Case Study: The Interrogation of Abu Zubaydah

Abu Zubaydah, captured in 2002, was one of the first high-profile detainees subjected to waterboarding. The CIA claimed he provided key information about al-Qaeda operations afterward. However, subsequent investigations revealed contradictions. According to the Senate report, much of the actionable intelligence—including details about Jose Padilla and dirty bombs—was obtained *before* waterboarding began, through standard interrogation methods.

After enduring 83 simulated drownings in a single month, Zubaydah became increasingly delusional and unresponsive. Analysts noted a sharp decline in the coherence of his statements. This case illustrates a recurring pattern: initial gains followed by diminishing returns and psychological collapse.

Expert Consensus and Policy Shifts

In recent years, leading intelligence and military professionals have distanced themselves from coercive interrogation. Former FBI Director James Comey said:

“I’ve never seen a case where torture produced information you couldn’t get through lawful means.”

In 2015, the U.S. Congress passed the McCain-Feinstein Amendment, which prohibited the use of torture and required all federal agencies to follow the Army Field Manual’s humane interrogation standards. This marked a formal rejection of waterboarding as official policy.

Despite this, debates persist. Some policymakers continue to argue for maintaining \"enhanced techniques\" in extreme scenarios. Yet no peer-reviewed study has conclusively demonstrated that waterboarding produces superior intelligence compared to evidence-based, ethical alternatives.

Tip: Effectiveness should be measured not just by speed, but by the accuracy, usability, and long-term value of intelligence gathered.

Step-by-Step: How Ethical Interrogation Builds Reliable Intelligence

1. Establish rapport: Begin with non-threatening conversation to reduce anxiety and build trust.
2. Use open-ended questions: Encourage narrative recall rather than yes/no answers.
3. Employ cognitive techniques: Ask subjects to recount events in reverse order or from different perspectives to detect inconsistencies.
4. Verify through corroboration: Cross-check details with existing intelligence databases.
5. Maintain consistency: Avoid threats or deception that could invalidate cooperation.

This approach prioritizes psychological insight over physical pressure, resulting in intelligence that stands up to scrutiny.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is waterboarding still used today?

No, waterboarding is currently banned under U.S. law and executive orders. The Obama administration outlawed it in 2009, and the prohibition was reinforced in subsequent administrations. However, other nations may still employ similar techniques, and the debate over its potential future use continues.

Can torture ever be justified in a 'ticking time bomb' scenario?

This hypothetical situation—where a suspect holds information that could prevent an imminent attack—is often cited to justify torture. However, real-world crises rarely fit this model. Intelligence is usually fragmented, suspects may not know the full picture, and coercive methods risk wasting time on false leads. Most experts agree that preparation, surveillance, and collaboration are more reliable safeguards.

Has anyone been prosecuted for authorizing waterboarding?

To date, no U.S. officials have been criminally prosecuted for approving or conducting waterboarding. Legal opinions from the Department of Justice in the early 2000s provided temporary cover, though those memos were later withdrawn. Calls for accountability remain a point of contention among human rights advocates.

Conclusion

The assertion that waterboarding is effective rests on a narrow interpretation of short-term compliance, not long-term intelligence value. While it may produce rapid responses under extreme duress, the quality and reliability of that information are deeply compromised. Moreover, the ethical, legal, and strategic costs far outweigh any marginal gains.

The shift toward science-based, humane interrogation methods reflects a maturation in how democracies handle security challenges. Truth is more likely to emerge from dialogue than desperation. As public awareness grows, so does the expectation that intelligence work adheres to the rule of law and human dignity.

🚀 Stay informed. Share this article to help others understand the complex realities behind one of the most debated tactics in modern history.