The "Water Cure" as Torture
Some quick research turned up the following two cases from U.S. courts:
In re Estate of Marcos Human Rights Litigation, 910 F.Supp. 1460 (Hawaii, 1995), was a civil action by victims of President Fernando Marcos of the Phillipines, and the court found that the plaintiffs had experienced "human rights violations" including, but not limited to, "5. The 'water cure', where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water poured over it producing a drowning sensation...." The court referred to the listed practices as "forms of torture" that were used in "tactical interrogation," which the court described as a "euphemism for torture, disappearance or summary execution." 910 F.Supp at 1463.
In Cavazos v. State, 160 S.W.2d 260, 261 (Tex. Crim., 1942), it was undisputed that the defendant "was carried from one jail to another by the officers; that he was made to stand for hours on tin cans with his feet bare and with his arms extended above his head; that he was slapped and kicked; that he was given electrical shocks with an iron rod charged with electricity; that he was given what is termed 'water cure' until he was willing to confess and did confess to the commission of the offense in order to escape such further treatment." The court concluded that the confession was obtained "by force and physical and mental torture" and was inadmissible.
Now, the use of the word "torture" in those two decisions is what lawyers sometimes call "dicta," because the federal statute that prohibits torture outside of the United States (18 USC 2340A) wasn't before the courts, and the issues that were before the courts didn't really require a determination of whether the "water cure" was "torture." So the opinions aren't really "on point" and the language in the opinions has to be taken with a grain of salt.
But the fact that both a federal judge in 1995 considered the pouring of water over a prisoner's face to be a form of torture, and a Texas appeals court in 1942 felt the same way, should mean something. That the Department of Justice never even looked for these kinds of cases speaks volumes about the "thoroughness" of their research and their desire to reach the result they wanted to reach without having to consider any pesky contrary opinions.
In re Estate of Marcos Human Rights Litigation, 910 F.Supp. 1460 (Hawaii, 1995), was a civil action by victims of President Fernando Marcos of the Phillipines, and the court found that the plaintiffs had experienced "human rights violations" including, but not limited to, "5. The 'water cure', where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water poured over it producing a drowning sensation...." The court referred to the listed practices as "forms of torture" that were used in "tactical interrogation," which the court described as a "euphemism for torture, disappearance or summary execution." 910 F.Supp at 1463.
In Cavazos v. State, 160 S.W.2d 260, 261 (Tex. Crim., 1942), it was undisputed that the defendant "was carried from one jail to another by the officers; that he was made to stand for hours on tin cans with his feet bare and with his arms extended above his head; that he was slapped and kicked; that he was given electrical shocks with an iron rod charged with electricity; that he was given what is termed 'water cure' until he was willing to confess and did confess to the commission of the offense in order to escape such further treatment." The court concluded that the confession was obtained "by force and physical and mental torture" and was inadmissible.
Now, the use of the word "torture" in those two decisions is what lawyers sometimes call "dicta," because the federal statute that prohibits torture outside of the United States (18 USC 2340A) wasn't before the courts, and the issues that were before the courts didn't really require a determination of whether the "water cure" was "torture." So the opinions aren't really "on point" and the language in the opinions has to be taken with a grain of salt.
But the fact that both a federal judge in 1995 considered the pouring of water over a prisoner's face to be a form of torture, and a Texas appeals court in 1942 felt the same way, should mean something. That the Department of Justice never even looked for these kinds of cases speaks volumes about the "thoroughness" of their research and their desire to reach the result they wanted to reach without having to consider any pesky contrary opinions.
Advertisement
Leave a comment