The Torture Debate Is Missing This: The Fact that We Did this Before

Paul Kramer is a historian at Vanderbilt University and the author of “The Blood of Government: Race, Empire, the United States and the Philippines.”


Just over one hundred years ago, in 1902, Americans participated in a brief, intense and mostly forgotten debate on the practice of torture in a context of imperial warfare and counter-insurgency. The setting was the U. S. invasion of the Philippines, a war of conquest waged against the forces of the Philippine Republic begun in 1899. Within a year, it had developed into a guerrilla conflict, one that aroused considerable anti-war opposition in the United States.

The controversy was sparked when letters from ordinary American soldiers in the Islands surfaced in hometown newspapers in the United States containing sometimes graphic accounts of torture, and activists within the anti-imperialist movement pressed for public exposure, investigation and accountability. At the center of the storm was what American soldiers called the “water cure,” a form of torture which involved the drowning of prisoners, often but not always for purposes of interrogation.

In early 1902, the Senate Committee on the Philippines embarked on an investigation into “Affairs in the Philippine Islands.” While pro-war Senators on the committee tried to sideline questions of U. S. troop conduct, anti-war Senators, working closely with anti-imperialist investigators, provided a platform for U. S. soldiers to testify regarding the practice of torture, including the “water cure.” Their accounts triggered a response by Secretary of War Elihu Root that included the minimization of atrocity and the inauguration of court-martial proceedings for some soldiers and officers accused of torturing Filipinos.


http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/157869

There were articles on waterboarding that referenced the "water cure." Of course, we now know through science what Napoleon (I believe you brought this up, Bras) knew from observation -- that this heinous act doesn't help collect military intelligence.

I remain convinced that torture isn't really a tactic so much as a visceral punishment, which is an idea that we sometimes enjoy -- who doesn't like Batman? -- but that doesn't have a place in the real world.