Water Cure Torture: The Disturbing History of Forced Water Interrogation
The water cure was a brutal interrogation and punishment technique in which captors forced large quantities of water into a restrained person’s mouth and nose. It caused choking, extreme abdominal swelling, vomiting, panic, internal injury and a terrifying sensation of drowning.
Despite its deceptively medical-sounding name, the water cure was never a legitimate treatment when used against prisoners. The word “cure” was often employed sarcastically or euphemistically to disguise an act of torture.
Versions of forced-water torture appeared across several centuries and different political systems. It was associated with European judicial torture, colonial warfare, military occupation, police abuse and wartime interrogation. One of its most notorious documented uses occurred during the Philippine–American War, when American soldiers and allied forces used it against Filipino prisoners and civilians while searching for weapons, guerrillas and information.
The water cure is sometimes described as an early form of waterboarding. The two methods are related, but they are not identical.
Waterboarding primarily creates the immediate experience of suffocation and drowning by pouring water over a cloth covering the face. The water cure often involved forcing water directly into the body until the stomach became painfully distended, sometimes followed by pressure or blows intended to expel the liquid before the process was repeated.
Both are forms of torture.
What Was the Water Cure?
The water cure was a coercive technique used to obtain information, force confessions, punish prisoners or terrorize communities.
Although its application varied, the essential features generally involved:
- Physically restraining the victim
- Preventing the person from closing their mouth
- Forcing water into the mouth or nose
- Continuing despite choking, vomiting or loss of consciousness
- Applying pressure to the swollen abdomen in some cases
- Reviving the victim and repeating the ordeal
Historical accounts describe victims being unable to breathe or speak while water was being administered. The stomach could become severely swollen, while liquid entering the airways created an immediate danger of aspiration and suffocation.
The technique combined intense physical suffering with psychological terror. Victims could not know whether their captors intended to stop before they died.
Why Was It Called a “Cure”?
The term sounds misleading because “water cure” also had a completely different meaning in 19th-century medicine.
Hydrotherapy advocates used water-based bathing, drinking and wrapping treatments as supposed cures for various illnesses. When soldiers later used the same phrase for forced-water torture, the word may have carried an intentionally cynical meaning.
Calling torture a “cure” minimized its brutality.
The victim was supposedly being “cured” of silence, resistance or unwillingness to cooperate. Euphemistic language allowed perpetrators and officials to discuss violence without directly acknowledging what was happening.
Similar language has appeared throughout the history of coercive interrogation. Torture may be described as treatment, pressure, conditioning, enhanced interrogation or discipline.
Changing the name does not change the act.
How the Water Cure Affected the Body
Forced-water torture could cause several forms of serious injury.
Suffocation and Aspiration
Water entering the nose, throat or lungs could interfere with breathing. Victims experienced choking and the sensation that they were drowning.
Aspiration could also lead to lung injury, infection or death.
Severe Stomach Distension
When large quantities of water were forced into the digestive system, the stomach could expand painfully.
This caused extreme discomfort and risked damage to internal organs.
Vomiting
The body naturally attempted to expel the liquid.
Vomiting while restrained created an additional danger of inhaling vomit into the lungs.
Water Intoxication
Excessive water consumption can dangerously dilute sodium in the bloodstream, causing a condition known as hyponatremia.
Severe cases may lead to confusion, seizures, brain swelling, coma or death.
Internal Injury
Historical descriptions indicate that captors sometimes pressed, kicked, struck or jumped on the victim’s swollen abdomen to force water out.
This could damage the stomach, ribs and other internal organs.
Psychological Trauma
The inability to breathe, escape or control what entered the body created profound fear and helplessness.
Survivors of torture may experience nightmares, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress and a lasting fear of water, confinement or authority.
The absence of obvious external wounds did not make the technique less destructive. Torture can cause severe physical and psychological harm even when it leaves few visible marks.
Water Cure Versus Waterboarding
The terms are sometimes used interchangeably, especially in historical discussions, but there are meaningful differences.
Water Cure
The water cure generally involved forcing water into the victim’s stomach and airways.
Its effects included abdominal swelling, choking, vomiting and possible water intoxication.
Waterboarding
Waterboarding usually involves immobilizing a person, covering the face with cloth and pouring water over the breathing passages.
The wet cloth restricts airflow and creates the immediate sensation of drowning.
What They Have in Common
Both methods:
- Exploit the body’s fear of suffocation
- Place the victim under total physical control
- Can cause serious injury or death
- Are intended to break resistance
- Produce extreme physical and psychological suffering
- Constitute torture
The distinction is historically useful, but it should not be used to suggest that one method is humane.
Early Historical Forms of Forced-Water Torture
The use of water to inflict suffering predates the modern name “water cure.”
European judicial and religious authorities used several forms of water torture during the medieval and early modern periods.
In some systems, suspects were forced to swallow measured amounts of water as part of an officially regulated interrogation procedure. The practice was sometimes called “the question,” a euphemism for torture conducted to obtain information or confession.
Accounts from the Spanish Inquisition describe victims being restrained while cloth was placed in or over the mouth and water was poured onto it. This produced choking and suffocation while also forcing water into the body.
In France, judicial torture included forced consumption of large quantities of water. Authorities distinguished between ordinary and extraordinary levels of “the question,” with the latter involving a larger quantity and greater suffering.
These practices demonstrate that torture was not always carried out secretly by uncontrolled individuals. At different points in history, it was formally incorporated into legal and judicial systems.
The Amboyna Case of 1623
One widely discussed early account of water torture came from the Dutch-controlled East Indies.
In 1623, Dutch authorities on the island of Amboyna accused English merchants, Japanese mercenaries and others of participating in a conspiracy. Prisoners were subjected to water torture during interrogation.
English accounts described victims being suspended or secured while cloth was wrapped around their faces. Water was then poured over the cloth, forcing them to inhale or swallow it until they suffocated or lost consciousness.
The prisoners were revived and subjected to the process repeatedly.
The incident became known in England as the Amboyna Massacre and was later used in anti-Dutch political propaganda. Although the event became entangled in imperial rivalry, its descriptions reveal that simulated drowning and forced-water interrogation were already recognizable torture techniques centuries ago.
The “Swedish Drink” During the Thirty Years’ War
A related form of forced-water torture was known as the Swedish drink during the Thirty Years’ War.
Despite the name, it was not necessarily limited to Swedish soldiers. Different armies and irregular forces used the technique against civilians and prisoners.
Victims were forced to consume water, urine, sewage or other liquids. The act could be used to extract valuables, obtain information, punish resistance or simply terrorize local populations.
The method reflects the broader brutality of a war in which civilians experienced looting, famine, displacement, sexual violence and widespread killing.
Forced-Water Torture in the Philippines
The water cure became especially notorious during the colonial history of the Philippines.
Forms of water torture were reportedly used under Spanish colonial rule and later by Japanese forces during the Second World War. However, its use by American forces during the Philippine–American War became the subject of major political controversy in the United States.
The conflict began after the United States took control of the Philippines following its war with Spain. Filipino revolutionaries who had fought for independence resisted the replacement of Spanish colonial authority with American rule.
As the conflict developed into a difficult counterinsurgency campaign, American troops searched villages for weapons, guerrilla leaders and intelligence.
The water cure became one of the methods used to force Filipinos to provide information.
How American Forces Used the Water Cure
Testimony from soldiers and witnesses described prisoners being held on their backs while water was forced into their mouths and noses.
In some accounts, an object was inserted between the victim’s jaws to prevent the mouth from closing. Water was poured until the person’s body became visibly swollen.
The water might then be expelled through pressure on the abdomen before the interrogation resumed.
A Library of Congress document summarizing testimony before a US Senate committee lists multiple witnesses who said they saw the technique used against Filipinos in different parts of the country. The allegations involved prisoners questioned about hidden weapons, missing soldiers and resistance activity. One witness testified that a victim died after being subjected to the torture.
These accounts challenge any attempt to describe the abuse as a single isolated incident.
The Igbaras Case
One of the most prominent cases involved the municipal president of Igbaras on the island of Panay in November 1900.
American soldiers suspected that he possessed information about weapons or resistance activity.
Testimony indicated that he was subjected to the water cure in the presence of officers. Information extracted during the interrogation was reportedly followed by destructive military action against the town.
Major Edwin Glenn was later court-martialed in connection with the use of the method.
The proceedings established that the conduct was regarded as torture intended to extract a confession. However, the punishment imposed was widely criticized as extremely lenient.
The case exposed a persistent problem in military accountability: an institution may officially reject torture while imposing consequences too weak to discourage its use.
The 1902 US Senate Investigation
Reports of torture eventually reached the American public through soldiers’ letters, newspaper coverage and anti-imperialist campaigners.
In 1902, Senate hearings examined American conduct in the Philippines.
Witnesses described the water cure and other abuses. Supporters of the war attempted to portray reported incidents as exaggerated, isolated or necessary responses to guerrilla warfare.
Critics argued that the United States was claiming to bring liberty while using colonial violence against a population seeking independence.
Newspapers of the period openly discussed allegations that American soldiers had used the water cure to obtain information from prisoners. Library of Congress archives preserve reports from the debate, including acknowledgment that the method had been used in some cases.
The scandal became part of a larger national argument over imperialism, race and the limits of military power.
How Torture Was Defended
Historical defenses of the water cure followed patterns that continue to appear whenever torture is exposed.
Supporters claimed that:
- The incidents were uncommon
- The enemy used worse methods
- The victims were dangerous
- The information was urgently needed
- Soldiers acted under extreme pressure
- The suffering was exaggerated
- The method caused little permanent harm
- Critics were damaging national morale
Some officials admitted that the practice was wrong while simultaneously minimizing its severity.
Others blamed local auxiliaries or claimed that racial and cultural differences made ordinary standards of warfare inapplicable.
These arguments attempted to separate the country’s public ideals from the conduct of its forces.
The fundamental contradiction remained: a government presenting itself as a liberator had tolerated or inadequately punished torture used to maintain colonial control.
Water Torture Under Japanese Occupation
During the Second World War, Japanese military and security forces used forced-water torture against prisoners and civilians in occupied territories.
Postwar testimony described victims being restrained while water was forced through the mouth and nose into the stomach and lungs. Pressure was sometimes applied to expel the liquid, after which the treatment could be repeated.
The International Military Tribunal for the Far East heard evidence concerning the practice.
Captured Allied personnel also described being subjected to the water cure.
The method was used for interrogation, punishment and intimidation, demonstrating again that water torture was not associated with only one nation or ideology.
Its recurring use came from the same grim advantages valued by torturers: water was readily available, the technique caused overwhelming panic and it could sometimes leave fewer visible marks than beating or mutilation.
Water Cure and Police Interrogation
Forced-water abuse was not confined to colonial battlefields.
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, police departments in several countries used violent “third-degree” interrogation methods to obtain confessions.
These could include beatings, sleep deprivation, threats, stress positions and forms of water torture.
Because water-based methods did not always leave obvious bruises, they could be hidden more easily from courts, lawyers and the public.
Investigations into police misconduct eventually exposed widespread coercive interrogation practices. As courts became more willing to reject involuntary confessions, law-enforcement agencies faced greater pressure to abandon overt physical torture.
The history is an important reminder that a confession does not automatically prove guilt.
A person experiencing extreme pain or fear may say whatever the interrogator appears to want.
Does Torture Produce Reliable Information?
Torture can force people to speak, but that does not mean the information is accurate.
A victim may:
- Invent an answer to stop the suffering
- Repeat suggestions made by the interrogator
- Accuse an innocent person
- Provide outdated or irrelevant information
- Become confused by pain, panic or oxygen deprivation
- Lose the ability to recall details accurately
- Say whatever seems most likely to satisfy the captor
This creates a serious intelligence problem.
False information wastes time and resources while potentially leading authorities toward innocent people. Interrogators who believe torture always works may interpret any denial as further resistance, creating a cycle in which suffering continues until the prisoner confirms the interrogator’s assumptions.
Torture is therefore not only immoral and unlawful. It can also corrupt investigations.
Why the Water Cure Is Legally Torture
Modern international law prohibits torture without exception.
The United Nations Convention Against Torture defines torture as the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering for purposes such as obtaining information, securing a confession, punishment, intimidation or coercion when public officials are involved or consent to the act.
The water cure fits these elements directly:
- Severe pain and suffering are intentionally inflicted
- The victim is under the perpetrator’s control
- The purpose is usually interrogation, confession or punishment
- Officials, soldiers or other authorities often carry it out
- The suffering is not incidental to a lawful sanction
The Convention states that exceptional circumstances—including war, political instability or public emergency—cannot justify torture.
International humanitarian law also prohibits torture and cruel treatment during both international and non-international armed conflicts. The ICRC identifies this ban as a rule of customary international law.
There is no legal loophole created by calling the technique a cure, treatment or enhanced interrogation.
The Absolute Prohibition of Torture
The prohibition against torture is absolute.
That means authorities cannot legally justify it by claiming:
- A war is underway
- A terrorist attack may occur
- National security is threatened
- The prisoner is believed to be guilty
- The victim may know where someone is being held
- A superior officer ordered it
- Another country uses similar methods
The rule exists precisely because governments are most tempted to use torture during emergencies.
Allowing exceptions would enable officials to manufacture emergencies whenever they wanted to abuse prisoners.
Why Water Torture Is Sometimes Minimized
Water is ordinarily associated with life, cleanliness and healing.
That can make water-based torture sound less violent than electric shocks, knives or beatings.
The method may also leave fewer visible injuries than other forms of abuse.
These characteristics make it easier for perpetrators to deny the severity of what occurred.
Terms such as “simulated drowning” may further create the impression that the danger is imaginary. But the physical response is real.
A restrained person who cannot breathe does not experience the event as a simulation. The body reacts with panic, choking, involuntary struggling and an overwhelming fear of death.
Furthermore, methods intended to simulate drowning can produce actual drowning, aspiration, brain injury or death.
The Difference Between Torture and Harsh Treatment
Not every uncomfortable interrogation condition legally meets the full definition of torture, but this distinction does not make lesser abuse acceptable.
International law also prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
The classification may depend on factors including:
- Severity
- Duration
- Purpose
- Physical consequences
- Psychological consequences
- The victim’s vulnerability
- The degree of official involvement
Forced-water interrogation crosses these boundaries because it deliberately creates severe suffering and a credible fear of death to compel cooperation.
The Role of Racism and Colonialism
The historical use of the water cure cannot be separated from colonial ideology.
Colonial powers frequently portrayed occupied populations as uncivilized, irrational or incapable of governing themselves. Such claims were then used to justify violence that would have been considered unacceptable against citizens at home.
During debates over American conduct in the Philippines, defenders of harsh tactics sometimes suggested that Filipinos were not entitled to the same standards supposedly governing warfare between Western nations.
This reasoning served two purposes.
First, it dehumanized victims.
Second, it allowed perpetrators to preserve a self-image of civilization while engaging in brutality.
Torture was not presented as evidence that colonial rule was violent. Instead, the supposed inferiority of the colonized population was used to explain why violence was necessary.
Photographs, Cartoons and Public Memory
Images played an important role in exposing and remembering water torture.
Photographs and illustrations from the Philippine–American War showed restrained Filipinos surrounded by soldiers while water was administered.
Political cartoonists used the water cure to criticize American hypocrisy. One famous 1902 cartoon depicted American soldiers torturing a Filipino while representatives of European colonial powers looked on approvingly.
The message was clear: the United States could no longer condemn the brutality of other empires while using similar methods itself.
Such images remain powerful because official documents often reduce torture to administrative language.
A photograph or illustration restores the human reality—the restrained body, the observers and the physical imbalance between captor and victim.
Why Historical Terminology Matters
Older sources sometimes use “water cure,” “water treatment” and “waterboarding” inconsistently.
Researchers must therefore examine descriptions rather than relying only on labels.
Two documents may use the same term for somewhat different methods. Conversely, two sources may describe nearly identical acts using different names.
The essential questions are:
- Was the victim restrained?
- Was breathing obstructed?
- Was water forced into the body?
- Was the act intended to obtain information or punish?
- Did it cause severe physical or mental suffering?
When those elements are present, arguments over terminology should not obscure the reality of torture.
Water Torture in Modern Public Debate
Water-based torture returned to international attention during debates over post-September 11 interrogation programs.
Officials and commentators argued over whether waterboarding should legally be considered torture, despite its long history as a coercive drowning technique.
Historical evidence became important because earlier perpetrators had been investigated, prosecuted or condemned for similar conduct.
The discussion also showed how quickly established moral boundaries can be challenged when a government claims to face an extraordinary threat.
The history of the water cure demonstrates that torture rarely begins with an open declaration that cruelty is acceptable.
It begins with altered language, exceptional circumstances and assurances that trained officials will maintain control.
Why Remembering the Water Cure Matters
The water cure is more than an obsolete historical cruelty.
Its history reveals how institutions normalize abuse.
The process often follows a recognizable pattern:
- Authorities identify an allegedly exceptional threat.
- Prisoners are portrayed as undeserving of ordinary protection.
- A painful technique receives a sanitized name.
- Officials deny that the method is torture.
- Abuse spreads because consequences are limited.
- Investigations focus on a few individuals rather than the wider system.
- Public attention fades before full accountability occurs.
Remembering these patterns makes it harder for societies to accept the same practices under new terminology.
Final Thoughts
The water cure was a form of torture that used one of life’s most essential substances as a weapon.
Victims were restrained and forced to swallow or inhale water until they experienced choking, painful swelling, vomiting, suffocation and terror. In some cases, pressure was applied to the abdomen before the ordeal began again.
Versions of the technique appeared in European judicial torture, colonial warfare, military occupation and abusive police interrogation.
Its use during the Philippine–American War became especially notorious because it exposed the contradiction between American claims of liberation and the violent reality of colonial rule.
The method was not humane because it sometimes left fewer marks. It was not reliable because it forced prisoners to speak. It was not lawful because officials considered the information important.
The water cure was—and remains—torture.
Its history should be remembered not to sensationalize suffering, but to recognize how easily cruelty can be disguised by clinical language, patriotic justification and institutional silence.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the water cure?
The water cure was a torture method in which captors forced water into a restrained person’s mouth and nose, causing choking, abdominal swelling, vomiting and the sensation of drowning.
Was the water cure the same as waterboarding?
Not exactly. The water cure often focused on forcing large quantities of water into the stomach, while waterboarding generally uses water poured over cloth covering the face to create suffocation and the sensation of drowning. Both are torture.
Why was it called a cure?
The term was largely euphemistic or sarcastic. It suggested that the victim was being “cured” of refusing to cooperate.
Where was the water cure used?
Forms of forced-water torture were used in Europe, colonial Asia, the Philippines, wartime detention facilities and abusive police interrogations.
Did American soldiers use the water cure?
Yes. Testimony and historical records document its use by American forces and auxiliaries during the Philippine–American War.
Why was it used in the Philippines?
It was used to force prisoners and civilians to reveal information about weapons, guerrilla fighters, missing troops and resistance activity.
Could the water cure kill someone?
Yes. It could cause suffocation, aspiration, water intoxication, organ damage, traumatic injury and death.
Did it leave visible injuries?
Not always. That was one reason water-based torture could be concealed or minimized. However, the absence of external marks did not mean the victim had escaped serious harm.
Is the water cure illegal?
Yes. It constitutes torture, which is absolutely prohibited under international human rights and humanitarian law.
Can torture produce reliable intelligence?
A person under extreme suffering may provide information, but it may be false, confused or designed only to stop the abuse. Torture therefore creates serious reliability problems.
Can war or national security justify water torture?
No. International law does not permit torture during war, political instability, terrorism emergencies or other exceptional circumstances.
Was anyone punished for using it in the Philippines?
Some military proceedings occurred, including the court-martial of Major Edwin Glenn, but punishments were criticized as inadequate compared with the seriousness of the acts.
Why is the history still relevant?
It shows how torture can be normalized through euphemisms, racism, emergency claims and weak accountability. Those patterns can recur even when the techniques receive new names.
