Posts
We have been at war with terrorism at
least in the United States since Sept 11, 2001. Yet we can trace the history of
terrorism long before that infamous date in the history of the United States.
Terrorism is defined roughly as the usage of “violent means or activities to
achieve a political or social goal.” Torture is derived (from the Latin torquere,
“to twist, distort”) (Taylor,
2007, p. 710) and is by no means a simple topic of discussion.
In fact, we have since the 2nd
World War promulgated international laws and policies that define both torture
and the general prohibition against its usage (Van der Vyer, 2003). This was
largely the result of the reaction of the Allies in regards to the activities
that were discovered in the Nazi concentration camps spread throughout Eastern
Europe. Medical experimentation among other activities was performed on Jewish
prisoners as well as other inmates. These and other activities were conducted
without any consent from the prisoners and done without any concern for pain or
suffering of the participants.
Largely due to the holocaust and its
horrors laid bare for the world to see. The world began to recognize torture as
a serious issue. Led by the United States and the impetus to deal with anything
deemed a threat to humanity itself, gave rise to the United Nations as well as
various documents in the later part of the 20th century such as the
Declaration of Human Rights (Van
der Vyer, 2003). And events that
occurred since the ending of the 2nd World War, such as the
disintegration the former Yugoslavia as well as the events in Rwanda all
involved torture and state sanctioning of such behavior.
We shall discuss
three main themes in this paper. The first is the definition of torture as
defined in International Law and how that definition is treated when torture is
apparently sanctioned. Second we shall look at the moral arguments both for and
against the usage of torture. Third we
shall see how the United States itself has acted both in the usage of torture
and the prohibition of such activities. Finally
we shall close with a summation of what we have discussed in the body of this
paper.
The definition of
what is torture or the legal standard applied what exactly constitutes torture
is still hotly debated. Yet we can find from the Convention against Torture
which was passed in 1984 and the United States is a signatory member of this
convention. Article 1 defines torture as: “For
the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by
which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person
information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has
committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him
or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when
such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the
consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an
official capacity. Article 1 of the CAT, does not include pain or suffering
arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions” (Weissbrod & Heilman, 2011, p.
354). Yet there are numerous other documents that modify, enhance, or
remove certain language as to what exactly constitutes torture.
The sanction or
prohibition of torture has been energized by the recent moral and ethical
debates that have occurred since the events of Sept 11. The Bush administration
bears the largest amount of blame or praise in regards to the USG’s usage of
the enhanced methods of interrogation. This is not to exclude events such as,
Agiza vs. Sweden, where such interrogations were “outsourced” to allied nations
whose legal standards permitted a greater degree of freedom to engage such
methods as decried by international anti-torture entities or agencies (Joseph, 2005, p. 340).
Yet the debate on
torture of suspected terrorists has not abated since the election of President
Barrack Obama in 2008. The USG’s
definition of torture has conflicted with what is recognized as the legal
standards as promulgated in the Convention Against Torture. The USG has stated
that its usage of enhanced interrogation methods does not in fact constitute a
breach of international law and treaties of which the USG is a signatory party
to (Allhoff, 2012). We see
that both sides still debate what the definition that constitutes “torture” is
even to present day.
This renders the
question as to who decides such a definition and how does that definition apply
to a sovereign government or its designated agents. The definition of torture
is generally agreed upon by most governments and international bodies. Where we
have a conflict then is in the application of that definition at the tactical,
operational, and strategic levels of the “War on Terror”. This conflicts with
the opinions of the average person that opposes the use of any form of
“torture” including such enhanced methods of interrogation (Gronke et al., 2010).
Let us delve into
our next theme, the moral and ethical arguments for and against the usage of
torture against suspected terrorists. We will first look at the arguments that
support the usage of torture against suspected terrorists. The first and most
likely argument is to permit the usage of torture of a suspected terrorist to
save innocent civilian lives from an immediate threat. The argument that has been most often used at
least in a moral sense is the “Ticking Time Bomb” argument as argued by Fritz Allhoff in his
book bearing the same title (Allhoff, 2012).
In the post 9-11
environs the United States Government or USG, through the Office of Legal
Counsel, promulgated via official memorandums the authorization for “enhanced”
interrogation methods (Weissbrod
& Heilman, 2011, p. 345).
Enhanced interrogation methods were permitted until the Abu Ghraib
scandal was made public (Posner
& Vermeule, 2006, p. 673). Yet the USG is still accused of engaging in
practices that circumvent international law and even elements of its own laws in regards to the “torture statute”
(Gronke et al., 2010)
(Weissbrod & Heilman, 2011).
What is “enhanced
interrogation”; this can be seen as various methodologies such “water
boarding”, “sleep deprivation”, or any methodology that permits a more
aggressive form of interrogation of a suspected terrorist. The USG argues that such enhanced methods do
not meet the international legal standard of torture. This argument is extended
to the “out-sourcing” to other nations that have a less legal restriction in
regards to the interrogation of terrorist suspects (Posner & Vermeule, 2006).
In the arguments
against the usage of torture as a method to gain information from a suspected
terrorist, the common theme is its antithetical nature in regards to basic
human rights (Iacopino, Keller,
& Oksenberg, 2002). Another
element that is commonly found within arguments against the usage of torture is
the moral erosion of the democratic ideals of any sovereign nation that permits
its usage (Taylor, 2007). We
often see in the arguments against torture, as parallels drawn between the
permitted use of sanctioned torture and “war-crimes” (Van der Vyer, 2003). The
argument of the unreliability of information gained through torture, mostly due
to the supposition that the person being tortured will say anything to make it
stop (Taylor, 2007), (Posner & Vermeule, 2006),
and (Van der Vyer, 2003).
The strongest argument against torture is that any benefit gained is severely
degraded by the costs associated with its usage (Posner & Vermeule, 2006, p. 8).
Next we
specifically see how the United States Government has acted in regards to the
usage or prohibition of the usage of torture in regards to suspected
terrorists. This theme has been dramatically increased since the events of
September 11, 2001. The USG has often
argued that its activities were permissible in light of extenuating
circumstances in regards to the difficult nature of targeting terrorist
organizations such as Al-Qaida.
The interrogation
facility that sprang up at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba shortly after the events of
September 11th is often the first place mentioned in regards to USG
activities in the interrogation of suspected terrorists (Posner & Vermeule, 2006). The USG insists that anyone detained is
considered an “unlawful combatant” thus not subject to the legal principal of
“habeas corpus” (Weissbrod &
Heilman, 2011). Yet as of this paper
the facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is pending closure via executive order
signed by President Barrack Obama in response to pressure to close the
facility.
Something that has
not been widely discussed until recently was the permitted practice of
indefinite detention of suspected terrorists (Posner
& Vermeule, 2006)
(Weissbrod & Heilman, 2011). This has become strenuously opposed as
it could include US citizens that would be potentially denied their civil
rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, specifically the 5th,
8th, 10th, and 14th amendments to the Bill of
Rights (Weissbrod & Heilman,
2011). The USG has argued in the case of the “dirty bomber” Richard Padilla
that he should be ruled as an “unlawful combatant” as he is suspected of ties
to Al-Qaida despite his US citizenship. This “unlawful combatant” standard has
been applied to any area outside of the United States (Van der Vyer, 2003) (Weissbrod & Heilman, 2011).
Also of note as
previously mentioned is the USG practice of “out-sourcing” interrogation of
suspected terrorists to countries that are accused of using interrogation
methods that meet the international definition of torture (Van der Vyer, 2003)
(Weissbrod & Heilman, 2011). In fact this was not known until the end of
the 2nd Bush Administration circa 2006; that the USG was sending
suspected terror suspects to foreign nations for interrogations in secret
prisons (Taylor, 2007) (Weissbrod & Heilman, 2011).
This leaves us with
the question as to why the USG felt this was both acceptable risk and legally
defensible? We can see that given the
slow introduction of information that could possibly be construed as sanctioned
torture by the USG to the general populace within the United States as well as
international interests. It appears that while not directly engaging at least
in a public manner of condoning torture there have been some serious questions
raised as to this issue.
Given the shadowy
nature of terrorism itself as an entity, this makes direct prosecution of
suspects supremely difficult via normal methods of investigation. The legal statues of the United States shows
a clear prohibition to the use of “torture” as a method of gaining information
from a suspected terrorist (Weissbrod
& Heilman, 2011). Also the United States is a signatory to many
international agreements, thus could be considered to be legally bound to
adhere to such as the CAT (Weissbrod
& Heilman, 2011).
How then do we as
citizens of the United States construe our government’s activities often taken
allegedly upon our behalves? I see this as the greatest argument towards the necessity
of critical thinking and the education of such skills. Given the morally
ambiguous nature of terrorism and what role torture of suspected terrorists
plays within our moral, ethical, and legal institutions as well as our belief.
We can see that throughout
all the themes discussed in this paper, a common thread that shows on a public
level there appears to be a universal condemnation of torture. Yet in the post
9-11 world that we now live it seems to be a “grey area” that has no hard and
fast rules in regards to its usage as a tool to protect society from acts of
terror like the events of 9-11. We
struggle to balance the need for security and safety against the concerns of
the damage that torture causes to our moral, ethical, and social framework both
at a national and international level.
In summary, we have
discussed the following themes within this paper. The first we discussed the
definition of torture as defined in International Law and how that definition
is treated when torture is apparently sanctioned. Second we have looked at the
moral arguments both for and against the usage of torture. Third we have discussed how the United States
itself has acted both in the usage of torture and the prohibition of such
activities.
References
Taylor, D. (2007). Double‐Blind: The torture case. Critical Inquiry, 33(4), 710-733. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/521566
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou may want to read the book by the dude who conducted the interrogation at Camp-X that lead to the eventual operation against bin Laden.
ReplyDeleteIt applies. It provides some of the data you need to balance citations regarding the moral question.
Thank you Paul and I strove very hard to separate much of the more egregious statements made in the articles I used for the paper. In fact when I had started my initial data gathering I found over 90 different sources. I carefully selected and sought more that would provide a stronger and more balanced assessment. Yet I sadly could not find those sources in great detail that were affordable or accessible to me even as a student. But over all what was your perception of the paper?
DeleteOn the debate -- I oppose torture. People will tell you what you want to hear just to make it stop.
ReplyDeleteThink of "The Dark Knight". The Joker says to the Batman that hitting in the head is the wrong way to go about it.
It's true. Undo pain can cause the mind to do funny things, even hallucinate.
However, properly applied enhanced interrogation does work. Asking "Yes or No" questions doesn't work. Coercing a confession is just an extension of this. However, asking an open question like "where is the girl?" will lead to answers that can be verified. They only work when the interrogator knows the subject has that information.
Stress positions can be used to "lubricate", but should never be part of the interrogation itself. In between times "in the box" and for less than 30 minutes, though, there can be benefit. Proper ones are no more invasive than the same exercises performed during Basic Training and less than many done by college fraternities during "hell week". (I have been through both). At Abu G, the MPs took it upon themselves to continue beyond what the interrogation plans called for. At that point, they did cross the line from stressful exercise to damaging. The technique needs to be closely monitored by an interrogation team with a medic and somebody with a kineseology background.
Waterboarding is not torture. Yes, I have been waterboarded. It's a mind game. So it the "mutt and jeff" approach. So is the "pride down, fear up" approach. Neither of those are regarded as torture. The main thing to consider is, just as with use of polygraph interrogation, it requires somebody who knows what they are doing. A rank amateur is likely to not perform the approach properly and not get proper results.
Sleep deprivation can assist. A mind that is not rested can have lowered inhibitions similar to a college co-ed who has had a few too many wine coolers. Therein lies the dilemma. Will the subject recant once he gets a full night's rest and can think clearly again? The answers will be clouded, memories mixed and possibly incoherent. Every person is different. So, finding that "magic hour" when the tongue will be plied but the mind isn't over the edge, again, takes an expert. This is not a great technique past the first 24 hours.
Non-invasive techniques work. Yes, there are some who can resist them until any information is obsolete. There are rare cases of people who can do so with all the non-invasive approaches. The enhanced techniques should be used only in those rare cases and not as a general rule. To do so undermines our great Republic's credibility because there are so many uninformed people in the world who will falsely label things as "torture" that are not.
And a final note, these are not "suspected terrorists". They are enemy combatants. Those who are not US citizens are not protected by our Constitution. Should they have basic natural rights? Yes, until they infringed upon those of others. The US Citizens, such as Jose Padilla, that aided and abetted the enemy (or joined them) should be tried for treason. Public execution is a legally viable sentence for that crime.
Paul,
DeleteAs always I appreciate your honesty and candor my friend. I think that we are in agreement. I oppose torture for those same reasons as we have discussed in the past. As for American Citizens that are captured in direct support of a terrorist organization, while protecting those rights central to our nation, they should be prosecuted to the full extent the law allows.