NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
The United States of America, the Terrorists and Torture Abstract: The paper will present an argument for the use of torture in rare and extremely serious situations. Arguments against its use will also be presented to give readers a clear view of what is torture and its use all about. A background on the International Law against Torture and the Geneva Conventions will be given to shed light to the differing views and outlooks about the use of torture to extract information and data from captured terrorists. Outline Introduction Situation Background on the Issue The International Law Against Torture Arguments Against's the Use of Torture Arguments Advocating the Use of Torture Alternative Measures After the gruesome terrorist attacks in 2001, the United States government undertook rushed efforts and rapid decisions to increase security, launch anti-terrorism tactics that will answer the needs of the time and pass new legislations (e.
g. Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act of 2002) as well as dramatically ramping up enforcement of laws that have long been on the books then revising them to deal with the new terrorist threats. With the concentrated efforts of the whole US government to lessen if not eradicate the means and circumstances that give way to terrorist acts, there are certain measures which have to be employed in order to respond to and resolve the crisis concerning the safety of innocent, non-combatant people who are usually thrown in the midst of aggressive terrorist actions. This paper will lay down arguments that will prove that breaking the international law of forbidding torture, a deplorable action, is a necessary means if the outcome is obtaining truth and effective information from suspects to save hundreds and even millions of innocent people's lives. The issue of resorting to torture is a paramount moral one which most people deemed impermissible, wrong and indeed abominable, unethical and wicked especially among enlightened societies such as ours. Yet, given the ever increasing threats of widespread terror generated by globally active extremist it is sometimes wise to consider using extreme measures for the sake of humanity who might suffer irrepressible damages if these terrorizations will continue.
The key to control the horror which these threats imply is prevention and it means using any measure to ensure the safety of the innocent by-standers. Advocating the use of torture as a necessary evil in the war on terror does not mean exploiting it discriminately to paralyze or instill fear in the minds and hearts of captured radicals. Nor does it mean taking extra effort to inflict pain on someone who is already under control; or, to merely illustrate the captors strength and power over a person. Torturing a noncombatant captive should never be fueled by emotions; by reactions to oppressive experiences that sought for revenge. The backing-up of using extreme measures means utilizing it to obtain highly valuable information which could mean protection and well-being for innocent civilians at a particular moment.
Employing brutal tactics or any cruel, inhuman and degrading (CID) treatments (also known as torture lite) should be seen as a tool to gather and unravel valuable information which can lead to the incarceration perpetuator's of terrors as well as the suppression of any planned terrorism attacks. The indispensable facts and data to which the captive is usually privy to are needed outright and using humanitarian efforts to obtain such details could mean death and destruction to mankind. Swift and prompt delivery is of extreme importance in this situation and the otherwise despotic and stringent brutal tactic seems to be the most likely remedy. The scope of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatments is quite broad that it cannot be defined by a list of prohibited practices specially that different human rights treaties label and characterize it in various ways.
The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1984 defines torture as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental; is intentionally inflicted on a person for purposes as: obtaining from him / her or a third person information or a confession obtaining from him / her or a third person information or a confession punishing him / her for an act s / he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed intimidating or coercing him / her or a third person or, for any reason based on discrimination of any kind and 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. International law prohibits torture and other ill-treatment of any person in custody in all circumstances. The prohibition applies to the all states during times of peace, armed conflict, or a state of emergency. Any person, of any nationality, is protected and it is irrelevant whether the detainee is determined to be a prisoner-of-war, a protected person, or a so-called unlawful combatant (in other words, a terrorist). The proscription is in effect within the territory or any place anywhere which authorities have control over a person. To come to the point, the prohibition against torture and ill-treatment is absolute anywhere, anytime.
The primary source of the existing international humanitarian law (also called the laws of war) is the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. The Fourth Geneva Convention is specifically concerned with safeguarding so-called protected persons; those who are identified and described as detained civilians. Detainees must at all times be humanely treated (Geneva III, art. 13, Geneva IV, art. 27). Detainees may be questioned, but any form of physical or mental coercion is prohibited (Geneva III, art. 17; Geneva IV, art. 31) particularly non-stop intensive and aggressive interrogations which usually lead to deprivation of food, rest and sleep. Any indecent and sexual assault is forbidden; women in particular shall be protected from rape and any form of offensive and lewd onslaught (Geneva IV, art. 27). Torture or inhuman treatment of prisoners-of-war (Geneva III, arts. 17 & 87) or detainees and unlawful non-combatants (Geneva IV, art. 32) are grave infringement of the Laws of War and therefore considered war crimes.
Any state is duty-bound to anyone alleged to be perpetrators or turn them over to another state for prosecution. This obligation applies regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator, the nationality of the victim or the place where the act of torture or inhuman treatment was committed (Geneva III, art. 129; Geneva IV, art. 146). A specific tenet against violence and torture is explicitly expressed in Article 3 which prohibits [v]insolence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. Even persons who are not entitled to the protections of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (i. e. detainees who are from a third country, mercenaries) are protected by the fundamental guarantees of article 75 of Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions.
It strictly stipulates that murder, torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental, corporal punishment, and outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, and any form of indecent assault is prohibited and no man is entitled to harm another human being for whatever reason. The torture and other mistreatment of persons in custody are also prohibited in all circumstances, whether peacetime and wartime, under international human rights law. Since the prohibition on torture is considered a fundamental principle of customary international law and every states is duty-bound to respect the prohibition on torture and ill-treatment of detained persons whether or not they are parties to treaties which expressly contain the prohibition. All nations are also required and called to prevent and to punish acts of torture, even if they are not parties to treaties that expressly require them to do so. The widespread or systematic practice of torture constitutes a crime against humanity and the International Law on Torture specifically aims plug up and hinder the fast becoming standard procedure of intimidation to subdue the enemies.
The law re-iterated the principles and precepts of the four Geneva Conventions. Strict compliance and adherence to its tenets by all states ensures that human dignity be protected and that states will not go back to the time when revenge and retribution is the only solution. The Law ascertains that people remember past events and circumstances that have brought nothing but destruction and usually annihilation of mankind. In most cases, the anti-torture advocates are right with the claim that torture during interrogations rarely yields better information. And, if indeed, information is divulged one can never be sure of its validity.
Even under extreme physical suffering and emotional battering, one can never be too sure of a persons ability to cope with pain. The human threshold for pain cannot be measured by any instrument and besides, it varies constantly from one person to another. The advocator's of no-torture is certain that since there is no reliable way of psychologically, emotionally and spiritually breaking human beings then there is no possibility of finding any adequate method to evaluate whether what prisoners say when they do talk is true. Advocates of torture operates on the belief that more physical pain stimulates more compliance, but this view is not based on science; it is medical nonsense based on myths and practices institutionalized by the precursors of torture. Plain and simple pain is far more complex than what most people perceive it to be. Injury does not always produce pain.
Take the cases of people, who suffer intense physical injury, most of them will not feel any pain until after several hours. In like manner, people who are exposed to extreme beatings and battering will eventually become numb and further infliction of pain will be of no avail. There are also studies done which proved that torturing someone is actually counter-productive. Someone suffering intense pain will either say and admit anything to put a stop to his agony or those with high level of pain endurance will come up with a fairytale to gain time and give his cohorts ample period to do some damage repair. And even though he will eventually tell the truth, it will be several days false. In effect misleading information and data are fed to the interrogators.
On the one hand, even if it is our moral obligation and ethical duty to uphold human dignity at all times; that no man shall be harmed at the hands of others particularly those who abuse their powers, and to do all that we can to restrain people from doing any unlawful acts that assaults human dignity; it is also our duty and it should be our covenant to fight the increasingly and growing crime rate which destroys morale of our people and the peace of our country. To stand strong and meticulously follow what was agreed upon several decades ago (which more often than not is violated by almost everyone) is a transgression against our society and the future generation of the world. We are duty-bound to prevent the disruption of public peace by the caprices of aggressive and brutal criminals whose primary purpose is to attain his extremist goal at all cost; at the expense of unsuspecting citizens. To argue that maybe torture is an ethical necessity; a crucial tool in our fight against terrorism is a very sensitive and uncomfortable position especially in view of the aftermath of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, a travesty which could have been avoided since the gravity of the extreme measures used to subdue the prisoner is far too severe. Ones goal in utilizing cruel, inhuman and degrading treatments to persons detained is only limited to those people whose role in a terrorism act far surpass the mere putting or laying down of bombs. It is exclusive to people who possess certain and positive data and information which can help prevent a catastrophe of massive proportion.
The purpose is not to inflict pain so that the prisoner will also suffer as much if not more than what those innocent lives had suffered. To be more precise, the outcome of the coercive inhuman action is to thwart, impede or stop any possible damage and injury the detained person and his cohorts might succeed to do even while he is still in the custody of the authorities or after he is released. The pro-torture advocated by most people is of that quality which does not punish or exert vengeance on the detainee but rather these are acts which will compel a protected person to divulged a valuable information which is vital in saving many lives. The premise is to use this means only when it is extremely needed. Torturing a terrorist is unlawful; it is a ruthless violation of human dignity. Definitely.
Absolutely. But do millions of lives outweigh lawfulness? Constitutionality? Yes, to torment someone and inflict suffering and pain is barbaric but what can we call mass murder of innocent, unsuspecting people?
Millions of lives far more deserve deference and importance than the life of a terrorist who willfully and intentionally carry out an act which violates innocent lives and properties. Does moral culpability lie on the person who is unwilling to dirty ones hand to show consideration for a person who flaunts his guilt? Or to him who would apply the electrodes and suffer personal battering and irreparable consequences rather than let millions of innocents die? It is without doubt that there are gray areas in terms of the belief against and for torture. A lot of people believe in the sanctity of a humans life and the preservation of human dignity and intentional action to harm and destroy it in anyway is a severe violation. But there is no way one can ignore facts which clearly point out the merciless and callous results of extremists and terrorists actions.
It is admissible that utter reliance on CID treatments will not gain anyone anything -- - perpetuator's in the end will suffer personally for the acts that they were forced to do, victims of torture will perpetually endure the consequences of their experiences (especially the innocent ones). But to disallow any form of action which incidentally can inflict pain on a person is in a way an act of moral cowardice. There are instances where these kinds of measure are considered necessary for not doing anything would mean massive destruction. Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School has an alternative policy which might help solve the ambivalence that surrounds the issue.
In his numerous television appearances and print interviews since 9 / 11, Dershowitz has transformed and dragged the philosophical and theoretical rumination of the ticking time bomb scenario into the realms of reality. From the hypothetical, Professor Dershowitz segues to what is factual and is actually (or probably) happening. He surmised that if torture is an inevitable tool to be used in an actual ticking bomb terrorist case, then maybe it would be better to have such torture regulated by some kind of a policy. With a policy that would authorize interrogators to perform some CID treatments against captured terrorists, it will be inevitable to abuse it. A guideline on what should an interrogator do would reduce the incidence of abuses, and in a way, uphold a semblance of human respect even to people who in the first place have positioned themselves in a situation where the consequences of their actions do not deserve the dereference civilized society wants to accord them. Works Cited Best, Charles R.
Nonintervention and Communal Integrity. Philosophy and Public Affairs 9: 4 (Summer 1980), pp. 385 - 391. Forrest D. The Physical After-Effects of Torture.
Forensic Science International 1995; 76: 7784. Innes, Brian. The History of Torture. Boston: St. Martins Press, 1998. Kerrigan, Michael.
The Instrument of Torture. London: The Lyons Press, 2001. Lopez, George A. and David Copyright, Economic Sanctions and Human Rights: Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution? International Journal of Human Rights 1: 2 (Summer 1997), pp. 1 - 25.
Loan, David Just War and Human Rights. Philosophy and Public Affairs 9: 2 (Winter 1980), pp. 160 - 181. McCoy, Alfred. A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006.
Millet, Kate, The Politics of Cruelty: An Essay on the Literature of Political Imprisonment. W. W. Norton, 1994. Nasa, Winston P. and Lucie Atkins.
The International Law of Torture: From Universal Proscription to Effective Application and Enforcement. Harvard Human Rights Journal / Vol. 14, Spring 2001. Retrieved from web iss 14 /nasa. shtml Shrestha NM and Sharma B. Torture and Torture Victims A Manual for Medical Professionals. Center for Victims of Torture, Katmandu, Nepal, 1995.
Walzer, Michael The Moral Standing of States: A Response to Four Critics. Philosophy and Public Affairs 9: 3 (Spring 1980), pp. 209 - 229.
Free research essays on topics related to: human dignity, ill treatment, innocent lives, war on terror, pain or suffering
Research essay sample on The United States Of America Terrorists And Torture
