Public revelations over the past few years regarding the recent waterboarding of prisoners of war, detainees and enemy combatants by the United States government has garnered much attention and debate. Some of main topics in this on-going debate include: Is waterboarding torture? Is it legal? Is it moral? What are the repercussions and possible reciprocal action of our enemies because of this waterboarding? This paper does not provide an argument for or against water boarding in and of itself but lays out a defense for the legality of waterboarding as was used against Prisoners of War and detainees from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This defense is outlined in three phases: defining and describing water boarding; providing an …show more content…
Water is then applied to the cloth …[a]s this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the nose and mouth, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth, stimulat[ing] increased effort to breathe. This effort plus the cloth produces the perception of “suffocation and incipient panic,” i.e. the perception of drowning … This sensation of drowning is immediately relieved by the removal of the cloth. The procedure may then be repeated.” 20 (emergency presidential power pg 207) Using this definition and procedural descriptions above the next step in determining the legality of water boarding is to define “legal”. The Oxford English Dictionary defines legal as “In Law: The system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties. 2) According to or concerned with the laws of a country. 3) Permitted by law.” https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/legal (2017, Oxford University Press). The U.S. Government, specifically the CIA, acknowledged using water boarding in 2003 and 2004. The Central
In the article, “Laying Claim to a Higher Morality,” Melissa Mae discusses the controversial topic of using torture as a part of interrogating detainees. She finds the common ground between the supporting and opposing sides of the argument by comparing two different sources, “Inhuman Behavior” and “A Case for Torture.” Mae includes clear transitions from each side of the argument and concise details to ensure that the essay was well constructed. The purpose of the essay is clear, and it is interesting, insightful, and unbiased.
You wake up in a dimly-lit room laying down, your back flat on a cold table, facing unfamiliar men standing over you. You attempt to move, but your arms and legs are strapped down leaving you completely defenseless. Panicking, you begin to scream, but your screams are cut short as a wet cloth is laid over your face. You feel water being poured over the cloth and you begin choking; you can’t breathe; you are drowning. You are being waterboarded. What you just experienced was one of many common interrogation techniques used to pry information from suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay naval base. These techniques,
In contrast, some individuals may debate that torture and even some more minuscule forms of torture can be beneficial to obtaining the information needed. It is debated that torture has been used in a large portion of political systems in history, and that the “degree” of torture is a significant component when deciphering right vs. wrong. Moher argues that in a political system where torture is justifiable and legal, the torture used would be less extreme than what it is today (Moher, 2013). It is reasoned that different degrees of torture are more acceptable than others, in that some are less psychologically and physically harming. A
Today in the United States constitution we have the Eighth amendment which states that no person shall be subject to cruel and unusual punishment. Cruel and unusual punishment encompasses a wide range of things including any form of torture. Using the Merian-Webster definition, “torture is the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment or as a way to force someone to do or say something.”(2013) Whether it is for the most evil and heinous crime or a minor infraction torture is not admissible in any way shape or form. In his article, “On Waterboarding: Legal Interpretation and the Continuing Struggle for Human Rights,” Daniel Kanstroom goes into depth about the question, “Should we balance heinousness and cruelty against
government sets to preserve safe, humane and ethical procedures on people.” (PRIYANKA BOGHANI) Furthermore, a Columbia University task force observed that Medical officials in the CIA “played a critical role in reviewing and approving forms of torture, including waterboarding, as well as in advising the Department of Justice that ‘enhanced interrogation’ methods, such as extended sleep deprivation and waterboarding that are recognized as forms of torture, were medically acceptable.” (PRIYANKA BOGHANI), therefore holding CIA responsible for inappropriate behaviour while intergoating with detainess like Mr. Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud. The Case CIA v. Ben Soud conclude by proving that the CIA is and has been corrupt and will to to all extreemes to cover up the brutal treatment with detainess. An example if the process of filing this lawsuit since it had been refused due to past efforts to hold the CIA accountable, the U.S. government blocked cases from moving forward, arguing that lawsuits would risk exposing state secrets and other corrupting cases. But since the release of the Senate torture report, much of the relevant information for the case is now
“The one lesson we 've learned from history is that we have not learned any of history 's lessons” (Unknown Author, n.d.). The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs) such as “waterboarding” and extraordinary rendition (aka “black sites”) by CIA agents for American intelligence interests and to analyze the drastically apposing views of the legalities, morality, and effectiveness of these methods. Is the CIA’s use of EITs and extraordinary rendition equivalent to torture, and therefore, acts in violation of international law? The definition of “torture” under statute 18 U.S.C. 2340 states, “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control” (United States Code, 2011). This definition expands with specific identifying characteristics of an act and varies to include humiliation of an individual. Of course, pain and suffering is a subjective experience. The worlds historical practice of “torture” reinforces lessons that human’s imaginative capacity for inflicting pain and terror on our fellow human is disgracefully boundless; yet, parallel behaviors of violence and humiliation reemerge with disturbing regularity (Smith, 2013).
The use of torture to obtain information from a person is a practice that goes back thousands of years. In today’s society most individuals believe the practice of torture is a barbaric concept with no place in civilized society. But a question has arisen in the past few decades. Is it ever justifiable to torture a person in order to say the lives of other people? Since the events of September 11th, 2001, Americans have debated this question and many articles have been written on the subject. In their respective articles, Henry Porter and Seumas Miller, take opposite sides of the argument. Porter explains that torture is never an option, while Miller describes how torture is justified in certain situations.
The most valued documents in modern American society tend also to be the most heavily debated. For instance, interpretations of the United States Constitution tend to be rooted in one of two firmly entrenched beliefs;while the first camp believes it to be set in stone, the second his convinced that the United States Constitution is by nature a perpetually evolving document, meant to reflect the desires and needs of the people. Even amongst those in the same camp, disagreements abound; those believing that the Constitution is set in stone are divided on issues such as the eighth amendment’s prohibition of ‘cruel and unusual punishment’. It is difficult to reach a consensus on what, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. For example, the concept of waterboarding is championed by many as a ‘humane’ form of torture which causes no physical harm. However, it was deemed a cruel and unusual punishment due to the sensations of drowning and symptoms of mental illness which it produced in its victims. It can therefore be inferred that physical injury is not the only factor to be considered in whether or not a practice is to be deemed inhumane; factors such as mental wellbeing and fitness of punishment must also be considered. This leads one to ponder how the concept of solitary confinement could possibly even be considered when it so clearly violates the protections which the eighth amendment provides.
The United States citizens have been wrestling with the question of, whether their government intelligence agencies should be prohibited from using torture to gather information. According to Michael Ignatieff, this is the hardest case of what he describes as ‘lesser evil ethics’—a political ethics predicated on the idea that in emergencies leaders must choose between different evils Before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, torture was viewed by most American’s as only actions that brutal dictators would employ on their citizens, to keep order within their country. However, this all changed when in May 2004, The New Yorker released photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The disturbing pictures were released on the internet showing bodies of naked Iraqis piled onto each other, others showed Iraqis being tortured and humiliated. There was a huge up roar, which caused the President at the time George W. Bush to publicly apologize, and threaten the job of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Soon after, the CIA Conformed the use of waterboarding on three Al-Qaida suspects in 2002 and 2003, which further annihilated the topic. Since these reports, torture has been in the forefront of national politics, and the public opinion has been struggling to commit on whether torture is right or wrong.
Enhanced torture techniques such as waterboarding, have been brought up in several debates. Clinton’s views on whether enhanced interrogations for terrorists is that she feels it’s wrong and that our values shouldn’t be anymore or any less on religious issues:
Waterboarding is a form of water torture used as a coercive interrogation technique. It is a simulation of drowning and it is also referred to as, interrupted drowning. The process involves a person’s face being covered with a cloth and large amounts of water is continually poured on their face creating a drowning sensation. This method is considered as one of the top interrogation methods used to elicit information and coerce its victims to confess. Waterboarding may lead to adverse health complications such as lungs damage, brain damage, a lifelong psychological damage and in some cases, death. The USA has
The Closing of the American Mind, as the title says, is Alan Bloom 's attempt to both expose and dissect the flaws found within our nation’s higher education system, claiming that it has failed not only democracy as a whole, but has also been detrimental to the students therein. In support his claims, Bloom brings to the foreground the “new” set of beliefs that have been uncritically accepted on college campuses nationwide. These beliefs contain the open principles of relativism and multiculturalism, both of which Bloom goes on to explain have no place nor value in the real world. This opening to principles of tolerance and acceptance, Bloom argues, have resulted in a closing of the American mind, discouraging students to discuss and promote their own ideas—specifically, those that do not conform to conventional ideals. At the university level, where multiculturalism has been promoted and allowed to thrive, Bloom finds that education has been undermined, in the worst possible way (without rationality).
The appeal of the McCain-Feinstein amendment is its comparatively restrictive nature. In the words of constitutional law professor, David Cole, with particular reference to the past actions of the Bush administration, ‘the new legislation seems designed to prevent future administrations from interpreting existing laws to permit what they were plainly designed to prohibit’ (Cole, D 2015). In other words, the amendment approaches the problem from a different perspective in contrast to previous prohibitions. Rather than expressing a broad prohibition, it restricts interrogators to a definitive list of approved techniques (Feinstein, D 2015). This approach, thus, essentially avoids the ambiguity that has become an enduring quality of international human rights law in relation to torture (Cole, D 2015; Levinson, S 2015, pp. 2017-2018). In succinct terms, if a technique is not authorised, it is affirmatively prohibited. To this avail, in stark contrast with its predecessors, this legislation may yet prove to be instrumental in the prevention of torture.
The practice of torture by United States officials has become one of the most controversial elements of military history. The debate of its use in gathering intelligence has been particularly prevalent since the Bush administration. Most recently, a detailed and graphic scene of torture was presented in the movie Zero Dark Thirty. Proponents for the use of torture state that it is necessary for intelligence gathering and that ethics should be waved aside. Opponents argue that it is not becoming of American practices and it is not a reliable source for intelligence gathering. The public debates on this issue have forced policy makers and military officials to look at whether or not torture, particularly waterboarding, should be legal. The
In the United States, one of the major methods in obtaining crucial information has been through the use of Guantanamo Bay. While many have condemned of the torture that is believed to occur there, not only does Guantanamo Bay comply with national and international standards, but it also complies with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (Meese 1) which states