CIA Torture Research Essay

In the article, “The Torture Myth,” Anne Applebaum explores the controversial topic of torture practices, focused primarily in The United States. The article was published on January 12, 2005, inspired by the dramatic increase of tensions between terrorist organizations and The United States. Applebaum explores three equality titillating concepts within the article. Applebaum's questions the actual effectiveness of using torture as a means of obtaining valuable information in urgent times. Applebaum explores the ways in which she feels that the United States’ torture policy ultimately produces negative effects upon the country. Applebaum's final question is if torture is not optimally successful, why so much of society believes it

The United States is considered one of the most powerful countries in the world. They have a well organized and trained armed forces. But, they were built with principles and moral standards. According to those rules, people could not do what they pleased all the time. The paper signed by the founding Fathers is, the Constitution of the United States, which prohibits the enforcers of the law to torture. Yet, it is still done. There is no straight statement that prohibits torture. An arguement of whether it can be legal or not is made, for the use of, retriving important information, the use of the 8th amendment and how 9/ 11 change some perspectives.

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.

The abuse of power transcended national boarders as the U.S. government turned a blind eye to American troops engaged in the unleashed and unchecked torture of prisoners of war. The use of torture is not in the national interest, as it has been found that the intelligence gained through torture is unreliable. Like the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, America consistently presses or even oversteps its Constitutional boundaries in times of national security.

(Oates, 20 p. 135) Likewise, Nacos criticised the media for failing to scrutinise governments or present non-violent options for public debate instead favouring official discourse by focusing on counterterrorism and military action. She notes, “All Americans would have benefited from comprehensive, balanced, probing reporting and editorializing” allowing them “to make well-informed decisions…. such as the question of whether to torture known and suspected terrorists” (Nacos, 2007, p172) In a subsequent study, Nacos also observed the mass media were reluctant to label the abuse and degradation at Abu Ghraib as torture, once there was evidence of such, instead choosing other terms such as “alleged abuse” and “mistreatment.” (Nacos, 2011, pp. 289-290) Jamail furthered this observation, stating, “The media try hard to place the spotlight on a minor issue thereby attempting to obfuscate the larger violation. This was clearly visible in the case of the Abu Ghraib reports.” (Jamail, 2012, p. 301) Oates attributes this failure to the patriotic constraint experienced by the media post 9/11 which “limited acceptable debate and challenge”. (Oates, 2008, p.40) However, in the aftermath of Abu Ghraib, Nacos subsequently found that media practices had altered, exemplified by ample coverage and scrutiny being provided when the Patriot Act was due to be

The US Senate Intelligence Committee released a report in 2014 about the interrogation tactics used by the CIA during George Bush’s Presidency after 9/11. Composed mainly by Democrats, it is seen as containing a strong bias which led to the CIA being depicted as cruel and unjust, and guilty of illegal torture. Coined the “torture report,” it’s unsurprising that there are a few who are wary of the CIA after reading this. However, it seems that the Senate report misinterpreted the interrogation methods of the CIA as torture. There may be instances in which the interrogation goes too far, but there is no denying it has significantly helped America’s fight against terrorism and saving lives. Although the CIA’s interrogation program is intensive,

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has used many different torture techniques to gain information from its detainees since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and some of the most common are stress positions, sleep deprivation, and waterboarding. These techniques, among many others, were released in a report from the Senate Intelligence Committee on December 9, 2014.

“With its provocative detail splashed across the TV screens, front pages and websites of our media, the report will undoubtedly endanger American lives” (PRO: Report gives extremists a rallying cry). The Senate report released about the CIA tortures detailed actions made by CIA officials towards torturing prisoners. It explains the use of various forms of torture in the United States ever since the September 11th, 2001 attack and 2006 during the war on terror. Many people argue that the CIA torture report did not hurt the United States and its interests, but there is enough evidence to believe otherwise. For starters, the Senate report encourages extremists to further attack the United States, it leaves the US completely defenseless due to the fact that not many countries will be willing to help the US in any oncoming war, and lastly it caused immeasurable damage to the United States' public standing, as well as to the United States' longstanding global

Beaten, broken, burned, bruised, tortured. Torture is defined as a “deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical and mental suffering by one or more persons acting alone or on the orders of an authority to force another person to yield information, make a confession, etc” (Torture). Throughout history, torture has been used for extreme punishment or unreasonably hateful oppression but more recently torture has been used to force the weaker willed into talking. Torture is an extraneous way to get any information or a needed confession from a suspect and it has very terrible effects on those who do the torturing and those who have suffered/are suffering through tortured. Even

When it comes to the topic of torturing an individual to gain information, most of us would readily agree that this subject is very debatable. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of whether or not the government should be able to make a human endure extreme pain and suffering in order to gain information. Whereas some are convinced that torture is inhumane and unethical and the information that is gained is at times inaccurate and a waste of time to rely on, others maintain that torture is a good way to retrieve information that is crucial to prevent future devastating events that may end many American lives. With that being said, I agree that torture is a fundamental tool for gaining information from a criminal in an aspect because torturing that person maybe unlawful, but saving thousands of lives outweigh the pain or death that may come to this one wrong doing individual.

Holmes explains, the Utilitarianism theory: The ideas that the goal of society should be to bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, the act of utilitarian it is the action towards the morally right act to produce the favorable balance of good over evil which everyone considered, the rule for utilitarianism; action which is only right, if, it is required by rules, for instance don’t kill, steal, lie. etc..” … However,” the Principle of utility actions are right when they tends to promote happiness and wrong when they do the opposite towards morally right actions that are proposing as it maximizes utility and minimizes when the propositions are wrong for instance ,

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

I enjoy reading your post. The Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture and Other forms of cruel, Inhuman, or degrading treatment, the International covenant on civil and political rights. All of these treaties are then codified in U.S. law, and in relevant part they add up to three things: One, you can never torture. That is to say, you can never intentionally inflict extreme or serious harm, whether physical or mental; serious physical or mental injury. Second, you can never engage in what is known legally as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment I agree with you terrorist should be charged for their wrongdoing harsh punishment, it is what they deserved without any doubt and they should be brought to justice to get the punishment

A swarm of terror arose when news of torture at Abu Ghraib, a U.S military prison, was revealed. The chilling images reveal soldiers “taunting naked Iraqi prisoners who are forced to assume humiliating poses” (Hersh). People did not know how to react and were taking sides; whether the matter was an unethical issue or if it was just a harmless way for soldiers to blow off some steam. Torture of prisoners is a debatable problem that needs solving. The act is justified by being called “enhanced interrogation” (Bloche 1330). Some think the problem is insignificant because they believe that torture is part of the prisoner’s punishment. However, torture is a dehumanizing act. Not only is torture of prisoners illegal, it is unfair and mentally and physically distressing.

The fight against the “war on terrorism” has initiated a debate in the United States over the use of torture and advanced interrogation techniques to extract information needed to protect the safety of its citizens. In lieu of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, government officials believed that using extensive force against suspected is justified, especially if such force results in the prevention of future planned attacks. Others reject torture and the methods used by the government agencies, especially the CIA, as both “unreliable and an affront to legal and civilized norms of behavior.” In December of 2014, The Senate Intelligence Committee Report on CIA torture, drafted by the bipartisan United States Select Committee on Intelligence, brought light to the controversy by unearthing the methods and techniques used to interrogate detainees, prisoners of war, and suspected terrorists. The findings have ignited strong opposition and outcry among the citizens, critics of the government, and foreign nations. The aftermath of this report have prompted two important questions: Should the CIA be held responsible for its actions and face investigations, prosecution, and full legal action or should the CIA have the ability to act and determine policies they seem fit to protect the U.S. from any threats and outside forces?