Pfiffner's Memo Analysis

After watching Frontlines documentary Secrets, Politics and Torture one is automatically faced with mixed views on the major issue, torture, discussed throughout the documentary. At first it shows the different ways our government tries to protect our country and national security, but as one continues to watch the documentary you see how our government attempts to manipulate rules and scenarios in order to help protect the CIA’s inappropriate behavior. On the one hand it is easy to understand why it was unnecessary to torture the prisoners we held captive, but in another light we must also understand the real reasons for acting with such cruel behavior.

In August of 2002, without consulting Congress, the Bush administration changed the definition of torture by military standards to allow for previously illegal interrogation techniques. (Inside Guantanamo) Bush lost a lot of respect from American citizens for doing this on his own instead of consulting Congress because it added a lot of suspicion that he was trying to hide something. The Pentagon organized the interrogation techniques into three categories. The first one included yelling and deception techniques and the second included sensory deprivation, isolation, stress positions, extensive interrogation, hooding, clothing removal, and the use of phobias. The third and most severe category included waterboarding and even death threats. (Greenberg 221) Bush wanted justice to be served to the men who planned and carried out the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He thought the families of the thousands killed that day deserved that justice. Soon after, President Bush sent 14 men to Guantanamo Bay so that justice could be served to them by the military commissions he had proposed. They were to be put under the custody of the CIA where they would get what Bush thought they deserved and thanks to the Bybee Memo, Bush had complete, unlimited power when it came to core war matters such as this. While constitutional, the actions of the Bush administration as he went behind Congress’s back and came up with a new definition for torture

Torture is known as the intentional infliction of either physical or psychological harm for the purpose of gaining something – typically information – from the subject for the benefit of the inflictor. Normal human morality would typically argue that this is a wrongful and horrendous act. On the contrary, to deal with the “war on terrorism” torture has begun to work its way towards being an accepted plan of action against terrorism targeting the United States. Terroristic acts perpetrate anger in individuals throughout the United States, so torture has migrated to being considered as a viable form of action through a blind eye. Suspect terrorists arguably have basic human rights and should not be put through such psychologically and physically damaging circumstances.

The coercion and torturing captured terrorist is needed to protect national security in the war against terrorism. There are numerous justifications why the coercion or torture of terrorist is normally a lesser evil than the preventable mass murder of innocent victims (Slater, Summer 2006).

At the beginning of the war on terror, President Bush’s handling of the situation was very popular. He insured everyone in the country that justice would be carried out and that the groups and individuals that helped with the attacks against the United States. In her paper, (Fisher) cited President Bush’s order as “any individual ‘not a United States citizen’ who the president determines that there is ‘reason to believe’ (1) ‘is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida,’ (2) ‘has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor, that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy,’ or (3) has ‘knowingly harbored one or more individuals described in subparagraph (1) and (2)’" (pg 504).

Torture has long been a controversial issue in the battle against terrorism. Especially, the catastrophic incident of September 11, 2001 has once again brought the issue into debate, and this time with more rage than ever before. Even until today, the debate over should we or should we not use torture interrogation to obtain information from terrorists has never died down. Many questions were brought up: Does the method go against the law of human rights? Does it help prevent more terrorist attacks? Should it be made visible by law? It is undeniable that the use of torture interrogation surely brings up a lot of problems as well as criticism. One of the biggest problems is that if torture is effective at all. There are

The United States Congress has endowed the president with authoritative powers to use necessary force against individuals posing significant threats found to have planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks in conjunction with September 11th atrocities. Those that have been placed within the custody of the United States as a result of terrorist activities will often times file Writs, including Habeas Corpus, to invoked the interest and interpretation of their situation by the US Supreme Court Justice’s . Since the tragic 9/11 attacks, judiciary judgments have often

In Part Three, Cole and Dempsey focus on the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996, a forerunner to the Patriot Act that helped to establish the legal framework for today’s domestic war on terror. The act allows the State Department to designate Foreign Terrorist Organizations in a process that is highly politicized and lacking sufficient objective criteria. It also makes it possible for government prosecutors to bring cases against individuals without proof that they have engaged in terrorism, aided or abetted terrorists, or planned to commit terrorism. Under the 1996 act, the government may freeze the assets of designated terrorist groups and use secret witnesses against those suspected of having links to terrorists.

On August 1, 2002, Justice Jay Bybee submitted the “Bybee Memo” or the ‘Torture Memo”, which describes the behavior that U.S. officials must exercise when interrogating outside of the continental U.S. as governed by the UN Convention Against Torture. Although this memo was rendered inoperable by the Bush Administration in 2004; for years, it gave license to American troops to inflict cruel amounts of pain, effectively “torture” upon their prisoners under the label of “coercive interrogation”. Michael Hatfield, a Professor at Texas Tech School of Law published

September 11th was a day that was burned into the conscience of the American identity. The response of the Bush Administration was to launch a full-scale military operation against terrorist entities, in particular Al Qaeda and their foreign supporters. This series of operations, became what was to be known as the “Global War on Terror”. Subsequently, the invasion of Afghanistan and other military operations resulted in the capture of high value targets with known connections to terrorist organizations. While these events this had dramatic ramifications on geo-political landscape, American courts were also given the unenviable task of determining if those captured by the U.S government were entitled to the rights and privileges enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court in particular faced a particular set of problems in confronting this issue. Precedent on the matter had been established over fifty years earlier under far different circumstances that were unable to reflect today’s modern challenges. Secondly, the Court needed to determine whether they had the jurisdictional authority to accept writs of habeas corpus from detainees held in Guantanamo Bay Cuba.

Guantanamo Bay, though started with good intentions, only highlights America’s negative side. Marine Major General Michael Lehnert, who played a significant role in the opening of Guantanamo, has drastically changed his opinion and said that it, “Validates every negative perception of the U.S.” (Sutton 1). One example of this occurred in 2006, when President Bush justified the use of “physical coercion” (torture) during interrogations (Fetini 1). Some of these torture methods include isolation, beatings, sleep deprivation, and general abuse. Other tactics such as disrespect for Islamic symbols or sexual provocation are used to encourage stress in detainees (Bloche 1). These immoral methods led to an international outcry. It was later remarked that the Cuban territory upon which Guantanamo is located is being used as a “concentration camp” of sorts (Fetini 1). Guantanamo and its unethical values are being recognized by nations around the world, displaying America in a bad light.

Although the actions of the United States government saved American lives and killed a well-known terrorist, after the attacks of 9/11 the U.S. opened an enemy combatant prison, which held many of the prisoners that received advanced interrogation, or torture. Also, known as Guantanamo Bay, it was shortly opened after the terrorist attacks that leftover 3000 Americans dead. “The population at Guantanamo consists primarily of those captured in Afghanistan by the U.S. military after the post-September 11 invasion” (Maran). It was a black site for the detention of foreign enemies that never were charged with a crime. A place where CIA agents could interrogate detainees to extract any information they could without consequences. “The policy of the U.S. government is that the captives are not prisoners of war (POWs) whose internment is regulated by the Third Geneva Convention, in international law, the Geneva Conventions do not apply to "unlawful combatants" (Maran). The Geneva Convention is an International law that gives prisoners of war basic humanitarian rights. Which means, with the terrorists not being considered prisoners of war that the Geneva Convention does not cover any detainee’s rights, in simpler terms the United States could do anything to the “Unlawful combatants” (Maran) and not be held to any legal punishment. To put into perspective the United States held about 800 detainees from 2002-2011 on no criminal charges, who received horrendous torture, interrogation, and most importantly treated without basic human rights. When President Obama ran for his presidency in 2008 on one of his main focuses being closing Guantanamo Bay. President Obama also went on to say that the last few years at Guantanamo Bay were “A sad chapter in American history” (Ivey), and signed an executive order on January 21, 2009, for the immediate closure of Guantanamo Bay within the year. With the signing of the order, President Obama was trying to erase some of America’s ugly past with the treatment of prisoners. However, the closing of Guantanamo Bay is a huge task and is still not completed yet in 2017. A big reason why the closing of Guantanamo is taking so long is that they need to transfer all the detainees. Although 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

In 2002, the Office of Legal Counsel responded to the President’s request of exploring the question whether American officials have the right to use torture against suspected terrorists. Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee of the Office of Legal Counsel not only legalized the use of torture for U.S. officials but also defined torture in the narrowest way. He defines torture as inflicting physical pain, or any serious physical injury such as failure of organs or at the most

In this article, Andrew Sullivan, is an advocate for the abolition of torture against terrorist in the United States. During the time that this article was written, the McCain Amendment (which banned torture) was on a political limbo. What this author talks mostly about is the choice that we have to make things right, therefore ban the use of torture against terrorist. This debate takes place after Bush administration defined "torture" and permitted coercive, physical abuse of enemy combatants if "military necessity" demands it. Also after several reports found severe abuse of detainees in Afghanistan and elsewhere that has led to at least two dozen deaths during interrogation, secret torture sites in Eastern Europe and innocent detainees being murdered.