Should Advanced Interrogation Ever Be Justified Essay

This paper considers the application of enhanced interrogation techniques and establishes the ethicality and necessity of applying them in the fight against terror to obtain vital information. The ethicality is discussed with reflection to the five frameworks of ethics.

Today we can say again in a loud and clear voice, the United States should never condone or practice torture anywhere in the world… America is at our best when our actions match our values… Yes, the threat of terrorism is real and urgent, scores of children were just murdered in Pakistan, beheadings in the Middle East, a siege in Sydney, these tragedies not only break hearts but should steel our resolve and underscore that our values are what set us apart from our adversaries (“Should Interrogation Techniques”).

President W. Bush believed that lives were actually saved with the EITs in action. However President Obama believed quite the opposite in saying that the CIA Interrogation programs are a “dark and painful chapter in US history”. President Obama also signed an executive order banning the techniques (CIA Tactics: What is enhanced Interrogation?, 2014). These polar opposite states of opinion don’t stop in the white house. In fact, if it were up to a vote, majority of U.S. citizens would not feel comfortable letting this program continue (See Appendix 1). Fifty-three percent said that they would not be willing to permit the implementation of torture even if the known terrorists are aware of future danger planned for America (Dugan,2014). The evidence of how CIA officials have exceeded what they were permitted to do is another factor that promotes the controversy on this topic. There are records of forced rectal rehydration using hummus. This has been brought to the attention of doctors and is unheard of as an accepted practice (CIA Torture Whistleblower John Kiriakou. Wake up, Your Next!, 2015). However President Bush says that these techniques were “designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our constitution and our treaty obligation.” (Vice News Exclusive, 2014). And possibly the most

Applebaum's second argument for eliminating the torture policy is that it constantly enables the enemy to build tolerance for the torture. Applebaum uses the example of “radical terrorists are nasty, so to defeat them we have to be nastier.” This example clearly illustrates the fault within the misconception that torture is ultimately effective. There can also be unnoticed and lasting consequences to torture, that in turn, affect more than the individual country. The global stigma that is labeled upon any country that participates in or allows the torture of wartime prisoners is remarkably important. The public and self image that the respective country acquires, affects

According to a poll carried out in the USA, Forty-nine percent of Americans think waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation tactics are sometimes justified to get information from suspected terrorists, but just over a third (36 percent) think they are never justified. The number of Americans who support and think waterboarding techniques are justified keeps on rising. (Sarah Dutton, 2014)

The War on Terror has produced several different viewpoints on the utilization of torture and its effectiveness as a means to elicit information. A main argument has been supplied that torture is ineffective in its purpose to gather information from the victim. The usefulness of torture has been questioned because prisoners might use false information to elude their torturers, which has occurred in previous cases of torture. It has also been supposed that torture is necessary in order to use the information to save many lives. Torture has been compared to civil disobedience. In addition, the argument has been raised that torture is immoral and inhumane. Lastly, Some say that the acts are not even regarded as torture.

Enhanced Interrogation Techniques have their situational uses. One major claim is the lauded Ticking Time Bomb scenario in which the case is laid out in a needs of the many versus the needs of the one format. The premise as given by Bob Brecher is thus, “Suppose there is good reason to think that someone has planted a bomb in a public place. And suppose there is good reason to think that it is going to go off in the next two hours or so, and that it is going to kill and maim dozens of people, maybe hundreds. The question is all too real. Imagine, to bring the example closer to home, that the police or the secret services had known that bombs were shortly to go off somewhere in Bali, Madrid, Lonon or Sharm-el-Sheikh in the attacks of 2004 and 2005. But no one knows where the bomb is – except one person, who is already in custody. Naturally they have no intention of revealing where the bomb is. Maybe they have planted it themselves; maybe not. Either way, they remain silent. Should they be tortured to force them to reveal where the bomb is?”(Torture and the Ticking Bomb 1). In this scenario there is substantial moral justification for torture. Consider this, law enforcement believes that torturing the target will save

Is torture justified? Does it make us feel safer? Most Americans would say that it is immoral to torture any human being for any reason. There are a few people left who would disagree with that and say that some deserve to be tortured in order to obtain information that could potentially save the lives of hundreds or thousands.

The CIA used waterboarding as an interrogation method to try to get leaders of Al Qaeda to talk. The dilemma came up when Abu Zubaydah, an Al Qaeda leader, became uncooperative in prison. The George Bush administration held meetings to decide what interrogation methods would be legal. A modern form of waterboarding was deemed acceptable and the most extreme interrogation method listed. According to sources, waterboarding has been used on three top Al Qaeda officials (Ross, 2007). The CIA maintains that this method is effective and completely lawful.

Memos from the Department of Defense called for the implementation of enhanced interrogation techniques to begin immediately and to be sure “these are carried out”, these were in accordance with the White House. All of President Bush’s closest cabinet members and national security advisers signed off on enhanced interrogation, believing that under the legal research conducted the techniques satisfied the legal standard as not being torture, (Bartz, 2006)

And it is also prohibited. But the truth is, even when being outlawed, torture is still used silently, especially in the interrogation of terrorists. Did it have any effect on the long-term battle against terrorism of the U.S and the world? According to John McCain, it is a no. In “Torture’s Terrible Toll”, he wrote about his own experience:

‘Phycologists find these tactics immoral and beyond torturous, and a ticking time bomb for disaster (O’Donohue).’ Although not everyone disagrees with the tactics Research has shown that these interrogations both have pros and cons. Research from the Phycological association shows that these types of interrogations “betrays trust and human rights, professional ethics and the society's trust (Pope).” For example, many believe that the interrogations break the Miranda rights per the 5th amendment, but others argue that the 5th amendment rights should be reserved only for people holding a valid US citizenship. (Rychlak) Medical ethics of the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba, because these facilities are not on US soil the 5th Amendment rights should also apply to these detainees that are detained, making it a national policy. (Quinn) After the 9/11 attacks congress authorized president Bush to authorize “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons’ (Worthington).” However, this was quickly shut down by former

We Americans see ourselves, as the good people in the world, not bad people who torture others. Opinions among Americans have shifted in light of the 9/11 attacks and the ongoing war in Afghanistan, torture is much more accepted than ever before. There, are many reasons why torture should be justified especially during time of war, however, it goes against many American morals. Even if someone deserved to be tortured, which many who are tortured in the end are found to be not guilty of the crime. Nobody has the right to deliberately harm another human being with the intention of causing the maximum physical and emotional pain. Torture is the most twisted, sadistic, cruel behavior imaginable and it is as inhumane as our rival countries. A popular "YES" commentator had the audacity to state: "Give them a little electrical motivation, or water

After the terrorist attacks on 9/11 CIA interrogation tactics were heighten to rapidly expedite the extraction of information that could lead to the interception of a future terrorist attacks. The Bush Administration was in control during this period of time. The 9/11 attack was significant enough to be the defining change of the twenty first century when it comes to global security. Terrorism violates human rights and constitutes a serious challenge for liberal democracies (Masferrer pg. 1). This subject runs a fine line between human rights and national/international laws. There were a lot of unknowns about how brutal the techniques were of the CIA. The agency also lied to the White House and congress about how intensive their techniques

It is understandable to hold this viewpoint, for any information that the CIA would have collected from the detainees may have been key to saving lives from further terrorist attacks. However, this is not entirely true as the information collected from the operation was that which could have been retrieved through much more humane means. As stated by Professor Ruth Blakeley, "torture tends not to be aimed at thwarting imminent threats. Its use by the CIA in the War on Terror is no exception. In any case it has yielded little evidence that could not have been obtained through legitimate means” (544). Simply, the information gathered through the Interrogation Program was nothing of too great significance and was that which could’ve been gathered through a regular interrogation rather than torture. The CIA was aware that this was the case. In fact, they themselves had established before the War on Terror that torture was ineffective (Blakeley 547). Despite this, they continued to lie and push for the program that they claimed to the public to be providing them with “crucial information.” Due to the fact that the CIA lied to the government, the public, and to international organizations on the effectiveness and nature of the program, they