The Battle Against The War On Terrorism

While the law itself condemns use of torture for any purpose, torture becomes necessary to be used in particular critical instances. According to Miles, the United States senate allowed the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on a number of cases and detainees. The human rights should be considered first in any event whether in interrogation or any other course of action1. The policy makers have found themselves between hard and difficult decisions to make on the techniques for obtaining vital information from terrorists who are trained heavily on resisting from giving information when caught in the wrong side of the law.

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.

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.

Imagine awaking in the morning, going downstairs and preparing the morning meal. While enjoying the sunshine through the kitchen window along with a chai tea latte, the news on the television suddenly changes from the mundane to chaotic confusion, disaster has struck! The implausible has just happened and the nation is in chaos. This disaster could happen at any moment and at any point across the globe. If the only method of prevention to this traumatic event is by the skilled technique of information extraction known as torture, would it not be the government’s obligation to the people to ensure this method of prevention was exercised? When considering the threat from extremists, the United States government must allow for the use of

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.

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

9/11 was a major focal point on the war on terror. It changed America in many ways. There are two main view point’s that will be gone over in this research paper. The first and the most vital will be cultural historical viewpoint because it change Americas culture and how the viewed the world in a major way. The next but less prominent is top-down because in this research paper I will be talking about how the people in charge reacted to the events that unfolded in 911 how their decisions shaped the world that is today. These will be the historical viewpoints that will be shown in my research paper.

This article will discuss the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA's) Enhanced Interrogation Program that was created following the attacks of 9/11. This program violated not only domestic law but international law as well. First introduced will be the reasons for the initiation of the CIA’s interrogation program. Then this article will explain the “ticking time bomb” philosophical argument that validates torture. Next, It will discuss the violation of the constitutions eight amendment and the Geneva Conventions international rules that prohibit torture. Lastly, the effectiveness of the program will be analyzed to examine if the pain and infliction that the program caused were of any use to prevent imminent terror attacks.

The CIA, or Central Intelligence Agency, has been the subject of government mystery for years. With so many unknown secrets, it is no wonder that mistrust and controversy have joined the mysterious aura surrounding the organization. One such controversy that has drawn much attention in recent years is that associated with the CIA's Interrogation Program. Numerous reports have been and are still continuing to be released on the program, specifically on the torture utilized. Torture in itself is a sensitive issue, even more so when combined with an already suspicious government agency. These reports have therefore divided the public on the question: should the CIA face prosecution for torture in the Interrogation Program? Due to the fact that

“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

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 light of this, it should be mentioned that “the US strategy for winning the Global War on Terrorism is predicated on creating an international environment inhospitable to terrorists and all those who support them” (Fogarty 2001). Meaning, that the fight against terrorism heavily relies on international cooperation. In order to achieve such a feat, nevertheless, America must be amiable by fellow governments and their citizens. Unfortunately, the reports and findings on GTMO makes it increasingly difficult for the American administration to do so, for the inhumane treatment makes citizens of other countries upset. Quoting General Colin Powell, people from other nation states are "beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism" (Duberstein as cited in Washington Monthly 2008). This proves to be an immense hindrance to the war, as America cannot hope to face all of the world’s terrorists alone. To put this in perspective, one can take a look at the situation with Turkey and Russia. Earlier this year, a Russian jet was shot down by Turkey, having flown into the latter 's airspace without permission (BBC 2015). Granted, there lies in factors such as the decades long animosity between the two countries. Albeit, who’s to say that America’s relations with countries will never reach such lows? Rather, previous Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel says that “one of the greatest long-term dangers America faces is that we are now mistrusted by many nations, even our

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.

After the events of September 11, 2001, the United States had a unique dilemma. America was engaged in what would be called a “War on Terror”. This new conflict was unlike any in American history. Previously, in the context of war the United States had always fought a nation or group that had defined boundaries as to where they resided. This new conflict went away from these rules of the past. Terrorist groups were not bound to a region, but were instead united by an ideal. September 11 marked the first time in which terrorism would rise to the forefront of the nation’s agenda. This emergent wave of conflict required a different strategy than the those of the past because of the unorthodox nature of the opponent. One of the major innovations fostered by the “War on Terror” was the expansion of torture. The dramatic rise in terrorism sparked the unethical advancement of interrogation techniques in order to more effectively acquire information. The emergence of the “War on Terror” required government officials acquire intelligence in a new way thus spawning the emergence of “enhanced interrogation” methods, however, the morality of these techniques would come into question as they were revealed to the public.

The world has been changed forever since the tragic attack on September 11, 2001. An observer described the atrocity by saying, "It just went 'bam,' like a bomb went off. It was like holy hell (CNN 1). " The new world will be different from what any American has known before. A new war has arisen, not against a foreign country or a major region of the world, but rather against a select group of people who have the capabilities to destroy the lives of so many. The war against terrorism which the United States is now forced to wage will not be an easily won battle. This war will not be fought solely on scattered battlefields in certain countries. It will instead permeate through every aspect of life as we