The Interrogation And Interrogation Program Conducted By The Cia

“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 Abu Ghraib torture scandal left a large blemish on the occupation of Iraq and George Bush’s War on terror. As stories of the torture happening in the Abu Ghraib prison began circulating, American citizens had trouble comprehending the acts of evil their soldiers had committed on Iraqis. Some began to see a correlation between Abu Ghraib and the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment. Though the guards in both situations were brutal to their captives, distinct differences lay in the severity of their actions. Abu Ghraib’s guards were much more vicious to their captives, and this can be attributed to the prejudices the guards felt against their captors, the environment, and the lack of training, compounded with a lack of accountability in the leadership.

The subsequent case study, prepared by James P. Pfiffner, Torture and Public Policy, (2010) analyzes the torture and abuse of war prisoners by United States military personnel in Abu Ghraib, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, following photographs of the abuse spread around the world in the fall of 2003. Pfiffner points out that the United States Military, Secretary of State Donald Rumsfield, and President George W. Bush assumed a role in the events leading up to the exploitation, even though it has never been corroborated that President Bush or Secretary of State Rumsfield directly condoned the abuse.

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

A new congressional report was released last week detailing the controversial CIA torture program during the years following the September 11 attacks on the twin towers. The report detailed several despicable ways detainees were treated at various CIA black sites, detainees endured waterboarding, sleep deprivation, confinements, rectal feeding and death from hypothermia. The most despicable aspect of the report was that psychiatrists, psychologist, and some physicians originated some of the torture techniques used by the CIA.

In 2014, the Senate Select Committee released its key findings of the CIA torture report. Their conclusions and summary listed in the report were shocking. For years now, debate has been going on as to whether the CIA torture reports should have been released. It may even be considered one of the biggest conspiracy theories of all time. Some claim it should not have been released, to protect the citizens. While others argue, it should be released because it is our right to know. The controversy lies in if cruel and unusual punishment was occurring, then the public should have been informed. Secondly, if inhumane treatment is being administered by our government, the world’s perception of America ‘the land of the free’ is vastly compromised

Torture prevents terrorism. Advanced interrogation might hurt a few individuals with bad intentions, but it could lead and has lead to saving thousands of innocent lives for our national security. Running programs such as the one that the CIA ran for multiple years of advanced interrogation has done an incredible job inquiring important information fast. Yes, some people were wrongfully put through this system however 86% percent of suspects who went under intensified interrogation helped give vital information. That's why since post 9/11 majority of Americans believe it should be justified, stopping future attacks before they happen, and replacing the drone strikes to gather more information.

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

A prison located in Iraq, “Abu Ghraib” was occupied by United States army in the early 2000s, where Iraqi detainees and tortured. While the United States hoped to acquire information about terror in hopes to save a greater number of people, reducing other people to merely a means was unethical. In this review of the case of Abu Ghraib, I will examine various events and possible contributing factors to unethical treatments of prisoners. Further, This essay will explore two opposing perspectives for and against reasoning for tortures. To respond to the unethical nature of the guards' behavior, I will apply Kant's method to ethics. Additionally, while trying to explain why the United States actions, I will refer to Utilitarianism. Lastly, This

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

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

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 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

Interrogation is a form of questioning by law enforcement officers, the subject directed to this questioning must be in custody (Bloom and Brodin 2004). The authors referred the case of Rhodes Island v Innis (2001) which expanded the meaning of interrogation to include any words or actions on the part of the police that the police believe would lead to an incriminating response from a suspect. The court in Innis found that where a police engaged in a formal conversation about a murder weapon with a suspect it did not amount to an interrogation. Bloom and Brodin (2000) gives another meaning stating that, interrogation involves conduct with intention to get a confession, it also involves such actions that are foreseeable by the police officers