On December 9th, 2014, the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) released a 525 page excerpt of a 6,000 page report detailing the findings of the study of the Detention and Interrogation Program conducted by the CIA. The SSCI condemned the actions of the CIA and its constituents for they had committed numerous acts of tortious conduct. As this report is processed by the public, the CIA has distanced itself from the situation pronouncing premature accusations have been made considering the whole truth has yet to be unclassified. A central debate is whether or not the torture committed by the CIA provided intelligence information that prevented acts of terror or aided in the apprehension of terrorists. Two ethical issues …show more content…
On the other hand, the Democratic majority of the SSCI claims the CIA’s torture program was ineffective and riddled with misconduct. Among their many arguments is their assertion that the program was mismanaged and that it failed to administer proper oversight. Those found responsible of violating “CIA policies or performed poorly were rarely held accountable or removed from positions of responsibility (The Senate Committee, 2014, p. 23).” One such case took place on November 20th, 2002. Gul Rahman, a suspected afghan militant, was chained up, naked from the waist down, and left in an unheated cell overnight (Silverstein, K. 2014). When CIA officers checked on him the next morning he was dead due to hypothermia. The man responsible for this negligence was the junior officer, Matthew Zirbel. Matthew Zirbel was the commanding officer at the CIA blacksite, the Salt Pit where this brutal act took place. Even though he was on his first foreign tour and colleagues had warned of his “lack of judgement, honesty and maturity (The Senate Committee, 2014, p. 50)”, Zirbel held a position of great power. This fault had been identified by the C.I.A but the executive director, Kyle Foggo, decided that no disciplinary action was merited. Furthermore, the CIA never informed Rahman’s family of his death and were holding Rahman without him meeting the standard for detention.
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.
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.
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.
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 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).
However, the United States looks back and rectifies a fault. Above all, the release of the report has huge legal implications. They could not specify the fact that the action of the national agency (CIA) was the torture if they did not think about the punishment of whom in charge, especially in a civilized constitutional nation such as the United States.
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
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.
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
In the wake of 9/11, waterboarding was a widely used technique to encourage suspected terrorists with suspected ties to Osama Bin Laden to reveal information about Al-Qaeda. While the practice of waterboarding is now banned by the United States, it was widely practiced during the Bush administration. The movie Zero Dark Thirty depicts waterboarding as a critical torture technique that led to the name of Osama Bin Laden’s personal courier and ultimately the death of Osama Bin Laden (Bigelow, 2012). This paper will seek to determine if the action of waterboarding suspects in order to locate Osama Bin Laden was ethically justifiable.
Gaul Rahman, a suspected Afghan radical, was arrested and brought to a CIA-run prison within six weeks of the 9/11 attacks. Rahman was detained for the purposes of providing inside information on the bombings, as well as to shed light on possible future terrorist attacks to be committed on United States soil. A month after his arrival at the prison, guards entered his cell to discover a gruesome sight. As quoted by the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Torture, “In November 2002, Gaul Rahman was shackled to his cell wall and made to rest unclothed on the bare concrete floor. The next day, the guards found Gaul Rahman’s dead body.” The junior officer that insisted on such treatment of Rahman was recommended by the CIA to receive a cash award of $2,500 for his superior work. Though the CIA praised the officer, many American citizens were appalled at Rahman’s treatment as detailed in the report, and the public became divided over whether Rahman’s treatment was humane. The concept of torture as a just means of security has become a significant source of dispute among the American public. With such divisiveness having the potential to create further discord in regards to the justice system and additional situations in which the use of torture is considered, a re-evaluation of interrogation policies is crucial to gain a position of solidarity on the issue. Despite the belief that torture is an effective means of combating terrorism against domestic interests, the need for
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
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 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
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