The Interrogation Standards And Information Sharing Within The U.s. Government

There are consequences to enhanced interrogation. While the War on Terror ensued, “President Bush authorized the use of enhanced interrogation techniques in the War on Terror explicitly, through the language of the memorandum and the OLC interpretations, and latently, through the wiggle room and loopholes contained within these documents.” Throughout all of these modifications, secrecy grew. Unmasking the truth in front of a jury is doubtful due to their own self guilt and obligations. When the Obama administration took hold, rules changed, but those who were involved in the forced enhanced interrogation will have to live with their actions and self

Bush, Dick Cheney, etc are in change for the use of torture, and they refused the expression ‘torture’ or argued that the action of CIA was patriotic. It seems like they are proving themselves that they are apart from the standard of civilization. But their resistance is fiercer than we thought, and they are trying to use terror to justify the use of torture. This is why we cannot entrust this issue to own solving abilities of the U.S. The United Nations human rights body turned out to solve the issue, and some countries presented criticism.

‘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

Spying on American citizens is now a common method employed by the government striving to protect the nation from terrorist attacks. Nonetheless, since its incorporation, the Act has been controversial as politicians and citizens alike have argued between the need to keep society safe and abusive powers of the government over its citizens. Although, mandated to serve as

The appeal of the McCain-Feinstein amendment is its comparatively restrictive nature. In the words of constitutional law professor, David Cole, with particular reference to the past actions of the Bush administration, ‘the new legislation seems designed to prevent future administrations from interpreting existing laws to permit what they were plainly designed to prohibit’ (Cole, D 2015). In other words, the amendment approaches the problem from a different perspective in contrast to previous prohibitions. Rather than expressing a broad prohibition, it restricts interrogators to a definitive list of approved techniques (Feinstein, D 2015). This approach, thus, essentially avoids the ambiguity that has become an enduring quality of international human rights law in relation to torture (Cole, D 2015; Levinson, S 2015, pp. 2017-2018). In succinct terms, if a technique is not authorised, it is affirmatively prohibited. To this avail, in stark contrast with its predecessors, this legislation may yet prove to be instrumental in the prevention of torture.

Coercive interrogation does not work in producing timely, reliable, and life saving information. Thus far, much of the discussion in this area has been concerned with the procedural, legal, and philosophical issues raised by torture. Only very limited attention has been given to the issue of effectiveness. Even if one concludes that torture can sometimes be riddled with moral objections, the argument for coercive techniques depends on the assumption that torture is an effective means of obtaining information. This is a dubious assumption. Scientific investigations of torture as an effective tool of interrogation have found no evidence that it is effective. That conclusion comes from a 2006 report on torture by the Intelligence Science Board. If torture is not an effective means to deduce information from a suspect, it is difficult to justify torture, as many experts in the field agree, even if you assert that it is necessary in certain circumstances. In addition, even if torture may work, if there are other ways to elicit information, the use of torture is not necessary. Lastly, it is super counter intuitive and has the potential to lead to radicalization.

We are aware of some of these “enhanced interrogation techniques” from various leaks and the CIA’s torture report. Some of these techniques consist of rectal feeding and rehydration which is a debatable technique itself since it is thought to be a helpful method to dehydrate detainees who refused to eat. Another technique is the confinement in a box where detainees are kept inside small boxed for long periods of time. The most commonly heard about, waterboarding: where the detainee is strapped on the board tilted down, head to the ground while the face is being covered with a cloth and water is poured down making them have a drowning sensation. Other techniques also include beating and threats to their family members and loved ones, along with

In my view this form of torture or “interrogation” violates the 8th amendment in the US Constitution. The 8th amendment protects citizens from cruel and unusual punishments; actions such as holding a prisoner in “the fridge”, making them consume salt water until they choke, or beating them objects what the 8th amendment stands for. In addition, the punishment doesn't have to be physical it can also be mental and emotional tortured which can also be considered cruel or unusual. Some might object to how the 8th amendment is applied to citizens of course, on the grounds that criminals aren't consider citizens. Yet I would argue that criminals are still consider citizens and deserve equal rights. Overall, I believe torture violates citizens basic rights--an important point given that the government is suppose to protect and respect those

Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, the American people were scared. As a result, the U.S. government wanted to ensure that any possible threat to the United States by terrorists would be stopped before a tragic event like the attacks on the World Trade Center could be repeated. Detainees with ties to terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, for example, who were suspected of having key intelligence of a possible future attack would be interrogated. The manner in which these detainees were interrogated is the center of controversy as they used tactics that many would argue is torture. These methods became known as enhanced interrogation techniques. This paper will strive to answer whether enhanced interrogation techniques are actually

Most violent offenders are not subjected to these techniques. However, it has been reported that the use of these techniques was almost commonplace in the intelligence community following the September 11 attacks. In civil proceedings, the Fifth (federal) and Fourteenth (state) Amendments address the use of these techniques. While torture is not explicitly discussed, the amendments do, among other things, provide protection against self-incrimination to include situations that are inherently coercive. Furthermore, military tribunals are more specific and require less interpretation. Rule 304 of the Manual for Military Commissions (2010) clearly states, “No statement, obtained by the use of torture, or by cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment…shall be admissible in a trial by military commission...” (pp. III-8). With this in mind, if terrorists are exposed to these harsh techniques, any information obtained would not be admissible in court due, not only to the coercive techniques used, but the inherent unreliability of the information obtained. The overarching point is less about the use of harsh interrogation techniques as it is about the effects of immoral or unethical treatment in a democratic justice system. In other words, if we don’t treat terrorists the same, they become harder to successfully prosecute. Timothy McVeigh and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are

The room is 3 meters by 3 meters and the tension can be felt in the room. The detainee is pleading for mercy, but the interrogator keeps at it with a straight face. The questioner knows that what he is doing is wrong but he has orders from above and he also has to think about his wife in America, who might be in danger of a terrorist attack. This is what could have been going through the head of a CIA agent or military personnel that was using enhanced interrogation techniques, also called torture by some people, to get information from a terrorist suspect. During the War Against Terror, these techniques were made legal, even though it went against Article 5 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The use of torture by the Bush administration

Another interesting case that will focus more on the interrogational side over the judicial, is the case of Mohammed al-Qahtani who was suspected of being the twentieth hijacker that was meant to partake in the September 11 attacks. Qahtani was captured in Afganistan in 2001 and transferred to Guantanamo bay. Time, had gotten hold of Qahtani’s detainee interrogational log that revealed the interrogational methods used in his case along with every one of his daily activities that were recorded every few minutes. The interrogational methods used included isolation, nudity, exposure to loud noise, sleep deprivation, the use of female interrogators and pictures of insufficiently dressed women. Evidently, Qahtani was able to resist the interrogations,

There is always an exception to every rule; some may fall within the scope of unethical when it comes to police. In 1939 the Supreme Court put an end to brutality and torture when it comes to retrieving information; it is against 4th Amendment which states it violates the due process (paraphrased pg., 71:Braswell, McCarthy, & McCarthy, 2012). There is an exception to this rule which says an officer can use violence to stop/prevent violence. There is a great possibility that people will be killed if this information is not retrieved; violence to stop/prevent violence in this case violence is needed. This is an interrogation because an interview is simply gathering information but, interrogation is when an officer has reasons to believe that

The most recent piece of legislation that directly influences the usage of coercive interrogation techniques is Executive Order 13491--Ensuring Lawful Interrogations, which was issued in January of 2009 by the current president of the United States. This piece of legislation widely overrides a previous Executive Order, 13491, which was effected in 2007 by then President Bush, and which allowed a significantly greater latitude for the usage of coercive interrogation techniques.

These techniques, in large part, started being used because of the new type of war we were fighting. We were and are still fighting terrorists that fight in extremely unconventional and dangerous ways. So the Bush administration took the steps that they felt needed to be taken in order to prevent another type like September 11th and to hopefully help win the war. The Bush administration wanted to take steps in order to maneuver around the Geneva Convention of 1949. The Geneva Convention of 1949 was to expand on and replace the material of the same convention of 1929. The specific section of interest is on the treatment of prisoners of war. Article of 17 of the Convention states that, “No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind” (International Committee of the Red Cross). Many of the tactics used in interrogations were seen as being in violation of that