The Torture of Terrorists Violates the Bill of Rights Essay

In August of 2002, without consulting Congress, the Bush administration changed the definition of torture by military standards to allow for previously illegal interrogation techniques. (Inside Guantanamo) Bush lost a lot of respect from American citizens for doing this on his own instead of consulting Congress because it added a lot of suspicion that he was trying to hide something. The Pentagon organized the interrogation techniques into three categories. The first one included yelling and deception techniques and the second included sensory deprivation, isolation, stress positions, extensive interrogation, hooding, clothing removal, and the use of phobias. The third and most severe category included waterboarding and even death threats. (Greenberg 221) Bush wanted justice to be served to the men who planned and carried out the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He thought the families of the thousands killed that day deserved that justice. Soon after, President Bush sent 14 men to Guantanamo Bay so that justice could be served to them by the military commissions he had proposed. They were to be put under the custody of the CIA where they would get what Bush thought they deserved and thanks to the Bybee Memo, Bush had complete, unlimited power when it came to core war matters such as this. While constitutional, the actions of the Bush administration as he went behind Congress’s back and came up with a new definition for torture

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.

Torture has been a sensitive subject in our government and among the people of the US. The article “Torture is Wrong-But it Might Work” Bloche about how even though torture is not moral to some, it can still provide effective results because of advanced techniques and psychological studies. He goes on to say that many believe it is effective but others will say it does not provide adequate results in interrogation efforts. Senators such as John McCain (R-Ariz.) believe it does not help at all; however, other government officials, such as former attorney general Michael Mukasey and former vice president Dick Cheney, believe it does (Bloche 115).

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 Bill of Rights were added to our Constitution because the framers wanted to protect the citizen’s individual rights and so that the government can’t abuse it’s power.

The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution says, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The fundamental idea of torture is to inflict mental or physical pain onto a suspect to coerce them into revealing information we desire. This tactic is illegal because it violates the Constitution, and in addition, it violates international agreements that our nation has committed itself to. The general provisions of the Geneva Conference of 1949 prevent the use of torture in warfare; the document specifically outlaws “Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating or degrading treatment…” By violating these laws, particularly the Constitution, our nation

Are you familiar with the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution? The Founders of our American government created the Bill of Rights to protect our individual liberties. They greatly believed in the significance of the overall creation of these particular rights, which happens to be the basic freedoms of us Americans. However, our government has compromised on these distinct liberties in the name of security and general welfare in various ways.

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:

In “The Case For Torture” an article written by Michael Levin, he attempts to justify the use of torture as a means of saving lives. Throughout the article, Levin gives the reader many hypothetical examples in which he believes torture is the only method of resolution. Though I agree with Levin, to some degree, his essay relies heavily on the fears of people and exploits them to convince people into thinking pain is the only way. In certain aspects, I could agree entirely with Levin, but when one reads deeper into the article, many fallacies become apparent. These fallacies detract from the articles academic standing and arguably renders the entire case futile. Levin’s strategy of playing with the fears of people is genius, but, with more

People’s imaginations start to go wild when they hear the word torture. However, there are enhanced interrogation techniques that are more humane than others. Waterboarding, for example, simulates the effect of drowning and is highly recommended by people such as former Vice President Dick Cheney (Defrank). It is highly unpleasant, but breaks no bones and leaves no bruises. It also exposes those performing the interrogation to lesser psychological strain than other methods that could be used would. Torture is accused of being a cancer in society, but if regulated and reserved for the “especially” bad guys, societal homeostasis would be maintained.

When President Bush declared the War on Terror after the incident of September 11, 2001, he was declaring a new kind of war on a different kind of enemy. The al-Qaeda terrorist group who were responsible for the destruction of World Trade Center is organized differently than any enemy that the U.S. has faced before. Since the terrorists were determined to target large numbers of American civilians, the Bush administration issued a memorandum which declared the Geneva Conventions cannot apply to unconventional combatants such as al-Qaeda, it states “ I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere through the world because; among other reasons al Qaeda is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva. (Bush 2002)”

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.

Ever since the beginning of the terrorist attacks on American soil, the War on Terror has been involved in the lives of Americans and nations near us. The War on Terror’s background originated through conflicts between warring countries in the Middle East; U.S. involvement started when a terrorist guided plane crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 in New York City. The attack was suspected to be the work of the middle-eastern terrorist group Al-Qaeda. The U.S. military, under the leadership of then commander-in-chief George W. Bush, declared a “War on Terror” on the terrorist group and the fighting began.

The Global War on Terror is a military campaign led by the United States and the United Kingdom and supported by other NATO members. It was originally against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with the purpose of eliminating them. This paper discusses how the Bush Administration handled the War on Terror as well as different aspects of it, including its terminology, its objectives, its military operations and criticism against it.

War Against Terror and Human Rights The Human Rights Act 1998 took full legal effect across the English and Welsh legal systems on October 2nd 1998. The Act, allows people to claim a number of the rights and freedoms that are set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government had high hopes that when the act was passed it would create a 'Culture of Human Rights within the United Kingdom.'