The United States And Terrorism

The military and the government security organs normally apply numerous methods in obtaining critical information about criminal activities. Some of these techniques are considered acceptable by the human rights and other non-governmental organizations while others are considered as violating the human rights as stated by the constitution of major countries and states. There has been a strong debate on the use of these techniques and many have defined them as torture.

Today we can say again in a loud and clear voice, the United States should never condone or practice torture anywhere in the world… America is at our best when our actions match our values… Yes, the threat of terrorism is real and urgent, scores of children were just murdered in Pakistan, beheadings in the Middle East, a siege in Sydney, these tragedies not only break hearts but should steel our resolve and underscore that our values are what set us apart from our adversaries (“Should Interrogation Techniques”).

In contrast, some individuals may debate that torture and even some more minuscule forms of torture can be beneficial to obtaining the information needed. It is debated that torture has been used in a large portion of political systems in history, and that the “degree” of torture is a significant component when deciphering right vs. wrong. Moher argues that in a political system where torture is justifiable and legal, the torture used would be less extreme than what it is today (Moher, 2013). It is reasoned that different degrees of torture are more acceptable than others, in that some are less psychologically and physically harming. A

The coercion and torturing captured terrorist is needed to protect national security in the war against terrorism. There are numerous justifications why the coercion or torture of terrorist is normally a lesser evil than the preventable mass murder of innocent victims (Slater, Summer 2006).

Through out the history of the country, the U.S. have torture people for information. For example, Brown v. Mississippi a sheriff who questioned three African Americans, in the most heinous way. He hipped and hanged them for no true reason (Hickey, T., 2014). The

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 used by law enforcement agencies and governments to questions criminals and terrorists. It is used to coax confessions or to find out any sort of information that may lead to the arrest or capture of other criminals. Although the torturing of prisoners in the United States is strictly prohibited by the constitution, the government started using the tactic waterboarding against terrorists. Although the government says waterboarding has led to prevention on mass terrorist attacks on U.S soil, it is not accepted by all of this country’s citizens. It is believed by certain people that waterboarding is torture and others do not believe it is. It is my goal to explore why the United States deemed this

Another player in this global debate of enhanced interrogation is the United Nations itself. In May of 2005, the UN issued an 11 page panel report on the adhearance of the United States to the anti-torture treaty. In the report the UN said that the United States should stop the process of enhanced interrogation saying that it was “nothing more than torture”. The US should stop its interrogations of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan by military and civilian staff and prosecute any staff found to have used any of the techniques specific to the enhanced interrogation. The UN report stopped short of admonishing the United States as the US “has a very good record on human rights” , (19 May 2006) Torture was banned by the UN in 1948, in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights of which not only is

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

The United States has been, and may again be, under terrorist threat and attacks or other similar incidents. Torture can be used to prevent these terrible incidents and save the lives of many people. Torture in the United States has been a debatable subject for many years now but after resent tragedies, the idea of torture of many American citizens has changed. It has also been debated over more after the attacks on September 9, 2001 than any other time in American history. Many fight the legalization of torture for moral and civil reasons but the truth is that torture is a lesser evil that can be used for a greater good.

Foreign policy was a topic discussed in our class among many, but it was one of the most important ones because it became necessary to gather more information after the attack on 9/11. The United States foreign policy on enhanced interrogation is that it is permitted as long as it’s on non-American soil. Using extreme techniques for interrogation includes methods such as waterboarding and humiliation. Waterboarding involves pouring water over a

Public revelations over the past few years regarding the recent waterboarding of prisoners of war, detainees and enemy combatants by the United States government has garnered much attention and debate. Some of main topics in this on-going debate include: Is waterboarding torture? Is it legal? Is it moral? What are the repercussions and possible reciprocal action of our enemies because of this waterboarding? This paper does not provide an argument for or against water boarding in and of itself but lays out a defense for the legality of waterboarding as was used against Prisoners of War and detainees from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rendition is a legal tool used by the U.S Government to transfer captured individuals from one country to another without going through formal extradition procedures (Rosenbach and Peritz, 2010). This process can be described as the governments terrorist catching tool, and like most government tools has been the subject of controversy regarding civil liberties. Catching Mir Aimal Kasi is described by Rosenbach and Peritz (2010) as the poster child for the good that properly using rendition can do, while Jane Mayer (2008) shows what happens when it is used with no accountability when she shares the story of Maher Arar. Extraordinary rendition is an even more streamlined version of rendition, it is rendition that does not require consent from the other nation involved. The use of rendition is among the most controversial pieces of U.S policy on the global stage.

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

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.