Torture and Public Policy

Torture is something that is known as wrong internationally. Torture is “deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting on the orders of authority, to force a person to yield information, to confess, or any other reason” (World Medical Association, 1975, pg.1). There is a general consensus that there is a right to be free from any kind of torture as it can be found in many different human rights treaties around the world. The treaties show that all of the thoughts about torture are pointing away from the right to torture someone no matter what the case

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.

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).

Abu Ghraib Prison was a cruel and inhumane form of torture that occurred during the famous era of Saddam Hussein. Twenty miles west of Baghdad, Abu Ghraib stood as the most infamous prisons the world has ever seen. There was reported weekly executions, daily torture and barbarous living conditions. As many as fifty thousand men and women were crammed into Abu Ghraib at once. During the war against Iraq, The United States Army took over the prison and committed extenuous human rights violations against the prisoners. Detainees were raped, beaten, stripped, deprived of food and sleep, hung by their wrists and threatened with death all under American control. A famous picture taken at Abu Ghraib depicts an Iraqi standing on a box, in a scarecrow-like

The War on Terror has produced several different viewpoints on the utilization of torture and its effectiveness as a means to elicit information. A main argument has been supplied that torture is ineffective in its purpose to gather information from the victim. The usefulness of torture has been questioned because prisoners might use false information to elude their torturers, which has occurred in previous cases of torture. It has also been supposed that torture is necessary in order to use the information to save many lives. Torture has been compared to civil disobedience. In addition, the argument has been raised that torture is immoral and inhumane. Lastly, Some say that the acts are not even regarded as torture.

Torture was considered to be somewhat justified in such incidents known as the ticking time bomb scenario. For there to be a justification for the necessity of torture to protect lives there must be six key items present: 1) There must be a planned attack. 2) The captive must know about the planned attack. 3) Torture must be the only way to obtain the information. 4) The captive must be persuaded to provide the information. 5) The information must be accurate. 6) If the information is obtained, there must be time and means to prevent the attack. The ticking time bomb scenario did not pertain to Abu Ghraib, since the detainees were merely Iraqi delinquents who did not have knowledge of future planned attacks on the United States by al Qaeda.

While it may be true that government institutions have the authority to pass a policy, the point often overlooked, is that the people on the political level have the say to whether they agree or disagree to passing a policy. The citizens of the United States lived on the principle that authority of the government is base on the consent of the people. If the consent of governing and participation of the citizens are ignored, we would fail to have a democratic government. People outside of the government are the ones who are expressing their concerns to the government and it is the responsibility of the officials in the government, to take actions of addressing the issues, resolving the issues, and implementing policies that cater to the majority of the people. Interest groups and unions who have the majority support from the citizens can have a stronger leverage in voicing their public opinions through social movements, voting campaigns, and elections that can lead for a policy to be put into place. As a result, executive officials are more likely to seek attention to those with popular support within interest groups or unions as a way to gain popularity in voting’s. Majority vote from the parties and groups have the say to what policy is needed to be address, passed, and implemented into the bill. It is essential that parties, interest groups, and unions are aligned and work together with government officials. Otherwise, if government officials commit tyranny, it could lead for an overthrow of the officials. Regardless of which political level to be the most powerful, it is essential to understand that public policy requires full cooperation and passionate efforts from all levels consisting from governmental, political, and

Interrogational torture is one of the many tough ethical questions that people debate about in the United States. Is it right or is it wrong? Many believe that the United States does not practice intense interrogational acts such as torture. Many people have fought to abolish any form of torture while many fight to keep some forms of it to help keep the peace. Whether you believe in it or not, torture is and will always be an ethical dilemma that comes up.

The abuse of power transcended national boarders as the U.S. government turned a blind eye to American troops engaged in the unleashed and unchecked torture of prisoners of war. The use of torture is not in the national interest, as it has been found that the intelligence gained through torture is unreliable. Like the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, America consistently presses or even oversteps its Constitutional boundaries in times of national security.

Memos from the Department of Defense called for the implementation of enhanced interrogation techniques to begin immediately and to be sure “these are carried out”, these were in accordance with the White House. All of President Bush’s closest cabinet members and national security advisers signed off on enhanced interrogation, believing that under the legal research conducted the techniques satisfied the legal standard as not being torture, (Bartz, 2006)

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:

According to Michael Levin’s article, “The Case for Torture,” his view on torture is that there are many situations in which torture would be against the law but would be obligatory for someone’s conscious. One common example used is the ticking time bomb situation. The situation is that if there was an atomic bomb located somewhere in Manhattan ready to detonate soon, and

In addition, the torture implemented at Abu Ghraib produced no useful information. Willie J. Rowell, a thirty-six year veteran of the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command, says concerning the prisoners in pain, “They’ll tell you what you want to hear, truth or no truth.” The information produced through the use of torture at Abu Ghraib proved to be false, and it accurately represents a much larger trend in which torture does not produce valuable information. A Senate Intelligence Committee’s report indicated that the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques from 2002 to 2008 produced no intelligence useful to counter imminent threats to our national security because the suspected terrorists being interrogated frequently fabricated information. In addition, the Senate’s report was so gruesome that the Department of Defense warned American Embassies and military bases overseas to be prepared for a possible terrorist attack in retaliation.

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 notion of “authorization” as permitting the existence of torture is apparent in the fact that though an individual may “theoretically, . . . [have] a choice” to refrain from such activity, “given the situational context . . . the concept of choice is not even present”; disobedience to the dictates of authority means “punishment, disgrace, humiliation, expulsion, or even death” (196). Therefore, one is freed from moral unease by the fact that he may feel trapped and unable to act against his superiors, as retaliation would be imminent. In some instances, as was demonstrated by