Sponsor: France Committee: 6th Legal Topic: Enhanced Interrogation The General Assembly, Recognizing the inhumane use of both physical and psychological torture and a means of enhanced interrogation, Believing that mildly enhanced interrogation is an effective means of convicting criminals only if it is used in a humane way, Bearing in mind that every suspect of a crime is innocent until proven guilty, Declaring that no criminal case is ever justified in utilizing torture as a form of enhanced interrogation, Emphasizing the fact that enhanced interrogation escalates to torture due to a lack of monitoring in detainment centers, Taking into account the undistinguished threshold between enhanced interrogation and torture, In agreement …show more content…
Emphasizes the need for monitoring within detainment facilities: a. carried out by surveillance cameras, b. ensured by regular UN sponsored inspections; 5. Directs an impartial investigation of a detainment center: a. within thirty days of a report of possible torture, b. carried out by INTERPOL; 6. Requests the use of a team of psychologists to determine the interrogation techniques that cause serious physical or psychological harm: a. to maintain the jurisdiction of international law as new techniques develop, b. so that the use of these techniques may warrant an investigation, c. to allow the continuation of humane, yet effective forms of enhanced interrogation; 7. Enforces regulated training and monitoring with the use of: a. monetary incentives, b. potential economic sanctions for the refusal to cooperate; 8. Designates an anonymous tipping system to: a. collect inside knowledge of detainment centers worldwide, b. give former detainees and officers an opportunity to report the offenses of these centers without revealing their identity; 9. Encourages the collaboration of member states in order to standardize detainment centers worldwide through: a. a biannual conference for the purpose of discussing the regulation of detainment centers, b. communication between nations for the process of organizing trials and extraditions. Sponsor: France Committee: 6th Legal Topic: International
Most nations also want what is right for most people and most nations do now want people to be tortured. This means that all nations need to come together and figure out how they feel about torture and work together to make sure that this form of punishment is not being carried out. Everyone has to be onboard for torture to stop happening.
I have been unable to deliberate on the appropriate alternative method for this particular dilemma. When it comes to the topic of torture, the popular attitude is that it is sometimes required. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of ethics and efficiency. Whereas some are convinced that it is an effective policy, others maintain that it is not successful practice. To further support the stance that the torture policy is not necessary effective, Army Col. Stuart Herrington inserted, in his experience, “nine out of ten people can be persuaded to talk with no 'stress methods' at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones.”
In the article, “Laying Claim to a Higher Morality,” Melissa Mae discusses the controversial topic of using torture as a part of interrogating detainees. She finds the common ground between the supporting and opposing sides of the argument by comparing two different sources, “Inhuman Behavior” and “A Case for Torture.” Mae includes clear transitions from each side of the argument and concise details to ensure that the essay was well constructed. The purpose of the essay is clear, and it is interesting, insightful, and unbiased.
David Figueroa Eng. 101A Professor Stern 4/20/15 Final draft In conclusion, in discussions of torture, one controversial issue has been on the use of it. On one hand, the people against torture argue that it is cruel and unusual punishment. On the other hand, those for torture argue that it should be used for the greater good. Others even maintain that under extreme circumstances, it may be admissible if it can save American lives. My own view is that no one should be subjected to cruel punishment because it is not only illegal, unreliable, ineffective, time consuming, it also has too many flaws that could potentially ruin innocent lives. The definition of torture is any act, whether physical or emotional, or maybe both, is intentionally subjected to a specific individual or a group for many reasons. Most of these reasons that torture is administered is for extracting information from an individual or just for punishing him/her for a crime that he/she has committed or is suspected of committing. The use of torture can be used to intimidate a person to give information that may be beneficial for a nation. The use of torture has been used for many centuries. The purposes of using torture have changed over the years as well as the methods in which a person is tortured. One crucial piece that has been established that separates us human beings from barbarians is the prohibition of using torture. There are many reasons why torture has been deemed a crime now in society. There are
Significantly, in the journal, Ramsay informs human right activists about the importance of recognizing the purpose behind enhanced interrogation because it is morally acceptable to prevent a greater evil. Ramsay challenges the argument of whether enhanced interrogation should be completely banned. The argument is “that if the stakes are high enough, torture can be justified on consequentialist grounds.” Basic human rights should be overlooked for society's benefit.One human life may not be more important than an entire country. Therefore the circumstances should be taken into account when potentially using enhanced interrogation.
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
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).
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
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.
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
The use of enhanced interrogation techniques was not effective in eliciting good information. The majority, if not all, of those interned at Abu Ghraib were men without affiliation with the group(s) that the United States government was trying to ascertain information about. In a later investigation into the use of torture as a method of interrogation by the US government, especially waterboarding, results showed that torture was a) not a moral or ethical means of obtaining information, and b) was not effective in obtaining said
This article addresses harsh interrogation and if it is justified to act out in a harmful way towards the guilty. In the beginning of this article you were debriefed on the history of tortious interrogations that people used to endure in order to get information out of them. The author of this article ultimately believes that essentially people want to harm people who has hurt them and humiliate those who has made them feel vulnerable so possibly that is where people get the satisfaction of the severe interrogation. The author also believes that people will justify the harsh treatments to others who are named guilty rather than those whom are innocent. To back up this claim the author conducts an experiment where people are put in a fake scenario to see what tactic they will choose.
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 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