Why Is Torture A Suspect?

While the law itself condemns use of torture for any purpose, torture becomes necessary to be used in particular critical instances. According to Miles, the United States senate allowed the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on a number of cases and detainees. The human rights should be considered first in any event whether in interrogation or any other course of action1. The policy makers have found themselves between hard and difficult decisions to make on the techniques for obtaining vital information from terrorists who are trained heavily on resisting from giving information when caught in the wrong side of the law.

On 26 September 2002, Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who born in Syria, was arrested at John F. Kennedy International Airport while he was waiting for his flight . Mr. Arar was held in solitary confinement without any charges by United States authorities for two weeks without having access to a lawyer. The United States government suspected him of being a member of Al-Qaeda and deported him back directly not to Canada, but to his country of birth Syria, where he was tortured . Arar was held in Syria for nearly a year, and during that time he was tortured, until he returns back to Canada. The Syrian government later admitted that Arar was not involved in any terrorist activity and he was “completely innocent ”. The RMCP has admitted that it worked with the CIA during the Maher Arar affair. Ottawa authorities had demanded, keeping a lid on the fact that Canada was working with the CIA on the issue, arguing such affirmation would conflict with national security. There was no such remorse over referring to help with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, however the government chose the CIA, a surreptitious spy organization, merited more prominent assurance in view of its distinctive tenets of engagement .

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.

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).

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.

Imagine awaking in the morning, going downstairs and preparing the morning meal. While enjoying the sunshine through the kitchen window along with a chai tea latte, the news on the television suddenly changes from the mundane to chaotic confusion, disaster has struck! The implausible has just happened and the nation is in chaos. This disaster could happen at any moment and at any point across the globe. If the only method of prevention to this traumatic event is by the skilled technique of information extraction known as torture, would it not be the government’s obligation to the people to ensure this method of prevention was exercised? When considering the threat from extremists, the United States government must allow for the use of

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 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

What would you say if there were techniques that could stop terrorists from attacks on America and the capability of capturing them in weeks, before further lives are taken? Well, that is possible with enhanced interrogations used by the CIA and other government operations such as the military. Enhanced Interrogations are the use of techniques that torture terrorist’s detainees to gather intel information that is needed to keep our country safe from terrorist acts. Many United States citizens are opposed to the tactics even though the techniques work. What people do not realize is how many thousands or even millions of lives these techniques could save. There are many reasons that people should support the techniques but there are three main

On 26 September 2002, Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who born in Syria, was arrested at John F. Kennedy International Airport while he was waiting for his flight . Mr. Arar was held in solitary confinement without any charges by United States authorities for two weeks without having access to a lawyer. The United States government suspected him of being a member of Al-Qaeda and deported him back directly not to Canada, but to his country of birth Syria, where he was tortured . Arar was held in Syria for nearly a year, during that time he was tortured, until he return to Canada. The Syrian government later admitted that Arar was not involved in anything and he was “completely innocent ”. There are too many questions that need to be answered,

The repercussions of subjecting a person, especially an innocent one, to certain harmful coercion techniques are serious. Individuals that have been put through torture techniques are often faced with deep psychological and, not to mention, physical health issues as a result of their experiences. One notable case that demonstrates the effects of torture on the mind is the case of Omar Khadr. Khadr, who is now 23, was imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay at the age of fifteen. Khadr is a Canadian citizen who was born in Toronto. Ethnically, he is Egyptian and Palestinian. Born into a family that was heavily involved in terrorism and fundamentalism, he had seen and taken part in some questionable activities, albeit, oblivious as he lacked a good moral compass due to his young age and his upbringing. During a four-hour firefight with militants in Afghanistan, American soldiers

* Context of interrogation is always coercive. Although police powers may be small, psychological powers are very great

Consider the following situation: You are an army officer who has just captured an enemy soldier who knows where a secret time bomb has been planted. Unless defused, the bomb will explode, killing thousands of people. Would it be morally permissible to torture them to get him to reveal the bomb’s location? Discuss this problem in light of both Utilitarian and Kantian moral theories and present arguments from both moral perspectives for why torture is morally wrong.

Also, when two high profile figures from Al-Qaeda, Abu Zubayda and Khalid Sheik Mohammed, were captured and interrogated via waterboarding and other illegal methods, the information that they offered sometimes turned out to be fake or inadequate. Mohammed was involved deeply in the planning of the 9/11 attacks, however, even with the harsh practices and torture, he usually didn’t give any useful information and sometimes didn’t give any at all for long periods of time. Furthermore, the information gathered from some suspects was blatantly untrue. One high-impact instance of this was the tidbit of information that suggested that Iraq was working with the terrorists and participating in exercises of terror, and also the suggestion that Iraq had

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.