The so-called “war on terror” has
brought up many ethical issues, but the torture of prisoners and combatants
seems to be the biggest ethical issue and debate concerning this war. In my
opinion, the underlying cause of this dispute of whether or not it is
appropriate to use torture as a war tactic on prisoners and combatants in Abu
Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay is due to the fact that the United States hasn’t
found an effective paradigm in dealing with terrorists.
Michael Glennon and John Yoo both
argue that the “war on terror” against Al-Qaida presented “unprecedented
military challenges” (Yoo, Commentary: Behind the ‘torture memos’). As Yoo
mentions, unlike the past opponents of the United States during war, Al-Qaida
does not have “regular armed forces, territory or citizens to defend”
(Commentary: Behind the ‘torture memos’). This means that the United States
could not use its previous techniques in war, such as targeting civilians and
resources, like in World War Two, to thwart the opposing threats and forces. The
United States therefore cannot deal with terrorist attacks by Al-Qaida through
the framework of criminal or war procedures as Glennon stated in his reading. With
no precedent on how to deal with terrorists, the United States resorted to
torturing prisoners and combatants in hopes of obtaining information.
The torturing of prisoners and
combatants in hopes of obtaining information however has had little success,
and therefore the United States needs to recognize that a new paradigm needs to
be adopted. Instead of adopting a new paradigm as Glennon suggests, such as
instating new policies and laws regarding terrorism, the United States has justified
its breach of humanitarian rights by resorting to loopholes in international
law. This being said, I do not agree with Bush Administration’s point of view
in dealing with terrorists by getting around international law. I agree with
Sullivan that there should be consequences and laws for those who torture when
the ends no longer justify the means, as in the case of the “war on terror”. I
believe that since the United States has now established that torture is not an
appropriate tactic in dealing with terrorists, we need to move on to another
paradigm, and develop a new framework as Glennon suggests.
I agree with your point that a new paradigm dealing with the issue of terrorism needs to be created, and I believe that finding loopholes in international law in order to justify what would otherwise be deemed an illegal act of war is quite irresponsible and surely constitutes a destructive foreign policy. Furthermore, as stated in our readings, U.S. leaders and lawmakers have attempted to "loosen" the definition of torture put forth by the U.N. in order to allow for more leverage within the war on terror, recklessly opening doors to war crimes and human rights abuses, such as in the case of Abu Ghraib. In my opinion, absolutely vital to a new paradigm dealing with terrorism will be the development of coherent and precise definitions, and less "politics power play".
ReplyDeleteDo you think definitions of torture are influenced by politics? I think it's possible that the western definition of torture fits in nicely with our ideals.
ReplyDeleteI do think that definitions of torture are influenced by politics. Although there are international laws that prohibit the mistreatment and violence towards POWs and civilians, as Roy said in his paper, torture is unique from violence. Therefore, there really isn't a clear universal definition for torture. Since there isn't a universal definition it is up to ever individual state government to define torture, which inevitably makes each definition influenced by the politics of the government in charge. For instance, the Obama and Bush administration both had different views and definitions on torture, especially during the Iraq War.
DeleteI agree that the U.S. needs to find another way other than torture to obtain information. But what other method can they apply to extremists who have no morals. Haivng a normal conversation with a person like that would prove unproductive and threatening him while not actually performing the task will earn on nothing.
ReplyDelete