The anguish of suspected terrorists by the United States of America is an issue that puts into inquiry the American values that call for democracy and freedom while non staying by them when it comes to covering with terrorists. Should we excuse the usage of anguish under such conditions as war on terrorist act and go forth behind our democratic values, or should we lodge to our values whatever happens and hazard terrorist onslaughts? Are those the lone two options that we have to contend terrorist act?
Anguish is one of the oldest methods used to handle inmates who show unwillingness in attesting against their offenses. This method is prohibited both by the Geneva Convention, which protects the rights of captives at clip of war, and UNCAT ( United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ) . “ The thought behind prohibiting anguish is due to its atrocious and abhorrent effects on the captives without adverting besides its immoral standing against broad values of democracy.
The United States condones the usage of anguish against suspected terrorist since it is for the best of the state. The issue of anguish is non new in America because the instructions of anguish techniques like abduction ; rough questions and H2O submerging etc. are still taught in military schools such as the US Army School of the Americas in Panama and Fort Benning in Georgia. The lone new component about the anguish is the willingness and tolerance of such anguish Acts of the Apostless to go on to be used by the US ground forces. Basically, the ground behind the support of the usage of such atrociousnesss by the US military roots from the thought that we can non get the better of immoralities without utilizing immorality. The Bush disposal exploited the fright and torment in which the Americans lived after the September 11 onslaughts by converting them that America is non traveling to populate in peace if the terrorists are at big. Of class the usage of anguish to interrogate them is allowed since those people are unsafe for their state and should be punished by any agencies.
The United States justifies its usage of anguish by go againsting the UN convention on the intervention of the war captives, because the detainees in such prisons as Guant & A ; aacute ; namo Bay and Abu Gharib are non deemed as captives of war but captives of an on-going war on terrorist act and the Geneva convention does non stipulate that the terrorist should be equal to captives of war. Under this loophole, the US continues tormenting terrorists in really inhumane conditions. However, the job with this statement is that most of the captives in the terrorist prisons are merely suspects and most of them are guiltless of the allegations against them ; it merely happened that they were in the incorrect topographic point at the incorrect clip. Merely like what happened in the film The Road to Guant & A ; aacute ; namo, which makes one admiration why the American and British military personnels captured and mistreated the captives, three of whom were British Moslems who came to Afghanistan to go to the matrimony of their friend and see some relations. However, they were luckless to be in the incorrect topographic point ( Afghanistan ) at the incorrect clip ( after September 11 ) and they were forced to accept, under anguish, the accusal that they were with the Taliban and were detained in Guant & A ; aacute ; namo Bay for two old ages without any charges or a test. Another illustration is what occurred to Khaled Al-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese beginning, who was abducted on New Years Eve 2003 in Macedonia and handed to the US ground forces who treated him agonizingly ( crushing and dosing him ) while taking him to a secret prison in Afghanistan. After five months of anguish he was released in the Albanian mountains because it appeared that the Americans made a error about him. These incidents question the justness of the United States and its credibleness when it comes to affairs like the intervention of terrorists and how America can be certain that the captives in Guant & A ; aacute ; namo Bay are truly terrorists or are merely victims of US paranoia that anyone whom they suspect due to his visual aspect is a terrorist like Khaled Al-Masri.
The job with anguish is that it consists for Americans the merely available and practical pick to battle terrorist act when there is a quandary between either of esteeming the international Torahs and broad democracy values and thereby put on the lining many bombing onslaughts or go againsting the conventions and broad values for the interest of protecting the American population from any terrorist onslaughts. Besides, the US disposal finds it more practical for its state that in the procedure of tormenting the terrorist, which may take to decease, it may go on that some of them are guiltless. Nevertheless, America justifies the violent death of one inexperienced person for the interest of salvaging one 100 lives. So the regulation is that every bit long as the those people who are under anguish are suspected of being terrorists, it does n’t count if they are truly terrorists or guiltless since if one captive is a terrorist so it means that they have cleansed the universe signifier one of them and if he is guiltless it is so deemed indirect harm.
The USA should abdicate its usage of anguish when covering with terrorists. First, because the usage of anguish contradicts its values of broad democracy, human rights and freedom, which are built upon the impression that everybody has the right to populate and be treated decently. Second, the usage of anguish puts the US in a really awkward state of affairs in the international sphere as its actions seem to belie its rhetoric hence doing its diplomatic function in the universe unconvincing and questionable. Furthermore, its uninterrupted usage of anguish and apathy to the international voice will do America more and more stray from the universe. Last but non least, the ground behind the usage of anguish is a response to terrorist act, but the USA seems to bury that force begets force, and it is merely doing the state of affairs worse while blinding its eyes from handling the existent causes of terrorist act ( its unfair intervention of the Israel-Palestinian struggle in the Middle East and the war on Iraq ) . Therefore utilizing anguish in covering with the terrorists will merely do people in the Islamic states feel more hateful of America because of its inhumane interventions of the suspects who are largely guiltless.
The United States should revise its policies about the usage of anguish to look into the terrorist suspects as it violates the Geneva Convention and contradicts with American democracy and begets force and hatred from others. Tormenting the terrorist is non traveling to halt terrorist act, alternatively it will increase it. Therefore America should choose for a solution that is traveling to halt the Islamic states from turning terrorists such as contending political orientations that promote terrorist act like Wahhabism.
- Hertzberg, Hendik. “ Terror and Torture ( Use of anguish when covering with terrorist suspects ) . ” The New Yorker 79.5, ( March 24, 2003 ) .
- Roth, Kenneth. “ Anguish in the War on Panic: Kenneth Roth Reviews Protecting Liberty in the Age of Terror. ” Harvard International Review 28.2, ( Summer 2006 ) .
- Slater, Jerome. “ Tragic Choices in the War on Terrorism: Should we Try to Regulate and Control Torture? ” Political Science Quarterly 121.2, ( Summer 2006 ) .